Jump to content
 

Fiddle Yard OO Gauge


 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm posting the layout build over here (Oxford Junction - OO Gauge), but would welcome thoughts on my fiddle yard layout.

 

The space itself is approximately 5.35m (17ft 6in) wide and 3.5m (11ft 6in) deep. The fiddle yard will be beneath the main scenic layout, and access between the "upstairs (scenic)" and "downstairs (fiddle yard)" will be via the three-track 4-car long lift, marked in grey below. This allows a total of a 12-car train (so a decent freight or HST) to be transported in one go (granted it will need to be de-coupled into max 4 car segments).

 

I've built the lift itself and am happy with it. What I am now keen to do is make the most of the fiddle yard itself. As you can see, I've tried to ensure that I have enough storage and have a reversing loop. Welcome thoughts on how to improve running and also efficient use of the space. At each end of the fiddle yard, I've left a yard of track extending into open space. This is simply for potential future proofing, e.g. further expansion. 

 

I should add, that I'll likely build perhaps the 4 or 5 of the 10 storage lanes initially... as I'm not sure I'll need them all, at least for now, and could do with pacing myself in terms of build costs! 

 

Thanks in advance for all thoughts and suggestions!

 

840608818_NewLayout2021v2-fiddle.jpg.5372f368f6b80e18c5522d03a4785991.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd put in  bypass line 'behind' the stock lift so when it is removed you still have a through route.

 

Could you also put the toe of the left hand end of the loops into the curve with a few right handed curved points?  It would give you some extra length and ease the raduis and reverse curve at that end.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You show the approach to the stock lift as based on a three way point at each end,, with the central line being straight and the outer tracks look as though they are on curves. To say the least this will be challenging. It looks hard to introduce the track that would be needed to straighten those approaches out. I hope you have a plan for registering the stock lift to a position so it all lines up.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, H2O said:

I'd put in  bypass line 'behind' the stock lift so when it is removed you still have a through route.

 

Could you also put the toe of the left hand end of the loops into the curve with a few right handed curved points?  It would give you some extra length and ease the raduis and reverse curve at that end.

 

Great idea @H2O - and I can't quite believe I hadn't thought of this. Since I intend to make the lift platform itself blend into the 'scenic' part of the layout 'up top', it would be a shame to not incorporate some sort of through line so that I might still be able to make good use of the fiddle yard and perhaps get trains ready to appear 'upstairs'. Will try to incorporate both your suggestions in an updated track plan shortly.

 

5 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

You show the approach to the stock lift as based on a three way point at each end,, with the central line being straight and the outer tracks look as though they are on curves. To say the least this will be challenging. It looks hard to introduce the track that would be needed to straighten those approaches out. I hope you have a plan for registering the stock lift to a position so it all lines up.

 

@RobinofLoxley you are right about the need to get the stock lift to land neatly in place, the same place, each time it goes up and down. Coming down, so far, there seems a reasonable degree of consistency. I certainly intend to make use of some guides to help get it to the same place each time. Will figure out how to the same 'on the up' once I'm there. I'd like to use some sort of bolt and perhaps a funnel to help guide the bolts into place each time. Will have to search the ironmongery stores for something that looks fit for purpose!

 

On the point of curves onto and off of the loco lift platform, I'll try to avoid, but according to Anyrail, the space available necessitates this for now, but will see if I can make a few modifications to avoid this - as I agree, it's adding complexity on top of already a quite complex mechanism. And would be very annoying if it didn't pan out.

 

Will try to get an updated trackplan uploaded later.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m 6’3” tall and would be concerned about reaching certain sections of the storage area, particularly having to reach over trains in the nearer roads. You don’t say what the separation is between the two levels, but that would only make life even more difficult. Imagine having to reach in between the two levels and trying to replace a turnout that has failed at the back of the storage area. Is there access to both sides or are the boards butted up against the walls of the room?
 

