Flanders Railways Company - HO-scale garage layout - 23ft x 11ft

[Dennis HO]

Howdy folks,

 

I'm new here, so let me introduce myself. My name is Dennis, 44 years old, and living in Belgium (non-UK, sorry ). I joined here basically to learn new stuff about building a digital HO-scale layout. 

 

Back in the days, when I was still living at my parents place, we had a rather small, but nice analog layout. Nothing really fancy, or with lots of detailed scenery, but we (me and my dad) had great fun with it, although the layout was pretty small, with just 3 locs and some other rolling stock. . Due to circumstances, the layout is no more ... sadly. That's about 20 years ago now ... In the meantime, my dad retired and a while back he came up with the idea to build a new layout again. We talked about it alot in tha past months on what to build, and also, where to build it. We definitely want the layout to be significantly bigger than the old one. My dad hasn't enough room to build it, so we are going to build it together, here at my house (just a few houses away from my dads place). At first we were thinking about building it here in the attic, a nice large open space (but full of rubbish and other stuff). So, we decided to build it in my garage, which is currently used for my car, but I will get an electric one from work and I don't have it inside the house when charging (potential fire hazard), so the garage will be "un-used". There are more benefits to build the layout in the garage rather than in the attic:

• garage is on the ground floor , so easy access with building materials needed for the layout
• windows to look outside, so a nicer space to build
• no need for a small ladder to access the layout area. My dad is currently 66 years old, and if he gets older, he still needs "easy access" to the layout. An attic ain't a good option ... 
• building it in the garage will give the opportunity to move the layout (if needed in the future). When building it in the attic, moving the layout is impossible.

 

Here is a list of "requirements" for the new layout:

• location: garage - basically 23ft by 11ft - lots of "opportunity space" 
• Layout will be HO-scale - DCC controller
• We want to run trains from the year 2000 or more recent (not really a specific country) - European trains, but that doesn't mean we won't like older trains on the layout, such as a nice old diesel (such as my avatar) or steam loc with matching coaches. 
• Basic setup: big main station on one side of the room,  a TMD / terminus station on the other side and a few nice running tracks to let the trains run. We were looking at the Dean Park Station layout, and that is kinda what we are looking for 
• We like to have passenger trains running 6 or maybe 8 units long, goods trains can be way longer than that. Also some short local passenger trains that will run between the main station and the terminus station.
• the layout will be DCC-controlled 
• track: peco streamline code 100 for all visible tracks, peco setrack code 100 for hidden tracks and fiddle yards
• all visible track will be smooth with long points and smooth curves (30 inch raduis or larger) for realistic scenery 

 

We already have made a few designs of the layout as we would like it to be in AnyRail. I will post them here also ...

We are also aware of the size of the project: it will takes a lot of time and money, but hey, it's a hobby and we both like it so we can share costs.

 

We hope to find good info and help here on the forum, but I'm sure we're at the right place here. 

 

That's all for now .. more to come folks ... 

 

Greetings

 

Dennis 

[Mike Buckner]

Hi Dennis,

 

I worked for 3 years in Flanders and enjoyed my time there immensely. I still miss the frituur, the mussels, chocolate, and of course the beer. That was 40 years ago. I used to enjoy watching the NMBS trains - in those days most of the loco's and EMU's were Belgian built. I remember the series 55 diesels in your avatar - when they were mainly green, before they received the broad yellow stripes. I feel that trains generally, in every country, are now a bit less interesting than they were in former days. More uniformity, some closures; faster, it's true - but somehow less interesting. Leuven, in particular, has lost a lot: the overbridge over the station where you could look down on trains, the old depot with its street-laid tracks (locomotievenstraaat), the parcels bay to the immediate south west of the station.

 

I will look forward to following this thread.

 

Mike

[Dennis HO]

Hey Mike, 

 

Yeah, those series 55 diesels were the trains from my youth, and we will definitely get a few ones on our layout. They were widely used back in the days, for both passengers and goods. And I must agree with you, modern trains are slightly less interesting than they were back in the days. 

 

Now, back to the design for the layout we are about to build.

The first one gives an idea of what we're looking for in our layout.

 

The garage is big enough to fit a nice layout. On the top, there are two windows, on the right the garage door (secional door, opens straight up). There is also a door that goes to the corridor.

 

Basic idea is to have two stations, and a TMD area. On the layout, trains will ride left. On top, there is the main station, with long platforms for the long passenger trains running on the main line. There are a few siderails in that station for the branch line which goes to the terminus station, that is linked to some sort of TMD area. The main station will be against the wall, the terminus station with the TMD will be operable from both sides, mainly because it will be a busy area in the layout. 

