Another "Busy" 8x4 Layout

[johnjch2]

Hi All,

 

After 30+ years (I'm 42!) since I've played with a model railway; I've decided to breakout what stock was kept from my childhood days and start a beginner model railway 8x4 size in OO in my garage with the view of then doing a larger model in the future in a cabin/shed in my garden at 14x8 once I have had some practice. 

 

As you can see from the pics; I've built my baseboard and have some rolling stock; e.g. intercity 125, however wheels need a clean, and I guess the motor needs some lubrication but it does just work.

 

 

 

 

I've read many articles; "googling" and trawling forums on layout designs, dcc, points, track etc to get some ideas on where to start with a few views already in mind:

 

1. Will need to have 2 loops of some form - passing trains is always good

 

2. Two stations - drop off and pick up type of scenario

 

2. A shunting yard somewhere on the board

 

3. A fair few sidings (and or branch) - to store trains on the layout including a high speed train - say 4 units

 

4. I'd like to create two levels and get used to gradient work - as my future aspirations will be to do this on a bigger layout so will need practice landscaping

 

5. DCC is the way to go - although I'd like to convert at least my 125 and Deltec

 

6. Possible turntable

 

 

Over-all the layout needs to be fun; doesn't need to be real-world - and is for my kids also - one is 4 1/2 , the other will soon grow up at 1 1/2.

 

 

I've used anyrail 5 to try and create a few initial layout thoughts from designs on the web but I have to stick with 8x4 - no growth with this board.

 

I've come up with the below design which incorporates a high level station platform and a reverse loop which I think works nicely however conscious of possibly a steep gradient.

 

 

I'm an amateur at anyrail - haven't figured out colours and layers yet so I've broken the second tier out as below so it makes sense.

 

 

 

 

I'd like to get some initial thoughts on this and the way to go on general design:

 

1. Is the gradient going to be too steep and if so- how can I raise the top platform a little to extend the run - i.e. I have 3 tiers of height.

2. Radius 2 and 3 only

3. I'm using peco track; however lots of debate on electrofrog for DCC - opinions welcome on a starter layout - would it be better however issue with 50mm / 67 mm on streamline.

4. DCC - wha'ts a good controller i.e. Bachmann Dyn Ultima, NCE Powercab seem reasonable - or Hornby Elite - as starter kits.  I've seen that NCE Powercab initially can only have 2-3 trains?

 

 

Comments and advice welcome:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chimer]

A few random thoughts:

 

You may know this one already - the reverse loop across the centre of the layout has electrical implications, as without some electrickery it forms an immediate short circuit.

 

The reverse loop also means you can't really have the top station at a "half height" level, which could otherwise ease the gradient problem  

 

You could run round a longer train in the branch platform if you reversed the crossovers, especially the one on the left (or put the platform on the other side of the loop).

 

Derailments on the low level pointwork below the branch station throat are going to be a pain to deal with.  Any chance the branch station could be on a separate board sticking out from the bottom right hand corner of the 8' x 4' (could also ease the gradient)?

 

As the branch station won't take more than a 3 coach train, you will probably get away with the gradient as designed in most cases.  But don't forget the thickness of the baseboard and any framing supporting the station.

 

Your design uses Setrack points which are 2nd radius and insulfrog only.  Going electrofrog would mean using Streamline points which are minimum 2' radius, turn out 12 degrees as opposed to Setrack's 22.5, and left to their own devices pull parallel tracks closer together at crossovers (2" vs 2.625" - ah, is that what you mean by "50/67 (mm) issue"?)  An ST-203 between the Streamline points sorts out the track spacing.

 

Your post on the other thread mentioned 5 coach trains.  They're going to look awfully long, and I don't think any of your sidings will hold them. 

 

Wouldn't like to comment on DCC as have never used it.

 

Sorry if that all sounds a bit negative.  But at least with Setrack you can try things and see if they work for you before making anything permanent .....

 

Best of luck

 

Chris

[TonyMay]

Get rid of the return loop and we can start talking.  Your train-set won't work with a return loop like that.  It also looks completely ridiculous.

[Chimer]

Get rid of the return loop and we can start talking.  Your train-set won't work with a return loop like that.  It also looks completely ridiculous.

 

And I thought I was being negative!!  A return loop can work perfectly well given some simple switchery, and looks fine in the context of what the OP wants.

[DCB]

Hi  I would not start with 8X4.  If you can get all around it 8X5 is better, if you have a central operating well 8x6  is better if you can't get all round and it goes long side to the wall then 8X 4 is too big a reach.