Just saying as I’ve tried similar things before and they always look great on paper, but are far harder to deal with once they become reality.  It is a large area with numerous tracks, so you really need to think carefully before outplaying a considerable amount of cash. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@gordon s, I've contemplated this possibility. My intention is to ensure that the scenic layout "up top" is modular and removable, in order that I can gain full access to the fiddle yard and do any repairs etc as needed. I may also try to work into the trackplan every effort to keep complex trackwork to the fore in order to minimise the need to remove the top section... Will see how that goes!

 

I'm also minded, once I've settled on the final fiddle yard track plan, to look at how I might further segment the fiddle yard boards to make them smaller and more removable... Will see how feasible that proves.

 

The separation is approx 40cm. 

Edited by davidprentice
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were you, David, I would lash up two shelves 400mm apart and then get a feel for reaching in 3’ plus. You are doing the right thing considering lift out sections, but they require careful planning and of course everything has to be removed before you can lift out and replace a section of board and still retain track alignment.

 

I hope this doesn’t come across as negative, but I know from experience that I’ve convinced myself I can’t see a problem when others have raised concerns about hidden tracks, multi levels and gradients. All of those can be done but just require additional thought and care or after weeks of work you will come to a major problem requiring you start again. Been there and read the book....:D

 

The best piece of planning I have ever seen for a multi level layout is here, so well worthwhile spending an hour reading how someone else has dealt with the issues.....First rate....:good_mini:

 

 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
25 minutes ago, davidprentice said:

@gordon s, I've contemplated this possibility. My intention is to ensure that the scenic layout "up top" is modular and removable, in order that I can gain full access to the fiddle yard and do any repairs etc as needed. I may also try to work into the trackplan every effort to keep complex trackwork to the fore in order to minimise the need to remove the top section... Will see how that goes!

 

I'm also minded, once I've settled on the final fiddle yard track plan, to look at how I might further segment the fiddle yard boards to make them smaller and more removable... Will see how feasible that proves.

 

The separation is approx 40cm. 

 

Consider the situation of a loco at the back simply being stuck because it has lost electrical connection with the rails. Is it realistic to lift the upper levels simply to poke that loco and clean the track? You will have to clear the upper module of all stock, make sure anything removable is removed, undo the alignment locks, and afterwards reverse this process. This could become very tedious.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Consider the situation of a loco at the back simply being stuck because it has lost electrical connection with the rails. Is it realistic to lift the upper levels simply to poke that loco and clean the track? You will have to clear the upper module of all stock, make sure anything removable is removed, undo the alignment locks, and afterwards reverse this process. This could become very tedious.

I'd agree with Phil on this one. My Burton-on-Trent South twin-level layout (linked by Gordon 2 posts earlier) has the levels 350mm apart giving a 'clear' gap of ~300mm. The baseboards are 900mm deep and I can 'just' reach the far corners of the Lower Level if anything derails or gets stuck. At your 1200mm depth I think you will be struggling to reach.

 

Then you have the issue of 'reach' on the Upper Level. Again, with my 900mm depth I need to put some part of some my limbs 'on' the baseboard to reach the far corners. I'm therefore conscious that my building of my Upper Level scenics has to be in the correct order, and be physically removable for any repairs or access issues. This is not insurmountable, but has to be taken into consideration in the planning.

 

Ian

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, davidprentice said:

I'm posting the layout build over here (Oxford Junction - OO Gauge), but would welcome thoughts on my fiddle yard layout.

 

The space itself is approximately 5.35m (17ft 6in) wide and 3.5m (11ft 6in) deep. The fiddle yard will be beneath the main scenic layout, and access between the "upstairs (scenic)" and "downstairs (fiddle yard)" will be via the three-track 4-car long lift, marked in grey below. This allows a total of a 12-car train (so a decent freight or HST) to be transported in one go (granted it will need to be de-coupled into max 4 car segments).

David,

 

Personally I think you'd have a better, and operationally more enjoyable, layout with Ramps in place of your Lift. From what I can see you have plenty of space to build the ramps without needing the 'tricks' I had to use to get it to work (aka, my Upper Level has to spiral underneath itself).

 

Ramps can be very easy to build. Just take a look at my 'modular' ramps at: 

 

My ramps are simply cantilevered off the baseboard support woodwork and the ramps just bolt onto the support brackets.