We're still figuring out a few things:

• how we will have the main line and the branch line laid out
• how to get from the main layout to the fiddle yard (using a slope or with a helix)
• track spacing on the main lines will be 2" center-to-center. That's why we're looking for long radius curves for the visible tracks, but we probably will have to place them further apart in some curves or areas
• In the fiddle yard we have a reverse loop, but we also need two in the main layout. We're still figuring out where to place them.
• Where to go from the main layout to the fiddle yard

The fiddle yard will be located under the main station. A secondary fiddle yard might be added below the TMD, but for now, we will go with just the one below the main station. 

There are a few long tracks for the long goods trains we like to run, some less long for the passenger trains, and a few short ones for the short (2 coaches) trains that will run on the branch line (we might add a few more of those). On the left in the reverse loop, there are a few short pieces of track to 'park' a single loco. 

 

If you folks have some suggestions to put more interest in the layout, please let us know, we're open for ideas. Or, if we have some "stupid mistakes" in our design, just tell us (we don't bite ).

So, still lots of things to figure out, but hey, that's part of the fun.  So for now, back to the drawing board .

 

Greetings 

 

Dennis

 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

Hello Dennis, welcome to the madhouse that is RM web.

 

I have one piece of advice, relating to your fiddle yard. A lot of stock cannot negotiate the curved setrack points you are using, even though the curves are fairly smooth the inside radius is too tight. I improved mine by modifying them, documented here somewhere, but I am intending to replace mine with streamline points, SL-86. You can get the same kind of problem where you have reverse curved approaches to the long sidings. Im not sure if there is a restriction somewhere but I think that the approaches to those four sidings can be improved.

 

Robin

[lmsforever]

Hi Dennis I have a soft spot for  Flanders went there in middle sixties to bike race based in Ghent always watch the classics and all other races on tv.The layout has great prospects look forward to seeing its development ,layout plan is very interesting and will give much fun.Good to see someone from Belgium on here,

[Nick Holliday]

Hi Dennis

It seems that you are having several different levels, and I would be wary of the gradients needed to go from one to the other.  I know modern diesel and electric models can be powerful, but that spiral in the left-hand corner in particular looks very tight, and will have a gradient of around 1 in 30, if I've got the measurements right.  That would probably be OK in a straight line, but on such a tight radius there could be problems as the curve considerably increases the resistance, and there would be a propensity for the stock of  long trains to be pulled into the middle and off the track.

I know that the Peco Code 100 is a good representation of modern mainline track, but I wonder if using one of the finer codes might be more appropriate for parts of the layout, such as sidings, making things subtlety different?

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 17/05/2021 at 21:04, Dennis HO said:

 

 

 

• track: peco streamline code 100 for all visible tracks, peco setrack code 100 for hidden tracks and fiddle yards

 

Hi Dennis and welcome to RMW,

 

Given the space that you have, there is no benefit whatsoever in using Setrack in your storage tracks. It will cause far more derailments in the very place where you want them least.

 

Stick with Streamline throughout, preferably Code 75. As you are running recently produced locos and rolling stock, they will perform much better on the Code 75 with the wheels not dropping into the crossings on the pointwork.

 

I like the general arrangement of your storage tracks: plenty of flexibility in operation. But perhaps they could be simplified a bit for more reliable operation??

[Joseph_Pestell]

I am not sure that I understand the plan so far. I can't see where the track from the storage area joins the visible section. Nor indeed how trains are turned round on the scenic section to get back to the storage area (although you did mention two return loops to come).

 

One thing that you should factor in is how you get into the central operating area. You will probably need a lifting flap(s) and the scenery will need to fairly simple at that location.

 

Overall, I think that it all needs a bit of simplifying. The storage area might be better under the branchline so that it is more accessible.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Dennis,

Still looking at this. Should be at work on the house but stuck in my hotel waiting for an important phone call.

 

My suggestion would be:

 

1) A simple return loop to the left of the doorway. Probably double track as that leaves you more space to be open to scenery. You could put your TMD here or else some sort of freight facility between the diverging routes.

 

2) Going through the mainline station (which might benefit from losing one of the platform roads), the mainline would continue along the walls of the room to a single-track return loop to the right of the doorway. So no duckunder or lifting flap required. Points from this loop would lead to ramps down the the storage sidings - about a 30' run so no problems with gradients.

 

3) The branch terminus (or through station with short hidden siding beyond) would be in front of this second hidden return loop).

 

4) Making these boards to the right of the doorway as narrow as possible, you would have enough space for a short peninsular in the centre of the room - again space for a freight facility or the MPD.

