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

[TonyMay]

I'm not happy with this layout design; it's basically a complete mess, and you guys aren't being helpful at all.  You're rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic when really you needed to redesign the titanic so it had fewer deckchairs and more lifeboats.

 

The BLT (which is described as not being the focus) is at the focal point of the layout; the rest of it is itty-bitty; the corners are too sharp so there's no flow (to describe them as curves would be insulting to curves).  It looks horrible and amateurish.

[halsey]

Hi Tony,

 

All contributions gratefully received............

 

I'll leave it to those who you are criticising to reply from a more knowledgeable standpoint - for my part I'm happy that it delivers what I wanted given the confines of OO gauge in a 9x7shed.

 

It is now underway and providing plenty of enjoyment already.

 

BFN

Edited December 15, 2015 by halsey5455

[Chimer]

I'm not happy with this layout design; it's basically a complete mess, and you guys aren't being helpful at all.  You're rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic when really you needed to redesign the titanic so it had fewer deckchairs and more lifeboats.

 

The BLT (which is described as not being the focus) is at the focal point of the layout; the rest of it is itty-bitty; the corners are too sharp so there's no flow (to describe them as curves would be insulting to curves).  It looks horrible and amateurish.

 

Where's the troll button when you need it? 

[Nearholmer]

TonyMay

 

I think you missed the boat.

 

Which, thinking specifically of the one that you mention, might be considered an awful tragedy.

 

Kevin

Edited December 15, 2015 by Nearholmer

[MikeOxon]

..................

It is now underway and providing plenty of enjoyment already.......................

 

enjoyment! - that's what this hobby is all about

[TonyMay]

Well I'm not a fan of sideshow BLTs over the fiddle yard.  Nor am I a fan of filling all of the available space with track and buying 26 sets of points to do this.  Going on the original remit:

 

A freight-based shunting layout

Budget is important

Set in the 1930s in the West Midlands area

Include a canal and canal basin.

Be reasonably realistic

Offer the opportunity to do some scenic modelling.

 

We'll concentrate on a single track roundy-roundy with a goods yard for shunting.  We can do this with maybe half a dozen or so points (thus saving a big chunk of cash).  We will also try not to collect a massive collection of locos and rolling stock and feel compelled to squeeze as many of these at once onto the layout as possible - we'll operate on a one engine in steam principle.

 

There is a lift-out section over the door which will double as a storage cassette, thus removing both the need (1) for a large fiddle yard and (2) a separate liftout section.  We will use some R2 curves in the corners as a result but these will be reasonably well hidden, and give us more room for the main sweeping curves.

 

There are several possible arrangements for how to zone the parts but here is an example drafted out to illustrate the main features of what I mean.  It's a draft and will need moulding a little bit, but doesn't need anything added to it.  Scenery would be a platform and station in one of the corners, disguises for the exits and other bits and bobs.  If you want a model of a railway, rather than a train-set, spend a quarter of the money on track yet have a layout that looks four times as good, this is the approach to take:

 

 

Please feel to tear this apart.

[Nearholmer]

Hmmm ......... It certainly has the potential to be landscape/scenified nicely, and to emerge looking far more realistic. Looks like an ideal thing for a scratch or kit-builder to lavish hours on.

 

So, if it is that, rather than packing lots of shunting/operation into a small space, which floats your boat, it would be the better layout.

 

One minor change that I might suggest, in that mode, would be to use curved points on the lead to the yard/basin, to get longer sidings.

 

From an operating point of view, it could, however, be deeply uninteresting. With nowhere to store trains "off stage", it could barely accommodate two trains: a goods that spends most of its time being shunted, and an auto-train that hides in the tunnel, except when perambulating one way or the other.

 

What we have hit is the exact same dilemma that railway modelling hit c1938, when a plan almost identical to this was published in MRN, heralding "The New Wave" that largely swept away compact "playable" layouts over the next 30 years.