 

Anyway the plan.   The sidings are the wrong way round for left hand running as per UK  as you need to reverse in to sidings to shunt, engine trailing   and the return loop is an electrical complication. 

 

However if you mirror image the plan the sidings become trailing problem solved, and if you put two extra sidings on the fan of three and remove the return loop sidings it removes one electrical complication.  as you can put in a diamond crossing and have the loop going from outer main to inner main and not actually forming a loop,

 

See my plan

 

Insulfrog points and three controllers, one for inner main, one for outer main and one for the branch (or just inner and outer main if cash is short) and it should just work  as long as your controllers have a central off position.  OnTrack and Morely dont but old centre off rheostats do. if they dont both need to be set the same way when crossing trains from inner to outer, I do it all the time on my "Floor" layout

[johnjch2]

Thanks for all the feedback,

 

I've re-jigged the layout to enable a longer run up the gradient to the branch line terminus.

 

I've also re-done the shunting area so that all but 1 set of points are in the open. the inner track will just be under the branch line terminus, the outer track will be semi-boxed in.

 

I'm not sure I should go for a reverse loop - a) if the electrics are too difficult B) it does take a lot of room

 

 

 

 

[DCB]

The later plan is awkward with crossovers between the platforms and is going to need very complicated electrics as in DCC which makes the reversing loop difficult.   Without DCC you will need several isolated sections if you are to run more than one train without putting one in a siding while running the other unless you just run one on the inner track and the other on the outer. The earlier layout was better but 4 feet wide is tight if you are not using 1st radius.

 

My second suggestion gives left hand running as per UK, you can run from branch terminus round the loop and back up without running wrong road, the gradient can be kept to 1 in 30 for the 9ft plus length. Th branch station has about the same length as regards train you can run round as your plan and almost all the pointwork is in the open.

 

A return loopdoes take a lot of hassle out of operating as you can reverse a train without  shunting

 

It also allows a train from the branch to be shunted back into a siding and the loco taken to shed. The shed also serves both inner and outer loops as there is a diamond crossing and as the return loop doesn't go from inner main to inner main you avoid the electrical problems.

 

CJ Freezer has a lot of good 8X4 designs  in 60 plans for small railways but they tend to have steep gradients as older locos pulled very much better than modern equivalents

[Chimer]

I agree so much with David that just ticking "agree" is not enough - his second suggestion sorts all the design points that worried me in your first shot, especially shifting the high level station to the side.  Your own second go doesn't look nearly as good as your first to me.  I don't personally like passing a moving train from one controller to another, so I might do something a bit more complicated with the electrics, but it wouldn't be necessary.

 

I would suggest it's well worth you producing David's v2 in Anyrail so you can see just how it fits together - I don't know whether you can just mirror your original design as a first move, I could in Xtrckcad but don't know about Anyrail.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[imt]

I think David's advice is all good, just in case you need any extra encouragement.  Getting the layout set up so it can run "driving on the left" is a good idea, it introduces some idea of prototypical working.  The reversing loop will add more fun and utility to your design, but is a little tricky if you want both DCC and DC wiring.  You need it set up as per David's diagram - i.e leading from the outer to the inner circuit.  This way trains from the upper station can come down to the outer platform, round to the reversing loop, onto the inner cicuit, back round to the inner platform, and back up to the branch station across the facing crossover.

 

Putting the second station above the first means that you can make the branch station a little bigger than shown, with perhaps a small goods yard as well as David's carriage siding.  You could make some model loco shed faces and hide the actual locos under the upper board for example.

 

For electrics look at http://www.brian-lambert.co.uk/Electrical.html.  Also try Googling "reversing loop" as there are lots of ideas out there.  If it was just DCC there are clever electrics at about £30 which fix the problem.

 

If you want some help with Anyrail PM your design to me and I'll send back a "first pass" for you to play with.

[jon_1066]

If you follow David's plan you can move the station and the junction to the right.  This puts the bulk of the platforms "under" the branch terminus - ie it hides them from view.  So you can have a longer train running than your platforms would ordinarily be able to take.  It also disguises the sharp curve.  This also increases the length of your branch hence decreasing it's gradient

 

 

Finally - if you have the reverse loop what do you want the turntable for?  You can reverse locos using the reversing loop.  This could save some dosh and head scratching trying to motorise it.

[imt]

jon_1066 shows the power of Scarm for visualising your layout.  Not used it myself but it makes your idea look good.  Note the "better" (more prototypical) junction to the upper level.  He has however removed all crossovers - you will want one at least. You should probably make them trailing but it's YOUR layout.

