Jump to content
 

Advice please on modified GG&N layout


HR_Line
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello to all.

 

I’m looking for some advice regarding the OO gauge layout I’m currently building. I am aware that the style will not be to everybody’s taste and has little of the ‘real world’ about it, but the main user is 8 years old and, after long discussions and debate we have decided that this is well suited to his requirements.

 

Keen-eyed readers will note a striking similarity between the layout and the famed Granite, Gorge & Northern created by John Armstrong for Atlas. I have added a ‘leg’ to make it ‘L’ shaped, included a passing loop for both mainlines and reduced the number of crossings from two to one but otherwise it is pretty close to the original in design and scale. Max gradient is 3% which will be ok with our stock and curves are minimum 2nd radius. It splits into 5 sections for moving/storage.

The next step is to decide on what goes into the three zones marked A, B and C on the rather rudimentary Plan that I attach (I only have a paper version I’m afraid). The red and blue are the mainlines and the dashed orange are the auxiliary lines to allow moving from one mainline to the other.

 

We have a turntable which I am inclined to put in area B (there is walk around space that allows some access to that corner), with perhaps an archetypal terminus in area C for one user and something similar or an inglenook set up in A fort the other user. I think a Minories or Ashburton would be a step too far but happy to entertain all possibilities at this stage. It would be good if area C had direct access to the turntable too.

 

What do you think? As I said it’s mainly going to be used by my son who enjoys watching the trains go round and round, but I’m thinking that there should also be features that engage other users and will keep him interested as he gets older, whilst not being too cluttered with track (we’re hoping the hobby will extend to building scenery, buildings, electrics, etc).

 

The baseboards have been made and the track has been laid as per the plan shown (ie: red, blue and orange track is in situ as are droppers to each section of track) so I’d be grateful if your suggestions could bear that in mind; I’m not minded to start again on a completely different layout at this stage! There is also a river running between the red and blue passing loops that isn't shown on the attached plan.

 

Operation will be DC (cab control) and most of the track and points we have are Peco Setrack - again, I know there are alternatives that some favour but they are what we have and given the available space seem a practicable choice.

 

Any advice will be much appreciated.

 

Rob.

IMG_1602 copy.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hi there, you got my attention with the mention of John Armstrong - though I’m guessing your modelling is UK based with the reference to OO.  Thinking back to when I had my first layout aged nine or ten, my overriding memory is of nearly wearing out the Setrack I had constantly changing the track layout each time I had a new idea.

 

With that in mind, my suggestion would be to keep your options open - finish getting the two loops working (with DC you’ll need reverse loop wiring for this plan, but I’ll guess you’re on top of that already Edited as I was thinking of a different plan here)  You can hold two or three trains on the layout as it is, so what I’d then do is lay some temporary Setrack sidings in areas A to C (including the turntable) so you can see what catches the imagination - and what doesn’t.

 

I’m not sure how often the layout has to be disassembled and put away, or where the baseboard joins are (which could constrain more permanent track arrangements anyway) but my main aim would be to find a way to develop interest by being able to say “Yes” to each new idea and try it, rather than trying to be too prescriptive.
 

Not sure if this will help at all, but it’s one way to look at the project.  Above all of course, have fun, Keith.

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Correction: there isn’t actually a reversing loop in this plan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you not put in a standard crossover rather than the orange dashed lines? Would seem much simpler. The gradients involved with them look likely to be complicated.

 

The basic red and blue looks ideal for an 8yo. I'd have loved it at that age (probably until I was about 11 - bear that kind of thing in mind when procrastinating about actually getting the thing built...).

Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

With that in mind, my suggestion would be to keep your options open - finish getting the two loops working (with DC you’ll need reverse loop wiring for this plan, but I’ll guess you’re on top of that already).  You can hold two or three trains on the layout as it is, so what I’d then do is lay some temporary Setrack sidings in areas A to C (including the turntable) so you can see what catches the imagination - and what doesn’t.

 

Good idea, thanks Keith. On the wiring I am not on top of it by any means! Are you sure I'd need reverse loop wiring though - both mainlines run continuously (they are effectively figure 8's)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Can you not put in a standard crossover rather than the orange dashed lines? Would seem much simpler. The gradients involved with them look likely to be complicated.

