Fiddle Yard under main board

[peak_forest]

Hi

 

I'm just starting to build my layout and was thinking to have the fiddle yard under the main board giving me the complete garage for the scenic side plus would  allow me to have 1 fiddle yard which can be accessed by both end of the running track.

My question is does anyone have this sort of setup and what sort of slope would Bachmann locos be able to handle to get down to it. I'm thinking the fiddle yard would need to be at least 1 foot below the main board to allow me access to change locos wagons etc.

 

 

 

[Silver Sidelines]

Welcome Peak Forest

 

You might be interested in a recent Blog post which has pictures at the end of my station layout with fiddle sidings beneath.

 

Your question has been asked many times in different ways.  The controlling answer is the length of track required to reach back up from the fiddle yard.  Down hill you might get away with 1 in 30 - up hill I would suggest that using essentially unmodified Bachmann and Hornby engines you should be thinking of at least 1 in 60.  The minimum practical spacing between levels in an 00 gauge layout is 2 1/2 inches, which will require 12.5 ft or around 3.75 m of track to get up from it.  Should you want a spacing of 12 inches then the length of climbing track becomes 60 ft or around 18 m.  For most people this is not practical.

 

You need to devise a track layout with as small a gap between levels as possible and then leave an opening in the top layout to give you access to locations where you want to change locomotives.

 

Hope this helps your plans.

 

Regards

 

Ray

Edited December 21, 2014 by Silver Sidelines

[Chimer]

An alternative might be to have the FY in front of but slightly (say 3"?) below the scenic section, which eases the gradient dramatically.  If you weren't able to train your eyes to not see the FY while you're in trainspotting mode, you could even have a set of removable scenic covers to pop over it when you're not fiddling ....... just a thought.

[maunsel]

Or go in for one of them thar' new fangled helix thingymagigs and go round and around to your heart's content?

 

Eric

[Matt]

I've gone for a double deck fiddle yard under one section of scenic layout (three layers in all). 70 mm between each board so little chance of access. Track laying has had to be meticulous to try and avoid derailments. Since I can't fiddle with the stock in there have adopted a dumbbell on each level to reverse trains before hitting the storage loops. Each loop has a dead section to stop train in right place and to compensate for non fiddling I have lain 30 tracks each long enough for 2 trains. Broadly I agree with suggested gradients by Ray but if you are running diesels of modern bach / Hornby stable then most will pull a lengthy train up 1 in 40 without much grief (8 coaches or 20 ish wagons). Final thing you may want to consider is some type of tracking system for the yard if not visible easily. I've gone for mini magnets with loco number on each to track contents of each siding.

 

Hope of help,

M

[Crewlisle]

Can you give us a plan, size of your layout & format?  Is it a rectangular layout with central operating well or narrow, straight forward rectangular layout?

[DCB]

The layout I operate works well with the 6 loops and 6 dead end sidings under the terminus.  The down side is trains to the terminus are generally banked up the 1 n 30 ish as some Bachmann and Hornby bwith decoders and tender pick ups struggle with 3 coaches, though the bankers can manage 7 which is all the platforms hold anyway.

However because of heavy framing and limited clearance "fiddling" has to be restricted to the siding nearest the operating well and the dead end.   usually the MO is a terminating train stops a fresh engine is attached to the back. the train loco cut off and the fresh loco pulls the stock out and then backs into another siding allowing the incoming loco to go on shed.  If its a goods the brake van is cut off first and shunted by hand to the back of the train, if re marshalling is needed then it has to be in the road nearest the operating well.

 

It works for us, but a lot depends on detail. for instance the H/D peco couplings we use and indeed and Kadee couplers are vastly better at reversing than Tension lock couplers and nice smooth 3 ft radius points are much less derailment prone than set track points so we can habitually reverse 20 wagon goods through point work involving reverse curves with very few derailments.  Some of our coaches have tension lock couplers within the rakes but these have been moved back to shorten the distance between coaches so the gangways almost touch with buffers retracted, and the heights carefully matched and the back to backs set to 14.25mm to ensure that reliability.  

 

My incomplete loft layout has low level hidden loops which can feed either up or down main line with an MPD station and marshalling sidings on the visible level with again gradients around 1 in 30 but it is horribly over complicated and work ground to a halt 10 years or so ago as I just can't figure out how to make it work .  Though the intention was to fiddle in the marshalling sidings and send goods out and back with layovers in the hidden loops.