 

Do you see how his lower station is partly under your upper station - this is a an idea you will see many times on railway designs on RMWeb, its a way of fooling the eye that your trains are longer than they are.  It may be that you could make the lower station buildings less big, and clearly separate the two.  That MAY give room for more sidings at the top level.

 

If you WANT a turntable, it may be possible to do the same thing with the loco shed as with the main station, i.e hide the lines under the upper station.  Otherwise if you ain't got any steam locos who needs it?

[Jaggzuk]

Glad you have got round so quickly to setting up a topic for your layout and great to see the progress photos too. Not sure though your supervisor looks that impressed in the second photo ;-)

 

Quite a plethora of comments alread, which is great! You can always rely on RMwebers for comment and advice.

 

I posted an answer to your question you posted on my topic here, http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/104302-a-new-family-8x4-layout/?p=2112778 so I won't repeat myself here.

 

I think David & Jon (jon_1066) have offered a great plan that interprets your original idea and the suggestions of others very well. I think they have a gift for that! I know that the reversing loops create electrical problems, but if you go full DCC then this can be taken care of. The running opportunities probably out way the difficulty/cost.

 

Go for DCC from the outset. You do not have much old stock to convert and the investment will be well worth it. There is plenty of advice out there on which system to get, so I will only say take your time and buy what feels right to you. The best you can do is try before you buy. I found that how I instinctively held the throttle really impacted on my choice and and I would not have realised this from just Web surfing. The only other aspect I would recommend is getting a system that uses Digital Encoder for the knob/wheel as this will be much easier to use than the potentiometer type, especially if running multiple locos at different speeds and switching between them.

 

Like you I am creating a layout to be foremost fun but secondly to try out modelling and operating techniques before building bigger. I think this will be important to keep in mind and to make quick progress; kids have short attention spans and certainly do not care about fine detail. As I have said on my topic I am infact finding it very liberating not focusing too much on the fine detail or considering to many permutations, if it feels/looks right go for it! Above all enjoy the build.

 

I shall certainly be following this topic and your progress with anticipation.

[johnjch2]

Once again, many thanks for the most recent updates and feedback; in particular , I really like the new layout and in Scarm.

 

I will download Scarm and have a "play". however I might take you up on your offer of re-modelling my AnyRail design above to meet the above Scarm view - with the additional crossover.

 

Assuming then all is good to 'nearly' go - one final element is how do I fit in electrofrog points as they are not the same size as settrack points; and do I need to do all the mods I have read elsewhere on the net.

 

Controller wise - any recommendations + I pretty much want to purchase the track at the weekend and start laying it out to get a physical feel for the layout

[DCB]

The most widely available live frog points are Peco streamline which have a shallower crossing angle and give closer track spacing than Set track.   The whole layout would need a redesign for streamline points as the track spacing would need to be adjusted  and it may well not be possible to get it all in 4 feet width.  Live frog gives different electrical problems/ issues to dead frogs.    Personally I would stay with Insulfrog Set track points.

 

I have live frogged some elderly set track points while shortening them to get more siding length but it is not for the inexperienced and my failure rate is around 50% 

[Chimer]

Once again, many thanks for the most recent updates and feedback; in particular , I really like the new layout and in Scarm.

 

I will download Scarm and have a "play". however I might take you up on your offer of re-modelling my AnyRail design above to meet the above Scarm view - with the additional crossover.

 

Assuming then all is good to 'nearly' go - one final element is how do I fit in electrofrog points as they are not the same size as settrack points; and do I need to do all the mods I have read elsewhere on the net.

 

Controller wise - any recommendations + I pretty much want to purchase the track at the weekend and start laying it out to get a physical feel for the layout

 

Having seen David's reply (arrived while typing), if you still do want to go electrofrog, read on ....