 

The basic red and blue looks ideal for an 8yo. I'd have loved it at that age (probably until I was about 11 - bear that kind of thing in mind when procrastinating about actually getting the thing built...).

The gradients are ok. I've tested the track as it is and all our stock runs without difficulty.

 

When you say a standard crossover do you mean a much shorter one? It would have been simpler I suppose but I think the longer meandering ones add a bit of interest, including a nice raised section that goes over a long bridge.

 

The scarm pic attached shows the layout in relief (obviously mine is a bit longer due to the additional leg but you get the idea).

IMG_1402.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 19/02/2021 at 15:01, Zomboid said:

Can you not put in a standard crossover rather than the orange dashed lines? Would seem much simpler. The gradients involved with them look likely to be complicated.

 

The basic red and blue looks ideal for an 8yo. I'd have loved it at that age (probably until I was about 11 - bear that kind of thing in mind when procrastinating about actually getting the thing built...).


If I remember correctly, the plan dates for the days when “loop-to-loop” plans for US table top layouts were seen as something to aspire to.  This plan simulates that but (as you’d expect from John Armstrong) plays a few tricks on us: 
 

 If I unpack the plan (without the extra L extension) and mark the main lines for right-hand US running it looks like this:


(Sorry, picture no longer available)

 


Across the viaduct and around the end curves, correct-handed double track running looks to be what is happening.  The two orange cutoffs (which have already been built as I understand it) complement this by allowing trains to switch tracks without any ‘wrong-line running’ - trains starting on the red line take cut-off E and trains starting on the blue line use cutoff D.

 

I think conventional crossovers between the running lines would introduce ‘wrong line’ running.

 

If I unpack the schematic, I think it looks like this:


(Sorry, picture no longer available)

 

 

What this reveals is that Station A is the principal station - it appears on both the blue route and the longer route that uses the orange cutoffs.  In terms of developing the layout, this may help determine what kind of sidings may be better at A (the principal ones) compared to B and C (as the ‘red’ station is a secondary station that can be bypassed).

 

From memory, the original John Armstrong plan did just that - the ‘blue’ station was the main station - the red line did not have a passing loop at this point and was more of a bypass line.

 

Checking this reveals the error in my first post:

 

On 19/02/2021 at 15:43, HR_Line said:

Good idea, thanks Keith. On the wiring I am not on top of it by any means! Are you sure I'd need reverse loop wiring though - both mainlines run continuously (they are effectively figure 8's)?


You are quite right - my mistake, there is no reversing loop in my drawing.  I’ll correct my initial response to avoid confusion (It was Linn Westcott’s “HO Railroad that Grows” that had a reversing loop, sorry).

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Edited for text only as photos no longer available
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

You are quite right - my mistake, there is no reversing loop in my drawing.  

 

There sort of isn't, but the orange routes do change the direction in which the train is circulating when it switches to the other running line.  That isn't how a simple crossover on an ordinary double track circuit works.  

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

There sort of isn't, but the orange routes do change the direction in which the train is circulating when it switches to the other running line.  That isn't how a simple crossover on an ordinary double track circuit works.  


Agreed - my comment refers specifically to wiring the layout.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:


Agreed - my comment refers specifically to wiring the layout.

 

Because of the reversing crossovers, the red and blue circuits will need to be wired with "forward" in opposite directions.  This will allow running between them without changing the polarity of the supply.  Again, that isn't how you would wire a layout with plain crossovers.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The point about using the orange links is that trains can change circuits without having to change direction.  So all trains can use all tracks without ever appearing to run wrong line.  Brilliant for the intended user base.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
59 minutes ago, Chimer said:

The point about using the orange links is that trains can change circuits without having to change direction.  So all trains can use all tracks without ever appearing to run wrong line.  Brilliant for the intended user base.


Agreed - subject to the wiring being per @Flying Pig’s explanation above,
 

With regards to @HR_Line’s opening question as to what to add at points A, B and C, note that my versions shows them all as trailing points only because I’ve used American right-hand running designations.  With British left-hand running, all three become facing points - albeit off the loops that have been included in this version of the plan.