 

All of these suggestions make for a simpler layout and avoid any severe gradients on the visible parts although the branch could be on a gradient for added interest. If you are modelling Flanders, it's rather lacking in topography. The Ardennes would be a different matter.

 

Also, don't forget those areas in the corners, top left and top right of your plan. I would suggest a minimum radius of 4' for the curves at each end of your station (5' would be better and matches with the Peco Streamline), that leaves plenty of space for more sidings or the MPD although you should probably leave a small access point in the corners of the room or you will have a long way to reach into the corners in case of any problems.

[Joseph_Pestell]

And a further thought....

 

If you have a simple double-track loop to the left-hand side of the door, there is space to move the approach pointwork ("throat") for the station along this left hand wall, freeing up space along the long top wall either for longer platforms or for moving the platforms to the left which would free up space at the right hand end for a couple of sidings for branch line passenger trains which I recall as being very much a feature of Belgian junction stations.

 

Remind me. Do Belgian trains run on the right? It could make a difference to the track layout in places.

 

I also think it would better if the branch line is single track, to be more of a contrast to the main line.

[Dennis HO]

21 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

welcome to the madhouse that is RM web

Thnx for the warm welcome mate. If it's such a madhouse here, we will blend in perfectly . And also thnx for your remark on the "worthless setrack curved points and derailments. 

 

21 hours ago, lmsforever said:

layout plan is very interesting and will give much fun.Good to see someone from Belgium on here,

That is what we're looking for: a big nice layout with great diversity of use: long straight parade tracks, stations, a TMD, ... 

And you're right, good to be here, even if we Belgians are a minority here 

12 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

I know that the Peco Code 100 is a good representation of modern mainline track, but I wonder if using one of the finer codes might be more appropriate for parts of the layout, such as sidings, making things subtlety different?

So you mean I should mix the different codes in my layout? And thnx about the remark on the slopes. The main lines in the current design are just a suggestion. Our intention is to keep grades below 2%

 

11 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Stick with Streamline throughout, preferably Code 75. As you are running recently produced locos and rolling stock, they will perform much better on the Code 75 with the wheels not dropping into the crossings on the pointwork.

First of all, thnx for the multiple useful replies. 

Basically you're telling me to use the Code 75 instead of the Code 100. We were thinking of using the Code 100 type because of its strength and durability. 

About the main lines and branch line on the layout, thnx for the suggestions. We will have a look at them this weekend and see what we can do with them. Our layout won't be having lots of hills and will be rather flat. BTW, good tip on having a single track for the banch line ... good thinking there. 

In Belgium, trains run on the left, which will be also what we will do on our layout. 

 

Will have to dive deeper in the code 75 vs code 100 thing ... maybe the code 75 isn't a bad idea after all ... 

 

For now, thnx for all the advice ... 

 

Keep posted for more progress

 

Greetings 

 

Dennis

[Joseph_Pestell]

3 minutes ago, Dennis HO said:

Thnx for the warm welcome mate. If it's such a madhouse here, we will blend in perfectly . And also thnx for your remark on the "worthless setrack curved points and derailments. 

 

That is what we're looking for: a big nice layout with great diversity of use: long straight parade tracks, stations, a TMD, ... 

And you're right, good to be here, even if we Belgians are a minority here 

So you mean I should mix the different codes in my layout? And thnx about the remark on the slopes. The main lines in the current design are just a suggestion. Our intention is to keep grades below 2%

 

First of all, thnx for the multiple useful replies. 

Basically you're telling me to use the Code 75 instead of the Code 100. We were thinking of using the Code 100 type because of its strength and durability. 

About the main lines and branch line on the layout, thnx for the suggestions. We will have a look at them this weekend and see what we can do with them. Our layout won't be having lots of hills and will be rather flat. BTW, good tip on having a single track for the banch line ... good thinking there. 

In Belgium, trains run on the left, which will be also what we will do on our layout. 

 

Will have to dive deeper in the code 75 vs code 100 thing ... maybe the code 75 isn't a bad idea after all ... 

 

For now, thnx for all the advice ... 

 

Keep posted for more progress

 

Greetings 

 

Dennis

 

Hi Dennis,

 

The Peco 75 is plenty strong and robust (unlike some). I used it on a client's layout way back in the early 90s and had no problems at all.

 

Joseph

[Dennis HO]

Thnx Joseph, good thinking.