 

The downside to ramps is that they use a lot of track!

 

The upside to ramps is they can become part of your layout running tracks. On my layout a train takes a good 3-minutes to come back around, which is what I wanted. I didn't want the same train to keep coming by every few seconds. And, of course, changing trains is a simply matter of stabling one in the storage sidings and using a different one.

 

Ian

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a seriously flawed concept to lift 4 coach, 14 wagon segments one at a time. Tedious or what?   Think how long it will take to change tains,

I am working on a similar lift concept for additional carriage storage for a 12 road FY and for me uncoupling and recoupling sets with RTR tension lock couplers is really a non starte

Having the lift it as a fundemental feature for operation not just changing a rarely used Pullman set for a rarely used excursion or fruit train set would drive me even more bonkers than at present.   My plans involve a hydraulic lift or two.  Cheap car trolley jacks or maybe pnematics courtesy of pus bike pumps.  Its about a swify smooth even lift.

 Three way points are a bad idea, 2ft radius, 3 foot is more reiable for hidden trackwork, you really don't want deralments under there.  The curves are nice, shame no ne will see them, I would make the all the same radius  myself    I don't see any issues with track cleaning, our top level hasn't been off for 15/20 years its 2ft 6 wide and has about 6" overhead clearance and the track stays a lot cleaner than the scenic track,   If it's steam era DCC then 12 coach trains are a bit ambitious, I woud definitely abandon this idea.  Spirals or ramps, or a 9 to 13 foot lift woud make a lot more sense as would return loops so the trains can change direction once in a while. Far too many modellers only see the left side or some locos and trains and the right side of others as its too much hassle to change direction ( Rev Awdrey had his coaches differen colours on each side and turned them on a reverse loop so they reappeared as different trains?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen a product called Nelevator at various shows which is a paternoster lift for complete trains.  It's used for storage not for transferring trains between levels.   Not cheap but I was very impressed.   It is well engineered and accommodates a decent length in N and a good number of trains,  but the length and capacity are both a bit more limiting in OO.  I can't help thinking a similar design should be possible as a vertical traverser, to transfer complete trains between two or three levels.  Sadly not something my carpentry skills could get right, but would make a good product for a manufacturer who can do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive the quick and dirty nature of the below - but it's a bit of a quick update. I've shrunk the layout, to give myself approx 50cm at one of the layout to gain access to the deepest sections of baseboard. The added advantage is that on the scenic level, I'll have an alterantive point of view, which I'm sure will add some interest for me (even if it means crawling under the boards to get there!). I've also kept the lift for the moment, but also added a ramp line, up to the scenic level. On the basis of a 2% incline, expect this will take between 1.5 and 2 laps of the layout to give me 40cm clearance.

 

If I were to 'ditch' the lift completely, I'm trying to think what I would do differently to use the space.... though I do feel wedded to the lift (partly sunk costs... and partly the fact that it will be quicker to move a 4-car train than sending it up a ramp) but also I like the idea of having the 'upstairs' of the lift inside a loco/DMU shed, and magically having 166s, 168s, 220s, etc appear.

 

The ramp line will be single track, but at perhaps the half way point, I may have some point work that peels off and provides a 'down' so that trains don't have to reverse down the line... and so that I don't have to have a reversing loop on the scenic level.

 

EDIT: P.S. Would welcome thoughts on whether it's better for the ramp line to enter/exit at the reversing loop rather than where currently located... Might ease operations as would allow me to route trains direct to the fiddle yard or else to route for reversal.

 

15224621_NewLayout2021v5.jpg.cc92e0cc6605ff0fee9a56c3706c6150.jpg

 

Edited by davidprentice
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick update to show the ramp line running into the reversing loop. This frees up a little space and also means trains can leave the fiddle yard from either end and get onto the ramp line. Likewise, anything coming down the ramp line can either go direct to fiddle yard, or do a quick reverse. I expect I'd keep 3/4 car DMU/EMUs in the sidings on the right hand side. From here they can quickly get to the lift... or continue on to the ramp line...