 

And as a concept marshalling and remarshalling trains, changing engines etc in a series of visible sidings is probably more satisfying than having a set of storage sidings pretending to be a station as many people do, where trains sit for hours at platform in through stations, but its your choice, you use set track and tension lock couplers of you want, you can always take up crochet when you get so sick of the derailments that you put a sledge hammer through the whole ****** mess

[Joseph_Pestell]

As others have said, if you want a big vertical gap between your fiddleyard and your scenicked part of the layout, a helix (or pair of) is going to be the only answer. See Mike61680's Dent as a good example of the type.

 

In general, best to avoid handling locos and stock as much as possible, especially these days with all the fiddly little bits that can fall off. So for a terminus, a cassette system, traverser or turntable is the best option. On a continuous run type layout, it should be hidden loop sidings but, with good tracklaying and control systems (detection), no reason why you should need more than 100mm between low-level tracks and high-level. Or better/simpler, if you have the space, have the loops at the same level but hidden by a scenic feature.

[peak_forest]

Thanks for the advice so far.

A few people have asked for a diagram so here's a rough drawing. The 3 boards on right are already in place as my existing layout.

I'm planning on extending into the rest of the garage making a total size 16x8 approx.

Everything on the bottom and left will be new.

I was thinking the entrance on the bottom to descend under the station on the left with a fiddle yard under the boards at the top and the entrance to fiddle yard at top to again pass under station left and have a fiddle yard under bottom board.

 

 

 

[maunsel]

Thanks for the advice so far.

A few people have asked for a diagram so here's a rough drawing. The 3 boards on right are already in place as my existing layout.

I'm planning on extending into the rest of the garage making a total size 16x8 approx.

Everything on the bottom and left will be new.

I was thinking the entrance on the bottom to descend under the station on the left with a fiddle yard under the boards at the top and the entrance to fiddle yard at top to again pass under station left and have a fiddle yard under bottom board.

 

Looking at your sketch I'm wondering if the curves are viable, as I had originally assumed we were talking about an OO layout. Maybe I'm mistaken?

 

16' x 8' also sounds a lot of space to me - until I start laying track.................

 

If the fiddle yard is to be accessed via two opposing slopes (as opposed to helix) I think you may be looking at another circuit of track below the layout. However with the positioning of the fiddle yard approaches I think you made need to take some great care with the measuring out and some consideration as to the radii of the gradients (gradii/gradius?). Especially with the lower track arrangement under the existing terminus at bottom left.

 

I'm also somewhat fearful about the accessibility of the rear of some of the boards - ie. to right & top right. It seems a long way to reach over the layout to get to.

 

It may be helpful to measure out some of the curves with a piece of string and chalk/pencil on the floor before you go much further.

 

Eric

[Chimer]

If i understand your ideas correctly, aren't the two descents to the fiddle yards going to have to cross somewhere, which is liable to further complicate the gradient issues?

[mightbe]

This seems entirely do-able, if:

 

-The highest point of the middle-level should be at the junction for the upper-level branch. This also allows a shallower gradient up to the terminus.

-Long, shallow gradients are used, downwards from the junction in both directions.

-Curves no tighter than 30"--36" preferably.

 

If you really want an entire foot of clearance, one idea is that you can essentially turn your entire layout into a great big helix that loops around several times--you'll most likely want to incorporate a crossing (see post above) in the lower left corner, only 1.5" or so below the branch junction (I'm thinking large Peco crossings, levelled), which allows the counterclockwise descent (from junction) to "hide" behind some scenic feature behind the station at the bottom.

[gordon s]

I've had some spectacular failures trying to do exactly what you are planning.  Of course it doesn't mean it isn't feasible, but there is a real risk that you will waste a lot of time and money trying to achieve something that is a recipe for disaster.  Gradients are one issue and here a lot of testing is required.  My steam locos failed at 1:50 once 7/8 coaches were added.  They would climb the gradient with a decent run up to it, but not with realistic slow running or having to start on the gradient.