 

BTW, this Flickr album gives an idea of what we like on our layout (not my photos, just to make sure).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/treinfotobelgie/page1

 

Greetings

 

Dennis

[Dennis HO]

Howdy folks,

 

I've been quite busy with my dad, figuring out the new layout, and we think we finally got something. The main station is stil along the long wall of the garage, but we moved the scenery and show-off tracks away from the wall to get nice views on passing trains, which was one of the main goals of the layout ... trains moving along. 

 

Below a nice overview of what we got.

1. Main station, now with 2 passing tracks and just 1 siding except the 2 we had before. Tracks are long enough to service trains 8 units long, but we will probably reduce the passenger train length to 6 (still thinking about that). This station will be at level 0 inch.
2. Small section of the main station for the branch line, that goes to a terminus station in the middle of the layout. Since it is just a branch line, we scrapped the double track and went for single track only (thnx for the idea Joseph), with a passing siding halfway between the 2 stations. both these stations will be at level 0 inch. We might increase the height of the terminus station to make it look more confincing.
3. A placeholder section (yellow piece of track) for a future TMD or logistics area. Depending on the progress of the progress, we might include this also. This section is at level +6 inch, so the other tracks can pass underneat this section. 
4. Trains will run around the layout twice, before entering the main station again. To prevent trains from running in the same direction all the time, we included 2 "reverse loops". One is at the left hand side of the layout, partially visible. The other one is completely hidden below the TMD area. 
5. At these points we got access to the helix in the left corner, that leads into the fiddle yard (this section still needs some thinking and tweaking). 
6. To get good access around the layout, we made an opening in the middle of the layout. The tracks here will be removable bridges. It will also be a nice sight to see the trains pass some bridges.

Overall we got plenty stretches of track for running. In the middle of the layout, and also a long stretch along the main station (at level +6 inch)

 

Below a 3D overview, so you folks can see the gradients and heights in the layout. 

Hope you folks like what we did so far. Still open for suggestions on improvement. 

Edited May 25, 2021 by Dennis HO

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Dennis,

 

Glad to see that you are still working on it.

 

I will try to revive the old computer and work something up for you.

 

I particularly like that you are thinking about trains that are shorter than the maximum that the platforms can take. Makes for a far more realistic feel of space.

 

Where are you planning to put the (large?) station building. The track layout of the first version suggested in front. But this will conceal some of the trains. 

 

I note that your latest design uses some bridges for the access to the operating well. A good solution.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Plus 6"/150mm is probably a bit more than you need.

 

Plus 4"/100mm is plenty and will make your gradients so much less severe.

 

Or there is scope for the two levels not to be joined at all. That would simplify things a lot.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Just now, Joseph_Pestell said:

Plus 6"/150mm is probably a bit more than you need.

 

Plus 4"/100mm is plenty and will make your gradients so much less severe.

 

Or there is scope for the two levels not to be joined at all. That would simplify things a lot.

 

On 19/05/2021 at 21:13, Dennis HO said:

Thnx Joseph, good thinking.

 

BTW, this Flickr album gives an idea of what we like on our layout (not my photos, just to make sure).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/treinfotobelgie/page1

 

Greetings

 

Dennis

 

Nice set of photos.

 

I have always liked Belgian railways since holidays there when a child (Brugge and then Blankenberg). My last visit must have been around 1986 when I went with a group of friends. We were staying in Tourcoing (France) but had a day trip to Gent.

 

Oostende was an interesting station with its trains to distant parts of Europe for UK ferry passengers.

 

By way of rolling stock, I liked those very boxy diesel railcars on the branchlines.

[Neils WRX]

Nice to see another Belgian layout on the forum, mine is on a much smaller scale!!!

 

Stay safe,

 

Neil

 

 

[Dennis HO]

17 hours ago, Neils WRX said:

Nice to see another Belgian layout on the forum, mine is on a much smaller scale!!!

Hey, that's really a cool small layout. And those Series 55 diesels are a must have on our layout also. We need a few of those for the goods trains running containers, coal or other bulk goods around the layout.

 

On 26/05/2021 at 19:07, Joseph_Pestell said:

Plus 6"/150mm is probably a bit more than you need.

 

Plus 4"/100mm is plenty and will make your gradients so much less severe.

I'll think about that mate. Both levels don't need to be joined at all. 

 

On 26/05/2021 at 19:04, Joseph_Pestell said:

Where are you planning to put the (large?) station building. The track layout of the first version suggested in front. But this will conceal some of the trains. 

 

I note that your latest design uses some bridges for the access to the operating well. A good solution.

The station building will be in front of the tracks, meaning, on the inside, so the clear view of the trains will be partially blocked, but that is not really an issue. An other option here is to move the station towards the garage wall, and move that parade track that currently runs behind the station, in front of the station. Still, some thinking and tweaking the layout needs to be done here also. 

