The best train set layout you ever saw

[Harry2013]

http://www.pegnsean.net/~railwayseries/surprisepacket.pdf

 

I've saved the head code, signalling and cab detail graphics as being v useful - I doubt that I shall ever need to be more 'technical' than this...

[ForestPines]

Ooh, the Surprise Packet takes me back! Never made the cotton reel locos because I didn't want to cut the page up and didn't have an easy way to copy it.

[RJS1977]

Ooh, the Surprise Packet takes me back! Never made the cotton reel locos because I didn't want to cut the page up and didn't have an easy way to copy it.

You do now! :-)

[Sir Hadyn]

Ooh, the Surprise Packet takes me back! Never made the cotton reel locos because I didn't want to cut the page up and didn't have an easy way to copy it.

 

Me too. still got it lurking somewhere fortunately, but the glue on the binding all came apart so it ended up as loose leaves...

[talisman56]

For me it is Commercial Road by Scenic Model Railways...

 

http://www.scenicmodelrailways.com/page_315363.html

 

This has appeared in numerous Hornby catalogues.  In fact, I was/am so taken with the layout that I am creating a version of it in N Gauge.

 

Merry Christmas

 

Paddy

 

Please, for the sake of the passengers, change the footbridge. I wouldn't want to lug anything up and down, up and down to get to the platforms furthest from the station buildings...

[Pacific231G]

If the 'best layout' means the one I wish to have...

 

In the book "Model Railways A complete guide to the hobby" by Dave Lowery 1982

 

He describes this 8ft x 4ft 00 guage layout which if I had the space I would love to build

 

 

 

Trainset layout ? perhaps but looks like a lot of fun too

 

A  version of this though with only one low level siding and a simpler terminus appeared as a very well described blow by blow project layout in TT-3 by Mike Bryant in MRC during the first half of 1958 under the title "Large Quart in a Pint Pot" . His version was 4x2 using GEM flexible track (4ft 4 ins by 2ft 3ins using the original Triang track) which would work out at about 5ft 6ins x 2ft 9ins in 00 or H0.

 

 

It's quite a good plan and I wish I'd seen it when as a teenager I was using TT-3. 

I've seen a 6ft x 4ft version with a scenic break between the terminus and the low level section and it does pack a lot of operation into a small space. I'll have a go at it with Anyrail

 

I wouldn't describe Bredon as a train set layout. Despite being a compact tail chaser it looks to me much more a "proper" model railway. It's worth remembering that the original version of perhaps the most famous American layout- John Allen's Gorre & Daphetid- was a folded figure eight on a 6ft 8ins by 3ft 8ins baseboard and I don't think anyone would have describe that as a train set layout. 

the actual layout differed a bit from this plan in that the turntable and engine house appeared on a front extension with their original site used for a couple of industrial sidings.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Pacific231G

[Pacific231G]

I had a go at Mike Bryant's TT-3 "Pint Pot" layout in H0/00 and, using mainly radius 1 setrack for the curves, it fits fairly comfortably into 6ft x 3ft though the steep gradient up to the terminus would be challenging with such a tight radius. Mike Bryant must have been using 10 inch as his minimum radius which is less than 14 inches with 16.5mm track but GEM 15 inch radius points equivalent to 20 inches so somewhere between Peco Setrack and small radius streamline.  

 

 

 

The clearance between the high level terminus board and the main board is the critical one but in this version there is no trackwork above the point at the back of the loop which should make maintenance easier. I've used setrack points for the lower level but Streamline short and medium for the terminus.  If you used more reasonable radius 2 curves as minimum and streamline points the layout would need to be a few inches wider but probably a foot longer

 

update: With mainly radius 2 (17.25 inches) for the tight curves and streamline small radius points it does require a 7 ft x 3ft 6 ins board which is a bit of a lump and is getting close to the 8x4 layout that Harry mentioned. Compared with the 6x3 version the gradient is a bit more reasonable, the terminus is a sensible length (almost any of the tiny BLTs would fit) and the lower yard will comfortably take a second siding.