 

Clearance under the board is critical and I think 100mm has been mentioned.  Minimum loco clearance is probably between 65 and 70mm depending on what you are running.  That leaves just 30mm free space for point motors and wiring from the upper level and no space at all for upper baseboard cross bracing. Hidden loops require pointwork and one failure of a tie bar will prove virtually impossible to repair without access from above.  Track cleaning will be another challenge and I have yet to see any electronic devices that will show occupancy of hidden loops with 100% reliability.  One error could lead to a lot of work to recover stock piled up in a 100mm gap and of course the problems become a real challenge as the depth of the hidden loops increase.

 

Set up some parallel lines on 50mm spacing and then try and see past the first train in a 100mm gap to see which lines are vacant and how far in you can run additional trains without either fouling pointwork or adjacent stock.  A derailment on entry to the hidden loops becomes a nightmare to access if it is set towards the back of the section with other trains in front.

 

Ask Great Northern about hidden loops behind scenic boards.  That was a total no no in his new plan for Peterborough North.  

 

Edit:  First page of Peterborough North thread….

 

"avoid at all costs".

1. Gradients.
2. Hidden track
3. Over complicated track work
4. Lack of operating interest.

The heading says it all, so I'd have been crazy to incorporate any of these. Gradients need to be very gentle if you want to run 10 coach trains. I haven't room. Hidden track is where derailments will inevitably happen in my experience, so none of that. The other two again I have learned to avoid by bitter experience.

 

Having tried to do what you are planning several times and failed, please think carefully about hidden loops.  You could end up with a stack of problems and end up scrapping a lot of work.  

 

Of course you may achieve what you want and I would certainly applaud your efforts as many of us have tried and failed….:-)

 

Sorry if this comes across as very negative.  It became such an issue on ET, I scrapped several layouts in the initial build phase and almost gave up modelling completely and would hate to see you go down a similar route without careful consideration on the potential pitfalls.

Edited December 24, 2014 by gordon s

[BlackRat]

There's this newish magnetic system by ONTracks....I think? Might be worth a look.

 

I've been working on a pair of helixes (helii lol) but, BUT they take up a LOT of room.

[gordon s]

Did you mean this one from DCC Concepts?….or is there another system?

 

http://www.dccconcepts.com/catalogue/j/dccconcepts-powerbase

 

 

The Powerbase section starts at 2.45 in...

Edited December 24, 2014 by gordon s

[TonyMay]

Depends on how big it is and how much fiddling you want to do down there.

[Silver Sidelines]

If you  are still not put off by the commnets above I would say yes it is possible.  I have had three 'loft' type layouts with hidden sidings and gradients which have all survived ten years without problems.  I must say I didn't do much fiddling although in the first layout I had a loco spur and some Peco uncoupling ramps which allowed me to swap train engines remotely (tension lock couplers).  The second layout dated from the end of the Mainline / Palitoy era when 'Manors' and the 43xx had rubber tyres, and Airfix Castles were tender drive.  Subsequent upgrading to Bachmann locomotives 'with no' rubber tyres indicated that the gradients of 1 in 50 were optimistic for metal rimmed steam outline locomotives.

 

I have always used Peco Code 100 Streamline which is robust.  I also have a layout rule - minimum radius 3ft radius.

 

Some of you will aware of the current layout which features in my Blog.  This Post on the design of the layout is particularly relevant together with these pictures.

 

How does it work  - well there are two videos on Youtube which are very informative.

 

There is a Youtube video made using the Branor Camtruck which give you a cab view of the gradients (and supports).  Then there is a video of Hornby Duke of Gloucester in action (with seven coaches).

 

Yes it can be done - but I would say it needs planning.

 

Good luck

 

Regards

 

Ray

Edited December 25, 2014 by Silver Sidelines

[Donw]

It is a fact of life that those most attracted to putting the fiddle yard underneath a main station are those wanting to run long trains so the station takes up a lot of room which doesn't leave much pace for the gradients up and down. Any curves add to the load problems on gradients. My advice is if you are fairly new to the hobby go for something a little simpler. Many modeller's find that less is more works well simple layouts are easier to build work well often get finished to a high level. With more experience you can work out for yourself what is possible and try something more complicated later on..

 

Don

[Crewlisle]

Hi

 

I'm just starting to build my layout and was thinking to have the fiddle yard under the main board giving me the complete garage for the scenic side plus would  allow me to have 1 fiddle yard which can be accessed by both end of the running track.