 

Kevin

[halsey]

Shame this topic is now going off message but its job for me is done and as I'm learning, even thought its my first ever post, it isn't "mine" to feel possessive about - I will leave you all to get on with it Jon_1066's plan as improved by committee is the right one for me!

 

Thanks all.

Edited December 16, 2015 by halsey5455

[TonyMay]

Hmmm ......... It certainly has the potential to be landscape/scenified nicely, and to emerge looking far more realistic. Looks like an ideal thing for a scratch or kit-builder to lavish hours on.

 

So, if it is that, rather than packing lots of shunting/operation into a small space, which floats your boat, it would be the better layout.

 

One minor change that I might suggest, in that mode, would be to use curved points on the lead to the yard/basin, to get longer sidings.

 

From an operating point of view, it could, however, be deeply uninteresting. With nowhere to store trains "off stage", it could barely accommodate two trains: a goods that spends most of its time being shunted, and an auto-train that hides in the tunnel, except when perambulating one way or the other.

 

What we have hit is the exact same dilemma that railway modelling hit c1938, when a plan almost identical to this was published in MRN, heralding "The New Wave" that largely swept away compact "playable" layouts over the next 30 years.

 

Kevin

 

Yes, there's little point in being innovative in this game.  You can follow the patterns and produce a template that works or you can try to be innovative and produce something that probably doesn't.

 

This sort of thing would indeed be suitable for someone (say) waning to handbuild thier own track but not wanting too much of it to hand-build.  Perhaps a first layout in EM?  But anyway, we are using narrow gauge OO and RTR HO scale track...

 

Less is more works, especially:

 

As we mentioned, budget!

 

There is less to go wrong.  What  does go wrong can be easily fixed.

 

There is less to clean.  OK, so this isn't N gauge, but still it's something to consider.

 

Building scenery, including water, canalboats, buildings, etc, introduces more variety into the layout rather than track, more track, and even more track.  

 

There are certain things that present potential difficulties to modellers, such as motorised/wire-in-tube points, coupling (and autocoupling), working (bouncing?) semaphore signals, working level crossing gates, etc, that need to be dealt with carefully.  Keeping things simple (at least for the first build) allows the modeller to concentrate on developing his skills and techniques in a manageable and scalable way.

 

On a historical note, the LMS 1930s period isn't that well served by RTR models.  Yes, there are a few, but the main market is for locos that survived into the 1950s.  By keeping it simple you need less of a representative sample of stock and can run it with 3-4 locos.

 

Finally, it doesn't look like an explosion in a Hornby Dublo factory!  One is almost tempted to bring back 3rd rail track; it could hardly make it much more toylike.

[Nearholmer]

Mr May

 

You do take all this terribly seriously, don't you?

 

Conceive it possible for one moment that there might be more than one way to enjoy this wonderful hobby of ours.

 

Kevin

 

PS: Halsey's layout is coming along nicely. Mine's coming along slowly. Are you able to show us how yours is progressing?

Edited December 16, 2015 by Nearholmer

[halsey]

Hi all,

 

Note the topic title has been edited - the track plan as per Jon_1066 post (#98) is a given and well underway ......................

 

I am very happy to learn about layout electrics by trial and error (which works for me) but I wonder if to help my track laying phase progress if someone might point me in the right direction regarding isolated sections and placement of insulated joiners.

 

I am using insulfrog points and have Gaugemaster D series twin controller.

 

The reading I have got through so far suggests that the (3?) crossover sections between goods and main should be isolated from each other but exactly where, and that some short sections should be isolated to allow engines to be "parked" up but again where - is this an exact science or subjective?

 

I suppose the number of your responses will answer the last question.......................

 

Thanks as always.

Edited December 18, 2015 by halsey

[DCB]

There is no real imperative to insulate between insulfrog points forming crossovers, or to have isolated sections for parking locos.  What you may need isolated sections for is fault finding and stopping one train while another runs onto the same loop as in swapping trains over.