 

I did once try designing Pint Pot with Hornby's layout planning software and, following a train with the onboard camera you do get a pretty long run before you return to the terminus without going round and round the loop.

 If I were building this I'd probably use a terminus design where all shunting can take place on the station board so as not to have to shunt onto the steep and tightly curved approach track. 

Edited December 21, 2013 by Pacific231G

[ThePurplePrimer]

I really like the look of that bigger one David

 

What side do you imagine you would operate it from ?

 

Also what is a BLT ?

[gordon s]

Branch Line Terminus….

[C&WR]

Branch Line Terminus….

 

And there was I thinking what did people have against a Great Western Railway Bacon Lettuce and Tomato.  OK it would have been a bit mouldy & indigestible by now, but I thought that was what railway catering was famous for

[Pacific231G]

I really like the look of that bigger one David

 

What side do you imagine you would operate it from ?

 

Also what is a BLT ?

A Bacon Lettuce and Tomato sandwich. It's absolutely esssential for the operators of such a layout to be well nourished as it's very difficult to coordinate reversing the controller with throwing the DPDT switch that supplies the return loop   Stopping the train is for wimps!

 

That'll teach me to use initials instead of branch line terminus !!

 

On Mike Bryant's TT-3 layout the points were operated by GEM hand levers and, though the terminal strip was behind the throat of the terminus, I've no idea which side he normally operated from. I'd hazard a guess that at exhibitions the operator was mostly behind the terminus with the public looking from the low level side as you'd have to have access to the local lever for the hidden point. Photos of the layout were taken from both sides.  For a 00 or H0 layout the size would make that awkward so it might need to be an island layout with access to both sides during operating sessions.  I have thought about a version of this plan for an H0m layout but I think all the tracks at different levels would lend themselves to an urban scene.

[gordon s]

I thought I recognised that plan. Way back in the early 60's, I had the same passion for railways and a school friend's father had built that layout for his son in TT. It was the first real layout I had seen that had different levels and some landscape modelling and it kept us occupied for hours on end….but then it got better. His father had a Gauge 1 layout in the garden, which upped the love of model railways another few notches. To see a scratch built model of CIty of Truro in that scale was wonderful, even as a lover of LNER.

 

As a member of the Gauge 1 Society, he took us both to Central Hall and I had a turn operating on the large Gauge 1 layout that ran most years at that show. Now I think about that day, it really left a lasting impression on so many fronts.

Edited December 22, 2013 by gordon s

[Kenton]

 

It's worth remembering that the original version of perhaps the most famous American layout- John Allen's Gorre & Daphetid- was a folded figure eight on a 6ft 8ins by 3ft 8ins baseboard and I don't think anyone would have describe that as a train set layout.

That is nowhere near as operational or inspiring as it lacks the one essential element of the other plan - that of two return loops. It is these that allow operation of a roundy-roundy (watch the trains go by) and the simple terminus out and back - not forgetting the sidings for a bit of shunting. For me the importance of keeping the upper level terminus as straight along the back is also important.

 

The one thing that is missing (perhaps it is there but hidden under the terminus) is a passing loop. The addition of a passing loop (relatively simple) would allow the potential of two trains - one out and into the loop releasing another to return (from hidden).

 

For that reason the layout does deserve a bigger board and any attempt to shoe-horn it into a smaller space just is not doing it justice. Why do we have to subject good plans to this treatment - it is just like we always seem to want to cram more track in regardless of practicality.

 

Edited December 22, 2013 by Kenton

[ThePurplePrimer]

Hi Kenton

 

I am interested as to why you think its important that the terminus remains parallel to the board edge.

 

NB I am not arguing against that statement I am just keen to learn and understand why 

[Kenton]

Simplicity. There are 3 platforms on the original plan and a siding - curving or extending the upper level across more of the board I believe will interfere with the lower shunting level and remove an important chunk of the lower level scenery. It also buries even more of the lower level track under what will be already a difficult to get at area. Anyone who has built a multi level layout will understand the problems of trains that always derail in the most inaccessible places and that having space to put a hand in for recovery is critical.