 

The small radius Streamline turnouts are only 1/2" longer than Setrack points so they will basically fit OK, they just don't match the Setrack curves and strights.  If you want to retain Setrack track spacings so you can use radius 2 and radius 3 curves, an ST-308 between the two points forming a crossover fixes that (close enough anyway).  As the points only turn out 12 degrees, you will need to use bits of Streamline flexitrack to turn back parallel, Setrack curves won't do, so I would suggest you use Streamline for everything except the 90 degree bends (cheaper anyway than Setrack straights).  You will need to use a Streamline diamond as well, otherwise the geometry won't work - you might want to consider using insulfrog for the diamond as you have to do some extra switchery for an electrofrog diamond - this is not an optional extra.  The extra wiring to the frogs on electrofrog points is entirely optional and personally I wouldn't bother at this stage (though others will howl me down).  Electrofrog points do mean you will need to fit insulating fishplates in a number of places depending on where you provide power feeds to the track - basically you need to stop electricity arriving at the frog from the "Y" end of the point - which in turn means you will need more feeds than you would using insulfrog points.  But lots of people on here will give advice on all these aspects (or see Brian Lambert's brilliant website (http://www.brian-lambert.co.uk/Electrical.html) if you like working things out for yourself.

 

Best of luck

 

Chris

[johnjch2]

I've just had a go at re-designing the above in any-rail; a few tweaks needed but does work.

[imt]

Not quite.  Please take another look at the Scarm diagram.  There are 2 diamond crossings.  The return loop in the centre needs to leave the outer line at the bottom and cross the inner line via a diamond.  Hence the train moves from the outer line to the inner line when reversing.  Trains drive on the left.  The return to the upper level (to be prototypical which is not essential) needs to leave the inner line and cross the outer line via a diamond crossing again.  That crossover you have put in is facing the direction of travel of a train.  Not so much these days, but in the past on real railways facing crossovers were avoided.  BUT its your railway!  The outer to inner crossing on your reversing loop would make the electrics simpler for DC too.

 

For a starter layout there is no harm in using Peco Setrack.  I have only had problems in the past with curved points.  Chimer gives good advice if you want to use Streamline.

 

I agree you don't need to worry about complicated electrofrog wiring unless you want to.

 

I use DCC and NCE Powercab and am happy with it.  You can easily run several locos at once if you have a roundy roundy. BUT unless you have eyes in the back of your head and superb manual dexterity you would need to be VERY careful trying that with 2 locos shunting!  If there are going to be 2 sets of hands you need 2 controllers.

[Chimer]

I've just tried in Xtrckcad, and discovered you can't do David's suggested reverse loop from the outer circuit to the inner (i.e. using a diamond to cross the inner circuit at the bottom) using Streamline geometry - not enough room for the S-curve even using second radius.  You can do it the way you've drawn it (inner to inner) but then you really need another crossover after it joins the inner circuit at the bottom and I can't fit that in either .....

 

No more playtime until Sunday evening, might have another go then ..... but it looks like you might have to stick to Setrack ....

 

Chris

[Chris116]

The trouble with an 8 x 4 is that you need 2 feet all around it so that you can reach everything. That means you need 12 x 8 space to fit your 8 x 4 railway which tends to waste rather a lot of space. You also face being able to see everything from wherever you stand with an 8 x 4 which means it feels like the trains are just going around in circles. If you were to extend the outside measurements to 10 x 6 but have a 6 x 2 hole in the middle then the trains go around you, the trains have a longer run with gradients being reduced and the layout takes up slightly less space. I know you cannot have the reverse loop but you could fit in a terminal platform on your lower station so that trains can either go round in circles on the double track or go from one station to another end to end. By mixing the two services you get some interesting operation and because those going round in circles go out of your field of vision every so often they appear to be going somewhere other than just round in circles.

 

Good luck with the layout, I hope you get a lot of enjoyment from it.

 

Chris

[Pete the Elaner]

I use DCC and NCE Powercab and am happy with it.  You can easily run several locos at once if you have a roundy roundy. BUT unless you have eyes in the back of your head and superb manual dexterity you would need to be VERY careful trying that with 2 locos shunting!  If there are going to be 2 sets of hands you need 2 controllers.

I'm a Powercab user too. The 2-loco limit you've heard of is chinese whispers..

The older version (which I still use) has a limit in the RECALL STACK of 2 locos. You can select locos from the recall stack at the press of a button. The later version (which you should get if you buy a new Powercab) has 6 in the recall stack.

If a loco is not in the recall stack, it will continue to work. If you want to control it again, you can always re-select it by number. On the older firmware, selecting a loco by number reset its functions (sound, lights, speed to zero) but there was always a setting on the throttle which deactivates this feature.

You can then have several locos sitting in the yard all with their lights on or with sound on, ticking over until you re-select them.

The limit on number of locos in use is the amount of current they draw. The Powercab can also be made to display how much current it is supplying. If you find you need to draw more than it can supply, then you could always update it later on.

One of Powercab's strongest points is its modularity. The Powercab is essentially a very good starter set. If your layout grows beyond it, you can buy all the components separately to upgrade it to whatever you want.