 

What to add (or how to do it) could be key to maintaining and developing the interest of HR_Junior: by the time an eight year old is 10, they are 25% older, so @Zomboid’s point about moving quickly is a very good one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I've got my head around the gradients, it looks really good. With an inglenook to shunt on and another industry it'll be masses of fun, I reckon I'd have fun with it even now my age starts with a 4. I prefer it for American trains, but I lean that way anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a great quote on this particular layout plan on line.

 

Posted by nibbler on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 5:53 PM

QUOTE: Has anyone built this layout? I could use some tips on trackside scenery.

 

"Yes I built it , late 70's or early 80's. Best tip, pick another layout. It certainly was a challenge to get the trackwork right and when it was done I was pretty near limited to watching 2 trains go around on parallel figure eight tracks. It became boring because of the extreemly limited operation. My thoughts after a short time were that it was taking up space that could be better used. 
If you want a challenge in doing trackwork and scenery, and just want to watch trains doing figure eights then this could be the layout for you.["

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

I found a great quote on this particular layout plan on line.

 

Posted by nibbler on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 5:53 PM

QUOTE: Has anyone built this layout? I could use some tips on trackside scenery.

 

"Yes I built it , late 70's or early 80's. Best tip, pick another layout. It certainly was a challenge to get the trackwork right and when it was done I was pretty near limited to watching 2 trains go around on parallel figure eight tracks. It became boring because of the extreemly limited operation. My thoughts after a short time were that it was taking up space that could be better used. 
If you want a challenge in doing trackwork and scenery, and just want to watch trains doing figure eights then this could be the layout for you.["

 


Here’s a suggestion for an operating sequence on a layout like this:

 

1.  Make up a train at the principal (blue line) station.  Train departs - does a few laps of the blue line, then takes a facing point cut-off onto the red* line, where it does a few more laps then stops at the red station (shunts as appropriate).

 

2.  Make up a second train at the principal (blue line) station.  Train departs, keeping to the blue line.

 

3.  For a while, both trains can circulate their figures of eight - works better if one is a slow, one a fast.  Although they both set off from the blue station in the same direction initially, they appear to be going in opposite directions during this part of the sequence.  This is the genius of this plan.

 

4.  After a designated period, the second train terminates at the blue station and is shunted to the sidings.

 

5.  The first train can then return to the blue route via the second orange cut-off, where it heads back to the principal station to terminate.

 

6.  A local goods train is then made up at the red station and makes its leisurely way around the layout, perhaps alternating between blue and red circuits.

 

7.  While the local goods is on the blue route, a branch passenger (Autocoach or DMU) based at the red station does a few stopping laps of the red circuit.

 

...and so it continues.  At times you are controlling two trains, at other times shunting one while the other keeps running.

 

By the age of 10, I was making up simple sequence-based ‘timetables’ like this for my first layout (which was just an oval with one siding and one passenger train to start with), and it was ‘timetable operation’ on a continuous run layout that got me hooked on model railways.

 

The only real suspension of disbelief that is required is to overlook the fact that a train that sets off from the station as an Up / Eastbpund train will arrive back at the same station still as an Up / Eastbound train when it terminates.  It’s the same train - you pretend it’s a different station.  That didn’t bother me when I was ten, and doesn’t personally bother me today, and it seems like @HR_Line has mastered the track laying already, so it all sounds good to me.

____________

 

(* green per @Chimer’s scale drawing on XtrakCad)

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everybody for your inputs - very useful.

 

On 19/02/2021 at 20:30, Flying Pig said:

 

Because of the reversing crossovers, the red and blue circuits will need to be wired with "forward" in opposite directions.  This will allow running between them without changing the polarity of the supply.  Again, that isn't how you would wire a layout with plain crossovers.

 

Ah. I hadn't appreciated this and have installed the droppers assuming both mainlines would run in the same direction. I have updated the paper plan to show how I've installed them (the red wire is on the right hand rail and the black is on the left hand rail when facing in the direction of the arrows). I had the swap in polarity being provided by cuts in the orange tracks as shown. I can probably live with half the black droppers being +'ve but it's not ideal is it!