 

It may be that your M.O involves simply running trains around the loops and storing other trains in sidings.

 

You are committed to insulfrog points, with modern all wheel pickup locos that should not be a problem, and you have a controller which I assume is DC.

 

There are various method of operating points, the "Overscale Thumb" being my chosen method for visible sidings and diode matrix  Capacitor operation where they can't be seen. Wire in tube can be cheap and very realistic, slow motion motors are expensive and not as realistic when representing signalman operated steam age points, H and M point motors are incredibly reliable... They all work it is just a matter of choosing what suits you.

 

The Titanic is a bigger problem. A disaster narrowly created by the actions of a lookout who saw the iceberg and a helmsman who swung the ship to one side instead of ringing for "Full Astern" and ramming the berg.   Had they hit head on the ship would almost certainly have suffered massive damage to the bow but not have had hundreds of feet of plating caved in along the side and would very likely have either survived or sunk like a stone.  Again had the cracked on at full speed the berg would not have been across their course when the passed it.    Whether re arranging the deckchairs is relevant I have no idea.    How did Titanic deck chairs get into a railway thread anyway?

[Crewlisle]

If you have a (Graden shed) space of 9ft x 7ft, you will never get so much in this space, if the plans shown are anything like what you envisage. Certainly not in "OO" scale. Just possibly in "N". In addition the shed needs VERY good insulation, if all sorts of problems such as track expansion/contraction, damp, and heat are not to have a detrimental effect on anything you build. Before you stick you neck out and waste any money, it would probably be best to join the local Model Railway Club and explain your ideas to them. You will pick up numerous hints and tips, and in many cases you can then see various options on constructional methods on display, and talk methods through with those building them !!!

The Duke 71000  

 

Who says you cannot get that much 00 gauge in a 9ft x 7ft garden shed?  My DCC 00 gauge exhibition layout 'Crewlisle' was started about 40 years ago.  The timescale is1955 to 1985 & includes locos & stock from this period, starting with Stanier Duchesses & finishing with the APT & everything in between!  The basic track layout has not changed much over the years but the layout has continually been evolving.  It is on 3 interconnected levels.  I originally listed what I wanted to put on my 8ft 6ins x 7ft 6ins baseboards - on the high level a 4 platform terminus to handle 6 coach expresses, steam shed, turntable, diesel shed & shunting yard/carriage sidings; on the middle level a double track main line with OLE representing the WCML complete with 3 platform station; on the lower level a reversing loop leaving the 'down' WCML, running down the inside of the central operating well, under the end baseboard then rising up to join the 'up' side of the WCML.  Then I started to fit all the required track in! 

 

I run 49 locos, 65 carriages/parcel coaches & 120 goods wagons.  Now you say, "Where is the fiddle yard?".  To me fiddle yards are a waste of space.  I use fourteen 1370mm cassettes which can be fitted into the reversing loop in the operating well.  Cassettes are replenished from the stock storage boxes as required.  At exhibitions I run a minimum of two & sometimes as many as four locos simultaneously.  It is not exactly prototypical or super detailed but it was built to entertain.  It certainly must entertain as it has been exhibited at the NEC five times (last one three weeks ago) & will be appearing at Alexandra Palace for the second time in 2017.

 

To see a track plan & photos, enter 'Crewlisle' in Google or Firefox & the track plan is on the first page.

 

Peter

Edited December 19, 2015 by Crewlisle

[halsey]

Hi David,

 

My thoughts are the Titanic should be left where it is ..........................

 

It took me a while to digest that lot with lots of diversions to Google to get more info on your wording!

 

Can I ask where would you put isolators on this layout.

 

I am under the impression that with a twin controller it is best to let one control be responsible for the main line and for the other to do other areas.

 

I was thinking one for main line and branch and one for goods and marshalling - if that's the right idea (experienced comments please) how do I do it?

 

I'm really not good at proper wiring diagrams but simple sketches work for me - I have bought a couple of Peco push on side connectors JUST for the purposes of experimenting before I get in to soldering. 