 

My personal opinion on the layout plan is that you have too much track. My old one was something similar but I wanted to start adding some scenery. I couldn't because there was track everywhere, especially after dad slapped on about 3 extra sidings using old, broken pointwork simply because they could fit.

 

But there is nothing wrong with just blasting trains around if that's what you want to do. The hobby has many attractions, none more important than others.

[johnjch2]

I might reduce the number of sidings to allow for a bit more scenery, but it's more of a "play and practice set" for my larger 'shed' version I will do when I am more comfortable; but I agree limited for scenery.

 

Thanks for the tips on the PowerCab; I think my local model shop only sells the Hornby elite and Bachmann Ultima at the moment - Ill check tomorrow when I call in.  They all seem to have advantages and disadvantages.  One thing I do like about the Hornby is 2 knobs! but its very expensive for what u get.

[Jaggzuk]

I think from the experience of my 8x4, you will find it very difficult to keep the layout 'busy' track wise with Streamline, it just makes everything more spaced out. I managed to use a couple, but only because I already had them and was trying to save the expense of buying all new points. So I would stick with Setrack.

 

I like the plan and the reversing loop makes for a full range of operational possibilities. But I agree with imt that you need at least the cross over at the bottom of the layout otherwise you will lose some operational flexibility and will be running more trains in the wrong direction + kids = crashes.

 

Using Setrack the removed the issue of electrofrog, as they are only insulated frogs. You will have plenty else to worty about than having to wire up all the points for polarity switching.

 

I too have a NEC Powercab and really like it. Tried others when visiting Digitrains in Lincoln and found it the easiest to hold and work with. I found I could actually use it left or righthand which meant it frees you dominant hand for doing things like uncoupling, point control and other hands on tasks. Easy to walk round the layout with it too. You can add another throttle (NEC CAB04,05 or 06) very easily for two operator control; 2 kids, a very useful feature.

 

Hope you have a productive weekend.

 

Paul

[Jaggzuk]

 

Thanks for the tips on the PowerCab; I think my local model shop only sells the Hornby elite and Bachmann Ultima at the moment - Ill check tomorrow when I call in.  They all seem to have advantages and disadvantages.  One thing I do like about the Hornby is 2 knobs! but its very expensive for what u get.

The big issue with the Hornby and Bachmann starter DCC controller is they have potentiometer knobs. What that means is lets say you set train 1 to 50% of its speed, now select train 2, the knob is still at 50% possition, you need to turn it to zero to start to controll train 2. Set train 2 to say 25%, and then switch back to train 1, you have to with turn the knob back to 50% before you can control it's speed.

 

Well that was the way i found it on a friends Hornby Elite? But i do stand to be corrected.

 

I would say buy a system that will grow with you and can be used on you shed layabout later.

[Chimer]

The trouble with an 8 x 4 is that you need 2 feet all around it so that you can reach everything. That means you need 12 x 8 space to fit your 8 x 4 railway which tends to waste rather a lot of space. You also face being able to see everything from wherever you stand with an 8 x 4 which means it feels like the trains are just going around in circles. If you were to extend the outside measurements to 10 x 6 but have a 6 x 2 hole in the middle then the trains go around you, the trains have a longer run with gradients being reduced and the layout takes up slightly less space. I know you cannot have the reverse loop but you could fit in a terminal platform on your lower station so that trains can either go round in circles on the double track or go from one station to another end to end. By mixing the two services you get some interesting operation and because those going round in circles go out of your field of vision every so often they appear to be going somewhere other than just round in circles.

 

Good luck with the layout, I hope you get a lot of enjoyment from it.

 

Chris

 

Sorry, but the trouble with people who don't read a thread from the start is that they don't realise that the baseboard exists already and there is plenty of room around it - otherwise I agree with everything you say!

 

(Another) Chris

[Chris116]

Thank you Chimer for your comment. I had read the whole of this topic from the start. Many years ago when I was still at school a friend of my family built a model railway on an 8 x 4 and because I also had a layout I was asked to go round to help him. We had a number of operating sessions but he was not happy with the layout due to the very short trains that were possible. I told him very much what I said in my previous post and we set about cutting the baseboard in half, building two more boards to enlarge it in the way I suggested above. It took about two months of working two or three nights a week and the new layout was a great success. He admitted to me some years later that if I had not got him to rebuild it he would probably have given up on model railways within 18 months, as it was he enjoyed the bigger layout until he sadly died.