 

I figure I can probably tidy up the top left hand corner with the reversing loop.

 

563121041_NewLayout2021v6.jpg.70cd14bd91cc73e191658ba68e046896.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The ramp up from storage to scenic level obviously has to join the main lines somewhere. So you need to decide if that junction will be scenic or hidden. If it’s scenic then you need to decide if you can justify all the traffic on scene either coming from or going to the diverging route.

 

If you have a reversing loop on the upper scenic level, again you need to think about whether it will be visible or hidden, although it will obviously be more difficult to justify it being out in the open. On the other hand, a reversing loop is a very big feature to hide - taking up a lot of area that should really be scenic.


The same kinds of problems also apply to the train lift, of course. On the upper level is it visible in the scene and how do you represent the lines/junctions leading to and from it?

 

Given that you’ve gone to all the trouble of having two distinct levels, storage and scenic, I think it would be great to maximise the scenic area and only have hidden or technical trackwork on the upper level where absolutely necessary.

 

If you want to go down that route and avoid a reversing loop on the upper level then you need to allow trains to come up form the storage level running clockwise, run around clockwise and eventually descend clockwise. And similarly for anti-clockwise running. Your train lift could accomplish that but I worry about making it work reliably and the amount of manual intervention it will need. To do the job using ramps you need two, one clockwise and one anti-clockwise, assuming you don’t want to stop trains on scene and reverse them down a single ramp...!

 

If you have two opposing ramps you again need to think about the junctions where they join the main scenic running lines. They can take up a lot of space if done prototypically and could look a bit odd out in the open but it is possible to compress and combine them if they are hidden. Then trains can magically appear and disappear from the scenic level with all the visible running taking place on track that makes sense in the scene, without any need to justify funny looking junctions.


We have discussed these issues in this forum before in @Chimer‘s last great layout thread and you will find some drawings of different ideas if you're interested.
 

Sorry for the long post! I hope it’s of some use.

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone consider the gradient and the length of any ramp between the two sections? Unless things have changed the separation between the two levels was 400mm and at a gradient of 1:50, which is the minimum I would consider for full length trains and diesel locomotives, you will need a run of 20m or around 65’........

 

Original versions of ET had a similar set up, but I had to run the ramp at least twice around the room to join the two levels with similar separation.


.....and I would still be concerned about access to the top right storage roads under the top board.

 

Edited by gordon s
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gordon s said:

and at a gradient of 1:50, which is the minimum I would consider for full length trains and diesel locomotives,

You can probably push this to 1 in 42 with newer all-wheel driven diesel locomotives on ~8-coaches. From my experience with 1 in 42 & 1 in 48 gradients, older diesels (think Airfix & Triang-Hornby or any with rubber tyres) you will be down to 5 or 6 coaches at best.

 

So, aiming at 1 in 50 is a good idea, but with the potential to squeeze that down to 1 in 45 if it's necessary.

 

Ian

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I think the storage area could be laid out more efficiently with the same capacity by pushing the loops out to the edges of the boards where they are more accessible, moving the reversing loop into a corner and moving the lift to a position where it's alongside some of those loops instead of in it's current, separated location. Then the offset between the levels could be reduced making the gradients easier and/or the ramps shorter.

 

If the storage loops were underneath the countryside area rather than under the station, there would be fewer problems of the electrical gubbins for the upper level interfering with the lower. In fact, it would be easier to access the electrical stuff for the upper the less stuff there is below and vice versa, it's easier to make lift off section to uncover the storage tracks if those lift offs are purely scenic.

 

@davidprentice How do you get access to the operating well?

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, davidprentice said:

Forgive the quick and dirty nature of the below - but it's a bit of a quick update. I've shrunk the layout, to give myself approx 50cm at one of the layout to gain access to the deepest sections of baseboard. The added advantage is that on the scenic level, I'll have an alterantive point of view, which I'm sure will add some interest for me (even if it means crawling under the boards to get there!). I've also kept the lift for the moment, but also added a ramp line, up to the scenic level. On the basis of a 2% incline, expect this will take between 1.5 and 2 laps of the layout to give me 40cm clearance.