Edited December 19, 2015 by halsey

[Chimer]

OK I'll go first and provide the target .....

 

I would go for 3 sections, the main line, the goods line / fiddle yard, and the branch.  Isolating rail joiners on both tracks between the sections, as shown by the gaps in this simplified diagram.

 

 

The minimum number of feeds are shown - one for the main, two for goods/fiddle and branch, because you need feeds on the headshunts to provide power into the kickback sidings.  Where there are two, they can be linked to one another.  More feeds, e.g one on the other side of the main circuit, one just before the slip at the entrance to the FY, and one at the start of the branch, would help guard against bad connectivity.

 

Provided you don't put any feeds in the sidings, they can all be used to isolate locos, so you don't (in my opinion) need any other isolating sections.

 

I would also arrange things so that each section can be switched to either controller, so when you e.g. take a passenger train from the main to the branch, you set both sections to controller 1, leaving controller 2 switched to the goods yard for shunting purposes.  Then when you want your shunted train to come out from the yard to the main, switch the main over to controller 2, leaving controller 1 to sort out running round the train in the branch station.  This is called cab control (bit old fashioned in the DCC era) and the wiring (for 2 sections) looks like this:

 

 

Best of luck

 

Chris

Edited December 19, 2015 by Chimer

[halsey]

Many thanks - I need to digest this but it looks just what I needed and at first look its also understandable!

 

Watch this space - progress is good but Christmas might get in the way!

 

Have a good one!

[DCB]

I make it 8 feeds required for reasonable flexibility or 7 if you lose that kickback at the terminus, that is if you use insulfrog points as you say you intend to. Pics attached

 

I would use cab control with rotary switches for each section fed by up to three controllers. I would use four way rotaries so as to have an "Off" position, and have every controller able to control any section  That is basically how I wire layouts.  Alternatively the orange could be switched between green and red with an off position but that would not save much complication. I know you have a twin controller but I think you sholud plan for three if not 4. Walkrounds are good, especially Morley and OnTrack with easy disconnect DIN plugs in case you get one wrapped round your foot.

 

With this a train can shunt the branch terminus with a branch train on the branch, maybe waiting for the junction to clear, either main or goods line trains can shunt the marshalling sidings, and a train can depart the marshelling sidings, go round goods and main lines and up to the terrminus all on one controller.   A mainline train can also wait on the yellow section while a marshelling sidings to branch train runs through the red section .  Working signals are good for this sort of stunt. The orange section could be lengthened towards the green and the green section could be shortened if you wanted to shunt the marshelling sidings and green sidings at the same time, (If you have friends round?) 

 

I much prefer to have a long section of branch available as a headshunt rather than have a short separate headshunt as I find these kick back sidings a darned nuisance.   My ideal terminus has a loop and two sidings and only four points.,  

Edited December 20, 2015 by DavidCBroad

[halsey]

Thanks for this David,

My feeling is this is too complicated for me and my use - the layout won't be used by others and I cant control more than 2 control points at once - my reaction is therefore to keep it simpler with the three sections allowing for me to use the main line and goods/marshalling or branch whilst main line is going round the room.

Am I wrong?

I don't mind the idea of more control points but don't want to spend even more if it really wont be used - equally another D2 is only app £50 so notthe end of the world.

[Zomboid]

I would go as flexible as you think you can manage - obviously flexibly means complication. You won't regret building David's system if you go that way as it allows for more future developments (maybe you'll have visitors), but Chimer's system would not be unacceptable if it were my train set.

Depends how happy you are with wiring design, really.

If you want to have switchable sidings, I would put the isolating joiners after the points, with you would then wire through via a switch.

[halsey]

Train set?!

 

Once I have got the main line laid so I can at least move a loco I will pause for much more thought..................

 

Many thanks.

[Nearholmer]

Halsey

 

DCB's sectionalisation has a lot going for it, and it can be implemented without mega-complexity.