 

Another advantage is to keep any station buildings on the backscene platform as having the potential of half-relief. I think there is nothing to be gained by having a station forecourt in that newly developed corner. The original plan is good enough - even with the suggestion of the passing loop which although I believe an improvement for operating I would only include it on a slightly enlarged footprint.

 

As from where it would be operated: I still see this layout proposed from either an operating well (within the second return loop) or would be at least 3 sided. I am unable to reach over 4ft of a two level layout without trashing something so I cannot see others being able, even 2ft is pushing it sometimes. This would be even worse if the layout was anything like optimum height. AFAIC this (and indeed all) 6x4 layouts are for placing in the middle of a spare bedroom/garage and operated from all sides.

[Harry2013]

Simplicity. There are 3 platforms on the original plan and a siding - curving or extending the upper level across more of the board I believe will interfere with the lower shunting level and remove an important chunk of the lower level scenery. It also buries even more of the lower level track under what will be already a difficult to get at area. Anyone who has built a multi level layout will understand the problems of trains that always derail in the most inaccessible places and that having space to put a hand in for recovery is critical.

 

Another advantage is to keep any station buildings on the backscene platform as having the potential of half-relief. I think there is nothing to be gained by having a station forecourt in that newly developed corner. The original plan is good enough - even with the suggestion of the passing loop which although I believe an improvement for operating I would only include it on a slightly enlarged footprint.

 

As from where it would be operated: I still see this layout proposed from either an operating well (within the second return loop) or would be at least 3 sided. I am unable to reach over 4ft of a two level layout without trashing something so I cannot see others being able, even 2ft is pushing it sometimes. This would be even worse if the layout was anything like optimum height. AFAIC this (and indeed all) 6x4 layouts are for placing in the middle of a spare bedroom/garage and operated from all sides.

 

If we could see the layout from the operators perspective I suspect we'd see that the station area covers but does not enclose the lower track bed, so derailments etc can be with, which if true makes 3 sided access even more essential.

[Pacific231G]

 

It's worth remembering that the original version of perhaps the most famous American layout- John Allen's Gorre & Daphetid- was a folded figure eight on a 6ft 8ins by 3ft 8ins baseboard and I don't think anyone would have describe that as a train set layout.

 

That is nowhere near as operational or inspiring as it lacks the one essential element of the other plan - that of two return loops. It is these that allow operation of a roundy-roundy (watch the trains go by) and the simple terminus out and back - not forgetting the sidings for a bit of shunting. For me the importance of keeping the upper level terminus as straight along the back is also important.

 

The one thing that is missing (perhaps it is there but hidden under the terminus) is a passing loop. The addition of a passing loop (relatively simple) would allow the potential of two trains - one out and into the loop releasing another to return (from hidden).

 

For that reason the layout does deserve a bigger board and any attempt to shoe-horn it into a smaller space just is not doing it justice. Why do we have to subject good plans to this treatment - it is just like we always seem to want to cram more track in regardless of practicality.

 

I'd agree with you about Pint Pot having more operational potential than the original Gorre & Daphetid but I don't think John Allen ever used it that way. He did in any case quickly move to a much larger layout that was designed for operation. I was really quoting it as an example of a 6x4 ish roundy round not being a train set and in fact the original layout was always included - with a few changes- into his later layouts right up to the final and magnificent G&D.

 

What always attracted me to Mike Bryant's "Pint Pot" was gettng that much operation onto a very portable 4x2 board without crowding it. That obviously required it to be in TT-3 but in his articles he says that he was determined to keep it within those dimensions not least because he happened to have an offcut of Weyroc that size and the terminus had already been laid out on another offcut of 3/8 inch ply 3ft x 9inches.  The layout was really designed to show the potential of TT-3 for a complete operational layout in a very small space and it also formed the basis of his MRC Handbook "Modelling in TT3" which was also an excellent introduction to the hobby. 

In his construction articles in MRC for Pint Pot, Bryant does specify that the terminus board needs to be easily removable with sliding rail connectors to free the terminus trackwork from the approach line. This is to give access to the hidden track and particularly the hidden point. 