 

On 19/02/2021 at 20:32, Chimer said:

To scale, I think it might look a bit like this .... using Peco set-track radii (2-4) with a bit of fudging .....

 

1534266508_HRgif.gif.f63e7911415a3b99fc7ab98909042480.gif

 

Wow, that's amazing, thank you! I've actually mixed a few Streamline points and some flexible track in with the setrack and there was a lot of cutting to make it all fit together but you've interpreted the layout perfectly. The pic attached shows where we are today with the layout. Track is pinned and droppers installed but still working on where the electrical blocks should be and reading up on cab control. I had thought a vague understanding of electrics gained from working on building sites with domestic electricians might have been enough to muddle through, but this is another world altogether*.

 

I'm now leaning towards getting the areas A, B and C completed rather than trialing different options. This would allow me to get all the wiring done (I'm going to motorise points and the turntable, and would people also recommend some sort of track detector to avoid collisions?) in one go and the scenic work to begin.

 

On 19/02/2021 at 23:25, Chimer said:

The accesses to A, B and C (oops, I missed one!) could all be shifted across the various loops to become trailing but I understand the track is laid ......

 

Would trailing points be preferable? It's not something I'd considered tbh.

IMG_1623.jpg

IMG_1618.jpg

IMG_1621.jpg

Edited by HR_Line
Forgot pics.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/02/2021 at 17:06, Keith Addenbrooke said:


If I remember correctly, the plan dates for the days when “loop-to-loop” plans for US table top layouts were seen as something to aspire to.  This plan simulates that but (as you’d expect from John Armstrong) plays a few tricks on us: 
 

 If I unpack the plan (without the extra L extension) and mark the main lines for right-hand US running it looks like this:

 

A2F0414B-EA9B-419E-8B22-05B709DFCF4D.jpeg.d77da7b3b51f291dd46f8c456914ba8d.jpeg


Across the viaduct and around the end curves, correct-handed double track running looks to be what is happening.  The two orange cutoffs (which have already been built as I understand it) complement this by allowing trains to switch tracks without any ‘wrong-line running’ - trains starting on the red line take cut-off E and trains starting on the blue line use cutoff D.

 

I think conventional crossovers between the running lines would introduce ‘wrong line’ running.

 

If I unpack the schematic, I think it looks like this:

 

C69D6D9C-EF79-461E-A815-3A6AB7808F24.jpeg.9622292af03e12866aa47c77a05e6b25.jpeg

 

What this reveals is that Station A is the principal station - it appears on both the blue route and the longer route that uses the orange cutoffs.  In terms of developing the layout, this may help determine what kind of sidings may be better at A (the principal ones) compared to B and C (as the ‘red’ station is a secondary station that can be bypassed).

 

From memory, the original John Armstrong plan did just that - the ‘blue’ station was the main station - the red line did not have a passing loop at this point and was more of a bypass line.

 

Checking this reveals the error in my first post:

 


You are quite right - my mistake, there is no reversing loop in my drawing.  I’ll correct my initial response to avoid confusion (It was Linn Westcott’s “HO Railroad that Grows” that had a reversing loop, sorry).

I hadn't fully appreciated that the original design had avoided 'wrong-line' running in this way - thank you for the explanantion and drawings. It's a shame that area A is quite small compared to B/C but there we are.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, HR_Line said:

Ah. I hadn't appreciated this and have installed the droppers assuming both mainlines would run in the same direction. I have updated the paper plan to show how I've installed them (the red wire is on the right hand rail and the black is on the left hand rail when facing in the direction of the arrows). I had the swap in polarity being provided by cuts in the orange tracks as shown. I can probably live with half the black droppers being +'ve but it's not ideal is it!

 

With the main lines wired to run in the same direction I think you would need to wire the orange sections as reversing loops.  That needs more than a single section break as otherwise even a wheel crossing the gap is bridging rails at opposite polarity and will cause a short.  I think operating a reversing loop on DC would inevitably involve operator action unless you had a very cunning cab control setup.

