RMW "Layout & Track Design" - all change............

[Chimer]

Halsey

 

I wondered if the fiddle yard could face the other way but didn't want to add to your indecision!  Now Jon's done the tweak for you (at 1019 today), I agree it is better this way, because trains from the branch can access it more easily.

 

Now get building before somebody else has a good idea!!

 

Chris

[MikeOxon]

Yikes!   you're right.  I seem to have got the origin in the wrong place.  I must try and work out where I went wrong.

 

So as not to mislead anyone, I'll edit my earlier posts when I've sorted things out - all part of the learning curve

 

Mike

I've now edited the SCARM plan and amended my earlier post.  As I wrote before, this was an 'exercise' for me in using SCARM and, once again, I found it fairly easy to modify the plan to fit the baseboard (which I hope is now the correct size) - it was just a case of cutting out excessive straight sections and fitting the main 'pieces' (station and fiddle yard) together again.  As before, the only difficulty I encountered was in persuading the flexitrack sections to close the final gaps.

 

For the record, my mistake was that I failed to notice that the origin shifted when I changed the size of the screen image to get a closer view.  The lesson is to check and double-check the overall dimensions before starting to lay track

 

Mike

Edited November 30, 2015 by MikeOxon

[DCB]

A couple of things.  

 

To get maximum clearance put a thin ply or mdf sheet on the bottom of the top baseboard, it stops wires dangling.

 

There is no need for all the strength members to be below the track. We usually have a lip to keep train from falling off so why not make it a structural part.  I slotted some 2X1 to take MDF as per my drawing and  even slotted the 1" edges of one to give a board only 1" thick but very light and strong as only 30" long over my duck under.   Another minimum depth trick is running wires on the surface is quite prototypical if you disguise them as point rodding and operating points with piano wire from a surface mounted disguised or hidden point motor is another way to save depth.

 

You need a lift out or lifting section.   These can be a total pain in the rear. However I made a lifting section three or four years ago in the form of a double track bridge deck which works very well like under 10 seconds to lift or replace using car bonnet hinges from a Ford Escort I think.   It works very well because the hinge is very narrow but the load goes through the side members of the baseboard and lift deck not through the end or surface.   It lines up with a tapered bolt at the "Landing end"  The trick is to make sure the landing end goes down absolutely square on a very solid surface, using car hinges you can adjust the pivot to get this spot on before you even lay the baseboard surface. Hiding the hinge is a challenge which ever way you go but mine hide in bridge abutments and just leave a slot visible when fully down.

 

[Nearholmer]

DCB

 

I thought for a horrible moment that you were advocating Medium Density Fibreboard for baseboard construction - a personal phobia of mine!

 

Might be safer to call them MDB (minimum depth baseboards) to avoid confusion.

 

Good hinge ideas!

 

K

[Junctionmad]

personally I find using one of the many layout design software a great help, especially ones that have the track components that you are using already built in .  Ive used any rail,  trak3 and SCARM, all have advantages and dis-advantages 

 

The great thing is that you can see what really works in the space, too many times on paper I seem to think I can squzze in x amount of track to then be roundly abused of that notion what I put it into a track layout program

[halsey]

Thanks K for more contributions

 

I will stay with relocating the branch such that it is NOT over the fiddle

Exhibitions not of interest

I'll look forward to BL contributions when I get there.!

[halsey]

Hi Chris/Jon

I'll have another look before I get started tomorrow - but I have to say prefer it the other way round for modelling (not train logistics) reasons.

BUT - I would be very happy if someone could explain very simply why operationally this is better than the other way round and if this needs be a major consideration for me?

Thanks all.

[Chimer]

Hi Chris/Jon

I'll have another look before I get started tomorrow - but I have to say prefer it the other way round for modelling (not train logistics) reasons.

BUT - I would be very happy if someone could explain very simply why operationally this is better than the other way round and if this needs be a major consideration for me?

Thanks all.

 

Halsey

 

Trace the route of a train from the branch terminus to the fiddle yard and back again.  With the first option, buffers at the left hand end of the FY, you have to reverse to get into the FY sidings, and after fiddling, reverse out before heading back to the terminus.  With the second plan, no reversing is involved in either direction.

 

I'm horribly aware we've also banged on about how the prototypical way of getting into a goods yard is to steam past and reverse in - but with a fiddle yard that's not relevant, ease of use is what you're after!

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[halsey]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.......so a question for me remains - is it a "hidden" fiddle yard or a "visible" marshalling yard (the latter was what I had thought it to be)?

 

I assume the latest version doesn't have a headshunt because it doesn't need it.

 

Is there a SIMPLE reference book which would guide me on operational practice as applied to a model railway? I've got lots on layouts wiring baseboards etc etc BUT nothing that covers how a train should move about.