My question is does anyone have this sort of setup and what sort of slope would Bachmann locos be able to handle to get down to it. I'm thinking the fiddle yard would need to be at least 1 foot below the main board to allow me access to change locos wagons etc.

 

I may upset you here, but forget the under baseboard fiddle yard completely; it will bring you nothing but trouble & go for a cassette solution. My 00 gauge DCC layout ‘Crewlisle’ has three interconnected levels, represents the WCML with OLE from 1955 to 1985 & has no fiddle yard! I have 47 locos, 65 passenger/parcel stock & over 100 freight wagons. All this is in a space of 8.5 ft x 7.5 ft!

 

With reference to my track plan, down is anticlockwise & up is clockwise. I have the minimum height between levels to reduce the gradients required with second radius sized curves in the tunnels & on the reversing loop. It made it very difficult to fit OLE in the tunnels of the middle level continuous run (even though it is only 1.5mm steel wire stuck to underside of high level baseboards to guide the pantograph over wires/point motors)! The gradient from the continuous run main line up to the high level terminus is 1:38; reversing loop through operating well cartridge exchange is 1:28 (normal direction is down but if required to go up, a little help from the 'big hand in the sky'! This is no problem as it is in the operating well.); reversing loop to up main line (under high level goods yard baseboard at bottom) is 1:33. All my pacific steam locos can handle six Bachmann Mk 1s (internal weights removed from coaches and additional weight in locos) both running and from a standing start from adverse signals (except the 1:28). 4-6-0s (Hornby, Mainline and Bachmann) and other steam locos can handle five Mk 1s or six ex-Airfix Stanier coaches (weights removed). I have a couple of tender drive steam locos with traction tyres - no problem. All diesels have plenty of weight to handle any sized train.

 

I have recently fitted DCC Concepts Powerbase to the reversing loop rising to the up main line but have not yet had time to fit the magnets to locos and test them. However, as other contributors on gradients have said, if possible keep gradients away from curves as you tend to lose traction on them. My gradients are relatively steep & partially on a curve because I wanted to get a lot of railway in a small space.

 

The way I handle all my stock is via the removable cassette on the incline on the reversing loop in the operating well. Normally, cassette systems use two strips of aluminium angle for the rails but I use Peco Code 100 track inside the cassettes because it is part of the track. I have 14 identical cassettes, each 4ft 6ins long, stored on racks under the baseboard. This allows for a Class 47/50 size loco + 4 coaches. Stock is removed/replaced from the cassettes from stock storage boxes. If you modified the bottom left hand side of your layout or had a cutting at the top to give access to the lower level & cassettes, it should solve your problem. Another way would be a single siding access down to the inside of the operating well & turning the cassette around for the return run. Remember, I have done this in 8.5ft x 7.5ft; you have approximately double the size at 16ft x 8ft!

Edited December 28, 2014 by Crewlisle

[Neal Ball]

Good luck with the project, as above, plan it all very carefully and maybe revise a few of your expectations......

 

Having said all of that, I started cutting the wood yesterday for my new 00 layout..... On two levels..... In the same space as you! But the difference is my fiddle yard will only be two sidings off the main line under the station. Plus i will have two extra sidings as a passing loop in the open on the scenic side, plus carriage sidings at the station. I'm hoping that is going to be enough storage space. Based on the previous layout, that should be ample.

 

My gap will be 4 inches, which is just enough space, but only just. I reckon you can't get lower in the space available without a Helix and I don't think there is space for one.

 

I will be adding DCC Concepts Powerbase under the incline though - just in case it's needed.

 

My new layout is here : http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/93864-henley-on-thames/

 

Good luck, let us know how you get on

[OnTheBranchline]

Did anything become of this; i.e. did he build the layout?

[peterfgf]

I considered something similar and did some experiments on haulage capacity and came to the conclusion that haulage capacity by model steam locomotives was seriously reduced by anything steeper than 1 in 100 (1% or 10 milliRadians).. Model diesel locomotives coped with steeper gradients though.  I did go as far as drafting out designs for layout but the probable complexity of the baseboards made it a non-started in the time available.

 

The results were reported here:  https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/132931-gradients/

 

Peterfgf