 

The advantage of wiring the main lines to run in opposite directions is that driving through from one to the other is simple to arrange, with no reversal of polarity involved and no particular operator action, which seems desirable where a young person is involved. To reiterate, it all stems from the fact that the orange connections reverse the direction in which a train circulates which is rather unusual.  Note that you could not easily add simple crossovers between the lines if it were wired this way.

 

Edit: I meant to add - nice to see pictures of the layout. It does look good!

Edited by Flying Pig
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Noting you are going to be using DC and Cab Control, wiring the main lines in opposite directions, so a train can traverse the whole system without fiddling about electrically, is fundamental to successful operation.  This would mean you could switch all sections to the same controller and drive a single train everywhere.  Obviously in operation there will be more than one train (I reckon there could be 6 - one circulating on green, one circulating on blue, one in a green loop, one in a blue loop and one waiting on each gold link line) but they are all effectively going the same way, which (provided that way is clockwise round the green bend at the left hand side) means they will always "look right" to British eyes when they pass one another.

 

If they are going that way, all the turnouts to the 3 areas A, B and C are facing as currently laid.  Anathema to some, but probably not critical for this sort of layout.  But there is a practical issue if an area is to be used as goods yard - if the access was trailing, the yard could be shunted directly from the main line, whereas if its facing, the train has to pull into the yard clear of the main into what becomes a headshunt, with the sidings kicking back.  This takes up quite a bit more space, but could probably be done using areas B and C together.  Area A could then be for engine stabling, where facing access is not a problem operationally. 

 

I'll try a few things in XTrackCad later on today and see what I can come up with .....

 

Cheers, Chris 

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Chimer said:

Noting you are going to be using DC and Cab Control, wiring the main lines in opposite directions, so a train can traverse the whole system without fiddling about electrically, is fundamental to successful operation.  This would mean you could switch all sections to the same controller and drive a single train everywhere.  Obviously in operation there will be more than one train (I reckon there could be 6 - one circulating on green, one circulating on blue, one in a green loop, one in a blue loop and one waiting on each gold link line) but they are all effectively going the same way, which (provided that way is clockwise round the green bend at the left hand side) means they will always "look right" to British eyes when they pass one another.

 

If they are going that way, all the turnouts to the 3 areas A, B and C are facing as currently laid.  Anathema to some, but probably not critical for this sort of layout.  But there is a practical issue if an area is to be used as goods yard - if the access was trailing, the yard could be shunted directly from the main line, whereas if its facing, the train has to pull into the yard clear of the main into what becomes a headshunt, with the sidings kicking back.  This takes up quite a bit more space, but could probably be done using areas B and C together.  Area A could then be for engine stabling, where facing access is not a problem operationally. 

 

I'll try a few things in XTrackCad later on today and see what I can come up with .....

 

Cheers, Chris 

Thanks again Chris. I have loosely laid some track and the turntable in the sort of configurations I had in mind, but as you will have gathered I am not well versed in the usability of various track configurations.

 

I will definitely be taking the advice offered and wiring the tracks in different directions. The droppers are in place but I can use some tape to change the colours as necessary.

IMG_1614.jpg

IMG_1617.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Something like this, maybe .....

 

1034257936_HRgif.gif.ab44b86353e5c5b222aebc41bd86a6f5.gif

 

So the freight train pulls into the yard from the top, runs down under the bridge, then shunts the fan of sidings (without fouling the main line which is a bonus).  Has to reverse back out onto the main on completion, then continues running in the normal direction (probably heading for a loop for a rest!).

 

Roundhouse style loco depot presumably requires no explanation (I've just used double straights everywhere, which makes it look a bit crowded).

 

Best I could do with the turnout accessing your area C was a single siding (for a DMU, maybe?).

 

Might seed some ideas ......

 

Cheers, Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would put the turntable/ loco storage where @HR_Line has photographed it, because that looks like a fairly awkward to access spot, so you don't want to be messing around trying to uncouple things and shunt. The other two locations seem much easier to get into with your shunting skewer/ paddle/ whatever.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...