 

One thing I did like about Mike Bryant's layout was the effective use of different levels. Only one of the track exits involves a tunnel mouth- the other three are all road overbridges- and it generally manages to not look crowded

 

I'm not sure what you mean about shoe-horning the plan into a smaller space. I don't recall anyone using the basic scheme of Pint Pot before Mike Bryant in 1957 (though the continuous loop with a reverse curve and a terminus branching off it is as old as the hobby) and I've simply tried to re-scale his 4x2 TT-3 layout to H0/00. In fact I couldn't fit it into the equivalent space of 64 x 32 inches using modern setrack even at radius one- it's the loop with the reversing track that rules the overall size- but sticking as closely as possible to the original plan was able to get it into 6ft x 3ft. That is actually very similar when scaled up to the 4ft 4 ins by 2ft 3ins that Pint Pot required for anyone using Tri-ang TT-3 proprietory track. Bryant therefore went tighter for the plain track than the smallest radius Tri-ang track- which I remember as being very sharp- so his trackplaying must have been exemplary. The two locos he used on the layout were a Tri-ang Jinty with flangeless centre drivers and a Fowler 4F 0-6-0 using the same Tri-ang chassis.

 

Pint Pot in TT-3 probably was small enough to operate from one side  but I agree that a version using 16.5mm track would require access to both sides so would require a much larger room footprint than the baseboard itself. I still think it would be a very large lump of a layout in one piece but it doesn't really lend itself to dividing into multiple baseboards. I  do think it would make an attractive layout in N scale but probably sticking to the same overall size of 4x2ft and not adding any complexity apart perhaps for a passing loop in the hidden tracks. I agree with you that would improve the operational potential of the layout considerably without adding more than a couple of inches to the width.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Pacific231G

[leopardml2341]

Anyone else remember the erstwhile BEATTIES shop in Sheffield? Used to have a Fleischmann layout in the centre of the sales floor, c/w working rack railway.

[Kenton]

 

I do think it would make an attractive layout in N scale but probably sticking to the same overall size of 4x2ft and not adding any complexity apart perhaps for a passing loop in the hidden tracks. I agree with you that would improve the operational potential of the layout considerably without adding more than a couple of inches to the width.

Even better in OO9 but I wouldn't let some arbitrary size force a fit 48 x 24 may as well be 55 x 28 or any other dimension. Let the track and scene dictate the space required.

[Pacific231G]

 Even better in OO9 but I wouldn't let some arbitrary size force a fit 48 x 24 may as well be 55 x 28 or any other dimension. Let the track and scene dictate the space required.

 

(Updated)

Back in the 1970s I did look at Pint Pot for a 4x2 H0e layout but decided that all those junctions were a bit improbable for a narrow gauge line so went instead for a modified version of Cyril Freezer's "A Winter Layout" plan S34 in my edition of 60 plans for small railways.

 I've just tried to draw this out using Peco 009 track and found that this is as close as I could get.

 

Freezer's plan is nominally nine inches radius for the more visible curves and minimum six inch radius elsewhere. It was designed for the then new Eggerbahn stock and Peco 009 points

 

For my own  layout I was using Lilliput 0-6-2 Austrian tank locos which didn't like such tight curves so I ditched the upper return loop and made it a point to point using 8-9 inch curves.  Shades of Perrygrove with the two termini so close to one another but though it only got as far as basic scenery it was quite good fun to operate before I moved on to a rather more serious terminus to fiddle yard.

 

I have seen images of a club layout in H0e that used most of Freezer's plan for one board of several in a larger layout with just the lower station as a through station. It looked quite effective as a section  of line climbing hard  with no sense of being a "rabbit layout"

 

The reason for limiting a single board "micro layout" to 4x2 is because for a portable layout that's about as large a lump as one person can easily move especially up and down stair. It will also fit in the back of a hatchback. Any larger and you really need to start using more than one baseboard 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2013 by Pacific231G

[Kenton]

That plan has a lot going for it - though I would dispense with some of the irrelevant spurs that just seem to add a place to park a spare loco/wagon and not much else - adding track just for the sake of it. I also think that the 24" limit is still an imposition that has nothing to do with portability or stowage - just simply that the timber merchant cuts boards in 24,48,72 inch dimensions.