 

....................continuing thanks

[Nearholmer]

Try:

 

"Railway Operation for the modeller" by Bob Essery

 

and/or

 

"Railway Operation" by C J Freezer

 

Both have their strengths, with the first being better on "why" things were done as they were on real railways, and the second better on "what" was done, as translated onto a model layout.

 

If you can find one, there was, rather a long time ago, also a small book by E F Carter, called something like "00 layout design and operation", which packed a vast amount of useful stuff into a small space. I bought a copy at a jumble sale when I was a boy, and learned how to timetable a branch railway, diagram the locos and coaches etc from it, before I was ten years old. It was solid information too; when I started work, I encountered chaps doing the exact same things, in the exact same ways, for the real railway. Carter wrote vast numbers of books, so I hope I've remembered the correct one!

 

Kevin

 

Edit: having done a Google check, I've actually mixed up two small books by Carter: "00 Gauge Layout and Design"; and, "Working Model Railways". I had both, and I can't be certain which contains the gems, but since you can by both, and still have change from the price of a pint, I'm not sure it matters.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Nearholmer

[halsey]

Thanks - I'm on the case!

[jon_1066]

Because you have a separate goods line and passenger line you technically don't need a headshunt since you can use the goods line for shunting without fouling the passenger line.  Also because you only have a single line that is bi-directional the issue of facing or trailing crossovers goes away as it will always be facing in one direction or the other.  So it comes down to what is best operationally for your model.

 

Turning them around is best operationally for a few reasons:

it slightly lengthens the storage lines

it lengthens the run around loop

it uses less points (eg one less double slip is £30 saved!)

it takes up less space (allowing more room for the rear embankment/scenery)

it simplifies the run between the BLT and marshaling yard (ie don't need reverse moves)

it is easier to marshal a train and send it to the goods yard whilst another circulates on the passenger line

[Chimer]

On the question of fiddle yard or marshalling yard, you're going to use it for passenger coaches to at least some extent so it's not going to look like a real freight marshalling yard.  Also, you're probably going to want to lift locos and brake vans to swop them from one end of the train to the other, and swap and maybe turn locos - you could do all this by shunting, but you've got lots of shunting possibilities in your canal yard and at the branch terminus already, and to shunt the FY you would need run-round loops, which eat siding length.  So I would say accept it's a FY and allow the fiddling hand of god in there, noting that doesn't mean you can't scenic it (avoiding tall structures for obvious reasons) if you want to.  You could even have the nearest siding to the operating well as an exchangeable cassette, allowing you to change or turn a whole train in one go.

 

And for learning about running a model railway realistically, many of the layout threads in here discuss the issues either directly or indirectly.  I've learnt a vast amount in a short time by following other peoples' debates - I didn't have a clue about facing crossovers and trailing entry to goods yards a couple of years ago.  If you only follow one thread, make it Pencarne Junction to Trewenn - or to blow your mind, Peterborough North (but allow yourself a year or so to read through from the beginning!)

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[halsey]

all good and understood - will continue as per plan for which I'm VERY grateful

 

PHOTOS as promised

 

Material progress as follows..................

 

Track plan decided upon

Missing/required track 95% purchased (eBay)

CJ Freezer operational book purchased (eBay)

Branch baseboard sorted and located (not fixed)

Gradient part located/tacked - pretty clever bit of kit!

 

Next job will be to sort a robust track/scenery joint at both ends of bridge section - no issues just time - and then start setting out again and laying the loops

 

I can't thank all of you enough for your help and advice so far!

[Nearholmer]

You don't hang about, do you!

 

Impressed.

 

Kevin

[MikeOxon]

Great to see that you are now under way.  Hopefully, the title of this thread can now be changed and we shall all have the pleasure of seeing your new layout grow

 

Mike

[halsey]

Good idea how do I do that - does anyone know - remember w.e.f. 17th Nov I was new to all this so simple instructions please!

 

Any new title suggestions?

Does it stay on this forum?

How does it link so the thread isn't lost?

 

BFN

[Chimer]

all good and understood - will continue as per plan for which I'm VERY grateful

 

PHOTOS as promised

 

Material progress as follows..................

 

Track plan decided upon

Missing/required track 95% purchased (eBay)

CJ Freezer operational book purchased (eBay)

Branch baseboard sorted and located (not fixed)

Gradient part located/tacked - pretty clever bit of kit!

 

Next job will be to sort a robust track/scenery joint at both ends of bridge section - no issues just time - and then start setting out again and laying the loops

 

I can't thank all of you enough for your help and advice so far!

 

That's OK - we're just waiting for our invitations to the official opening!

[MikeOxon]

Good idea how do I do that - does anyone know - remember w.e.f. 17th Nov I was new to all this so simple instructions please!

 

Any new title suggestions?

Does it stay on this forum?

How does it link so the thread isn't lost?