 

About the removable bridges, well, at first it seems to be a good solution, but considering us getting passed that section many times, the brigdes might get damaged over time (which is not something we want off course). Someone else suggested to skip the bridges and just have the base board of the layout run straight through, but without anything else underneat it, maybe a section with hinges that swings the section down. Since the baseboard on our layout will be between 45" and 48" above the garage floor, there is actually plenty of height to get passed underneat the layout. But, we're still considering the option on keeping the bridges as it brings some variaty to the scenery.

 

Overall, I think we got something usefull, with most of the things in the layout we really like having. In the next months we will start collecting some rolling stock (see how far we can get with that). The actual build will probably start towards the end of this year. 

 

Greetings

 

Dennis

Edited May 28, 2021 by Dennis HO

[Joseph_Pestell]

8 hours ago, Dennis HO said:

Hey, that's really a cool small layout. And those Series 55 diesels are a must have on our layout also. We need a few of those for the goods trains running containers, coal or other bulk goods around the layout.

 

I'll think about that mate. Both levels don't need to be joined at all. 

 

The station building will be in front of the tracks, meaning, on the inside, so the clear view of the trains will be partially blocked, but that is not really an issue. An other option here is to move the station towards the garage wall, and move that parade track that currently runs behind the station, in front of the station. Still, some thinking and tweaking the layout needs to be done here also. 

 

About the removable bridges, well, at first it seems to be a good solution, but considering us getting passed that section many times, the brigdes might get damaged over time (which is not something we want off course). Someone else suggested to skip the bridges and just have the base board of the layout run straight through, but without anything else underneat it, maybe a section with hinges that swings the section down. Since the baseboard on our layout will be between 45" and 48" above the garage floor, there is actually plenty of height to get passed underneat the layout. But, we're still considering the option on keeping the bridges as it brings some variaty to the scenery.

 

Overall, I think we got something usefull, with most of the things in the layout we really like having. In the next months we will start collecting some rolling stock (see how far we can get with that). The actual build will probably start towards the end of this year. 

 

Greetings

 

Dennis

 

Your Dad is same age as me. And I am beginning to find ducking under baseboards (and cellar doors) difficult.

 

As to bridges, if you go down that route, easy enough to reinforce them with a bit of aluminium or steel sheet to make them strong enough. I would be tempted though to have something fully scenic with a canal below and some Artitec barges. Should be OK to make the whole thing light enough to lift out when required.

 

But better still to avoid lifting sections altogether. You have enough space to do that.

[Neils WRX]

As you like 55’s here are mine.

 

A mixture of Marklin (converted to 2 Rail) and B Models. 
 

 

Out of interest are you modelling 2 or 3 rail?

I look forward to watching this progress.

 

Stay safe,

 

Neil

[Dennis HO]

21 hours ago, Neils WRX said:

Out of interest are you modelling 2 or 3 rail?

Hey Neil, we will be using peco code 75 all over the layout, so a 2 rail dcc setup it will be. 

 

Must say I'm jealous of your series 55 collection there mate, especially that 5531, 5537 and 5541. I hope I can still get my hands on some, because they are hard to find, at least the good detailed ones. 

 

Greetings 

 

Dennis 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Dennis HO

[Dennis HO]

Hi folks,

 

Have been working on the track in the helix area. 

 

The upper loop on the helix is the main double line that goes around the layout. I have a point that goes off this mainline, and into the helix inner loop (21,5inch radius) counter clockwise. Trains coming from the fiddle yard are on the outside loop of the helix (24inch radius), going clockwise, and get connected to the main layout at the main station. 

 

The fiddle yard itself isn't designed yet. We need to make some kind of list of the rolling stock we want, and make sure we got the space to store this. So, some more design work needs to be done. 

 

That's all for now, but more to come.

 

Grts

 

Dennis 

 

 

[melmerby]

Nice plan.

I wish I had the confidence to build a helix with such tight radii, then I would have a lower level fiddle yard

[Allegheny1600]

Hi Dennis,

 I agree with Keith above, that is a very interesting plan there, you look to have numerous routes available. You must have some great planning software too, the top picture is impressive.

I also feel that is a rather tight radius helix though, not wanting to dampen your ideas but I suspect such a tight radius implies a steep gradient in order to gain clearance - which adds a further strain on your locomotives, any traction tyres may shred easily and extra stresses on the couplings increases the risk of derailment.

A friend of mine had a previous layout with 1 in 30 grades and it caused much increased traction tyre wear, particularly with Roco locomotives.

Best regards,

John