 

Besides what is really so bad about joining two pieces of wood? For the sake of a couple of inches a good plan is compromised by non-negotiable curves or track deformation. The bigger limitation is one of weight. I also would guess the vast majority of layouts stay in the room they are built. If it is of exhibition standard then a single operator will be one too few and a van can always be hired.

 

Of course I wish I could say I follow my own advice - but of course not. All could have done with more board than track and although open frame design they are all a challenge to get through the door.

[steve1]

A few years ago there were a couple layouts built in Hull by a group of which I'm a member that were tailchasers.

 

The OO one was for agent in India and called Castle Hill:

 

 

 

 

The other was in N (which we'd never done before!) and called Little Barwell:

 

 

 

 

(Incidentally, the "diagonal" track is operated on a shuttle.)

 

steve

 

 

 

 

[talisman56]

A few years ago there were a couple layouts built in Hull by a group of which I'm a member that were tailchasers.

 

The other was in N (which we'd never done before!) and called Little Barwell:

 

lb11.jpg

 

lb12.jpg

 

lb13.jpg

 

(Incidentally, the "diagonal" track is operated on a shuttle.)

 

steve

 

Apart from the 'diagonal track', the track plan looks surprisingly similar to the display layout that accompanies the Farish stand to Exhibitions...

Edited December 23, 2013 by talisman56

[rab]

The best 6 x 4 layout I have ever seen was the simple oval plus one siding, battery operated, 46201 + 2 coaches, laid on a sheet of hardboard by my Dad after I had gone to bed on Christmas Eve nigh on 60 years ago. It was the best present ever as it led to a lifetimes interest in this wonderful hobby.

It was that set that started me off, although I was only 3 at the time, so of course Dad had to operate it for me!

Still got it in the box, although wouldn't call it Mint in Box.

Remember the massive batteries that fitted in the control box.

Dad soon got fed up with buying replacements and bought a transformer,

then made his own wire wound speed control,

compete with a 'diesel loco style' speed control knob.

Edited December 23, 2013 by rab

[Pacific231G]

That plan has a lot going for it - though I would dispense with some of the irrelevant spurs that just seem to add a place to park a spare loco/wagon and not much else - adding track just for the sake of it. I also think that the 24" limit is still an imposition that has nothing to do with portability or stowage - just simply that the timber merchant cuts boards in 24,48,72 inch dimensions.

 

Besides what is really so bad about joining two pieces of wood? For the sake of a couple of inches a good plan is compromised by non-negotiable curves or track deformation. The bigger limitation is one of weight. I also would guess the vast majority of layouts stay in the room they are built. If it is of exhibition standard then a single operator will be one too few and a van can always be hired.

 

Of course I wish I could say I follow my own advice - but of course not. All could have done with more board than track and although open frame design they are all a challenge to get through the door.

Nothing wrong with joining boards together- all but one of my own layouts have done that-  but personally I'd not want to do it with tracks at several levels.

 

I've now found the club layout I remembered seeing that was based on the "Winter Layout" plan. It was "Poseidon"  which I think was the first layout built by the Hazel Grove MRC and featured in the February 1972 Model Railway Constructor. The original 4x2 layout followed Cyril Freezer's plan fairly closely but was sensibly simplified with just a single siding off the run round loop at the upper end for a mine and the lower loco shed moved to the former goods shed siding at the lower right hand corner giving just the one siding in front of the station building.  The layout was later extended to the right of the original board at both upper and lower level with  three additional 3x2 boards to give a continuous run for exhibitions. The basic 4x2 section does look quite effective with the track climbing behind the station and one of the photos (which I assume are still Brian Monaghan's copyright) does show a Lilliput 0-6-2T heading a goods train round the sharp six inch radius reverse curve so it was possible.