David,

 

I was under the impression that you plan to build the baseboards in a 'modular' fashion to permit future disassembly, which is the route I took with my layout (link in footer).

 

Have you given any thought to the location(s) of the joins between baseboards, as these obviously have to avoid being under turnouts. In my case I had to do quite a bit of toing-&-froing between the track layout design and the baseboard layout until I could make them both work. Then, if you have a twin level layout, you probably want the baseboard joins on the lower level to align with the upper level (because of the support framework). The baseboard joins then impact on the upper level as well, which brings a whole new level (pun intended) of issues to overcome at the planning stage.

 

If it would help you, I can take some photos of my twin-level layout (no scenics done yet, but all track laid) if you are concerned about any particular 'issues' to be overcome. Just let me know.

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

If the storage loops were underneath the countryside area rather than under the station, there would be fewer problems of the electrical gubbins for the upper level interfering with the lower. In fact, it would be easier to access the electrical stuff for the upper the less stuff there is below and vice versa, it's easier to make lift off section to uncover the storage tracks if those lift offs are purely scenic.

Phil,

 

All the electrical gubbins (nice word that) can be accommodated within the depth of the baseboard framework, which is my case was only 44mm (unless, of course, you use Tortoise type point motors!) as shown below:

397350910_20210204_220134-BaseboardJ_resize.jpg.eec72817565e5cbc5cb0ab2b2fbda3b9.jpg

 

I'd also be concerned about making sure there is 'less' trackwork on the lower level under the complicated upper level sections to give at least some easy access without resorting to lifting the upper level baseboard or removing/shunting all the rolling stock on the lower level to gain access. This really helps with access to 'simple' problems that can be fixed insitu.

 

Ian

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, ISW said:

You can probably push this to 1 in 42 with newer all-wheel driven diesel locomotives on ~8-coaches. From my experience with 1 in 42 & 1 in 48 gradients, older diesels (think Airfix & Triang-Hornby or any with rubber tyres) you will be down to 5 or 6 coaches at best.

 

So, aiming at 1 in 50 is a good idea, but with the potential to squeeze that down to 1 in 45 if it's necessary.

 

Ian

 

Unfortunately at 1:45 the saving is fairly minimal. It comes down from 65' to 58', so you are still looking at complete circuit around the room as a minimum. Even at 1:42 it will be 55'.........

 

Reducing the board spacing is not really an option as you simply move the problem to one of access rather than gradient.

 

Overall, no reason why it can't be done, but further thought is required.

 

A helix at 1:50 with a 75mm spacing will need to be approximately 1200mm diameter and would need 5-6 complete turns.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gordon s said:

Unfortunately at 1:45 the saving is fairly minimal. It comes down from 65' to 58', so you are still looking at complete circuit around the room as a minimum. Even at 1:42 it will be 55'.........

Gordon,

 

Totally agree, but the potential to move a connection point at the top/bottom of the gradient by a foot or so can be very useful in the layout planning.

 

5 minutes ago, gordon s said:

A helix at 1:50 with a 75mm spacing will need to be approximately 1200mm diameter and would need 5-6 complete turns.

I did seriously consider helixes, but they just take up too much space on the lower & upper baseboards. Ramps too take up space, but it's long-n-thin and so are easier to incorporate.

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Ian, a couple of thoughts. Firstly have you thought about using code 100 for the lower level? The plan below is part of my Dinfield to Norton Rd and as you can see using set track curved points opens the fiddle yard far quicker and enable me to have 4 8ft tracks.  You will also avoid storage bends where I think you will find the fiddle yard radius will actually get to tight for the coaches. I work on the principle in a straight line it should be possible to get 6 lines per foot which means you could narrow down the board.

 

That leads me to the other observation which is the 9 dead end storage roads could then be moved to run inside the main circuit but running down the 11ft side of the storage area. I was thinking the could simply be connected via a point of the inner most line of the fiddle yard.

 

Hope that helps.

 

image.png.2537b39f6eaefd60e6629859068fe1a4.png

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...