 

If you stick with the concept of two controllers, which I fully understand, having only two arms and one brain myself, and put the DPDT switches that select between controllers on a panel in one place, you will only be running two wires to each section.

 

If you add a bit of local isolation, to allow engines to be "parked", it can be quite useful to have the switches for those close to the actual location, which agin keeps wiring-runs simple/short.

 

One thing you will need to think about, unless you use wire-less or wander-lead connected hand-sets, is where to locate the controllers. Personally, I wouldn't "nail that down" until you have played trains a fair bit, because that will make it quite apparent where it is best to have them.

 

Remote or manual uncoupling comes into this, as does personal preference: some people like to sit down and control everything from one place (have you seen the "NASA control centre" layout in RM this month!!!), while others like to wander about, and get very involved with coupling etc. I'm in the latter camp; I have to some exercise somehow!

 

Kevin

[sjp23480]

Halsey,

 

Coming late to this interesting thread. I am not in a position to comment on your plans, there being many right ways to arrive at an interesting operational set up. Others are far better qualified to comment and advise than me.

 

You mentioned interesting reads to help you develop your understanding of the prototype to make your model less of a train set.

 

There are two books by David Jenkinson, a fan of the LMS and an inspiration for many:

 

Historical railway modelling is an excellent read and insight into how to make your model more prototypical without slavishly following those practices

 

Modelling historic railways is an earlier book and is probably less relevant to your situation.

 

I have both, but there is a fair amount of repetition between them and would recommend the former to you.

 

A quick search of Amazon revealed several 2nd hand copies of both available for just a few pounds each: great value for money.

 

Amazon also recommends the Bob Essery (one of Jenkinson's partners in crime) book on train shunting and marshalling, as mentioned earlier in the thread and an essential read for your project, IMHO. Although I do not have this item and it is significantly more expensive.

 

Good luck and keep up the good work,

Stephen

[MikeOxon]

When you have a 'roundy-roundy' loop, it's quite therapeutic to be able to leave one train running round, while you get on with things in the sidings or just sit back and watch.  I like to sit back in the evening, with just the platform lights on and a train plodding gently round, while I ponder life, the universe and everything.  (some people watch goldfish going round their bowl )  As far as I can tell, Chimer's plan would allow for this.

[halsey]

£6.20 just invested with Amazon on "the former" many thanks for the tip.

[DCB]

My suggestions are for DC with Dead Frog points

 

If I had known Chimer was doing a schematic diagram I would never have done my colouring in act as there is really little difference between them. However there is a flaw in Chimers diagram in that trains cannot get from the Marshalling sidings to the main line clockwise as there is no feed to the lower left road out of the double slip? The feed needs to be on the slip to feed both forward and backwards. The whole of the Green trackwork could be fed from here.

 

My suggestion just gives more flexibility. You can isolate a train in what I colour Orange in Chimers suggestion by setting points A and B against it but you cannot isolate the train on the Red while you bring the train from Orange to Green with Chimers suggestion.

you can also use the Marshalling sidings as a passing loop for the main line

 

The problem with shunting while running a roundy roundy train is swapping them over.

 

I would suggest double rail breaks, I put mine two feet from any point on a main line which might be set against a train to provide a fail safe, but it is your choice.

 

Incidentally I always recommend an off position for selector switches, either a centre off DPDT or a spare segment on a rotary as isolating one train while another runs is essential in my experience.

 

I agree running with the room lights off id theraputic, I have and Airfix 2-6-2T with a single headlight and firebox glow which is battered and too rough for daylight use and Triang "B" set of two Brake composites with track powered LEDs in each compartment which likewise are pretty ugly but they look great running on a darkened layout, also I have a Toad brakevan with track powered tail light and interior glow and two Full brakes with battery tail lights, and passing my one coloured light signal and LED lit signal box imparts a sense f realism entirely at odds with the scenery (or lack thereof)

Edited December 21, 2015 by DavidCBroad