 

BFN

There are several options: 

 

- You could start a new forum thread under the 'Modelling Zone - Layout and Workbench Content - Layout Topics' heading and include a back reference to the present thread in your opening post.

 

- You could start a Blog, as a diary of your progress.

 

I chose the latter route, since I like writing a 'diary', but blogs are less popular for people who like lots of interactive comment and want to ask questions as they go.  Try looking at a few examples that others have written and see what appeals to your own temperament.

 

Or you can carry on as you are and modify the topic title - just go your first post and, click 'edit' (at the bottom of the post) and then press the button 'Use Full Editor' at the bottom of the box that opens.  You can then modify the title as you wish.

 

Mike

[DCB]

Looks good

 

Some form of blinds or shutters would be good, keep out prying eyes and strong sunlight which fades paintwork and printed signs.  Also our track by the frosted glass window seems to get dirty far more quickly than the rest of the layout.

[halsey]

its on my list - not many prying eyes in this weather!

[Theduke71000]

 

Hi all,

 

 

 

I am returning/new to this hobby after 45 years – and have NEVER engaged with BLOGS!

 

 

 

I have decided on size – a 9x7 garden shed, scale OO, era 3 (LMS) steam only,  goods only - lots of activity wanted love engines and private wagons.

 

 

 

I want to model in stages, preferably not going back over phased decisions so a modular/stage build is preferred starting with an industrial through station with good goods facilities and a separate marshalling/fiddle yard (the theme for which can be re-developed later) with 2 tracks around the room linking them up .

 

 

 

Baseboards exist ( I know not the right way to start but there were very good reasons) so I basically now have a 102”x80” fully insulated heated and lined internal area with an outwards opening door centrally located in the 80” end an “L” of 32” at the “opposite” end, a 16” shelf on the long return opposite the 32” longest length and an 8” bridge to close the shape across the door way – I do hope that all makes sense.

 

 

 

I would like to build on one level (boards are 40” high) and I think I want to have 2 tracks around the room feeding into stage one on the 102" x 32" section which would be as per (picture 2) a through station plus goods marshalling – treating the remaining tracks on the shorter 80"x32" section and the 80"x 8" (min) bridge section the as a feed into and out of a marshalling/fiddle yard (as per the appropriate (rh) bit of picture 1) which would be located on the opposite 16”x102"section for now which will one day be lifted and fully modelled.

 

 

 

I have been doing a lot of research which has produced the above scheme thoughts, I have about 20 “good idea” layout plans copied from various www contributions BUT I am now totally overwhelmed by the decisions needed to actually commit to something and get started and I have therefore stalled.

 

 

 

I am not a computer fan so don’t want to engage with CAD I don’t understand real life operating protocols so struggle with lots of blog terminology,  I repeat - I have NEVER blogged!

 

 

 

So I’m completely stuck and terrified of starting off spending too much and getting it wrong such that I lose heart.

 

 

 

Can you guys help!!

 

 

 

FYI all/most of this has come from this forum 

 

 

 

How am I doing??

 

 

 

PLEASE be kind with your comments especially if they relate to “I suggest you start again” but - short of spending £00’s on professional design services and waiting months for the outcome I need your help/advice and will very much appreciate it otherwise I fear I will never get started and eBay will get some more business!

 

If you have a 

Edited May 12, 2018 by Theduke71000

[Nearholmer]

Duke

 

Did you see Halsey's Post 114?

 

This train left the station, Sir.

 

Kevin

[halsey]

Hi all (Jon)

I read all posts again from the beginning this morning just to reflect and as you all said (in various ways) there is no substitute for me getting my hands dirty!

Lessons learned so far (do you agree?)-

• Don't hammer track pins home!
• Think twice cut once
• Setrack ST245 curved points don't work (why do they make them!)
• "Track Shack" are the best - 11/10 on customer service so far.
• Not everything on EBay is as it seems esp used points and carriages!

All track "spacesavers" seem very expensive - OK they may not look good but which ones work without issues - streamline curved points, double slips, 3 way points (Hi Jon - your plan uses all of these?)

Just in relation to the branch line station "entrance" I prefer the idea of a 3 way as per Jons early ideas rather then 3 curved points as per the "final" plan - comments would be appreciated but I could do with the space!

I'm still smiling - some stuff heading back to E Bay after Christmas!

[ejstubbs]

• Think twice cut once

 

The mantra used to be: "measure twice, cut once".  Perhaps it needs to be: "think three times, measure twice, cut once"?

 

• Setrack ST245 curved points don't work (why do they make them!)

 

I know lots of people moan about these points, but I have to say that my ST425 works fine.  However, that is one point on its own.  If you have a ladder of curved points I can imagine that such an arrangement might prove more problematic.

 

You might want to experiment with using a normal point at the end of a curve to give a diverging road with the straight part of the point.  It isn't quite as compact as using a curved point but it might still do what you need, and give you more reliable running.