My first layout, feedback wanted

[Jherek]

Hi, I'm designing a layout and would like some feedback before I go any further, I've got some 35yr old Hornby rolling stock my Dad gave back to me recently and thought I'd

build a small 5ft x 1ft layout with the intention wiring for DC and then exploring dcc / computer automation on the layout later. I've been reading carendt.com and Carl's books

and designed this based upon 'Hylton'. The intention is incoporate an inglenook puzzle and use the engine shed as the headshunt, but I'm not sure if I should do that?

 

I've bought a few bits of peco code 100 flex track, a couple of short radius wyes (streamline) and short radius insulfrog points.

 

I'd like to incorporate some industrial buildings (maybe instead of the goods shed), an engine shed (single) and canal with barge loading. 

 

Although this would be more suited to OO9 or both OO/OO9, I'd like to cut my teeth on something that I can get running with the stock I had and experiment with dcc before I 

introduce more complexity with the models.

 

Thanks

 

Simon

[kev]

I would lay the track out and run it for a bit possible not bother with the short siding so as to give you scoop to load or unload at your  canal side just my thoughts

kev

[Steam_Julie]

Have you considered using a couple of Peco loco lifts, joined together permanently using plywood sides, and electronically joined with soldered jumpers.

You could then assemble longer trains off scene. A series of parallel tracks on a suitable piece of ply, with a plunged jumper, could then serve as a fiddlyard extension.

Julie

[Jherek]

Kev, I've ditched the 'disused siding' and mocked up the track, my headshunt is not long enough for an inglenook puzzle so I'm looking at other options. 

 

Acklam, I like your bridge street, well detailed.

 

Julie, I did consider a traverser plate but it seems like hassle, I'll have a look at loco lifts,

 

thanks

 

Si

[jamesg]

Hi Simon,

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

Just thought I'd share a little bit of experience, as my current layout is very similar to the one you have proposed.  I made some alterations recently, including to remove a siding roughly where your 'disused siding' is on the plan.  The extra length of plain track rather than pointwork means that I can fit more stock onto the layout with less track.  Also, where the track disappears under the viaduct in your plan, I added a removable fiddle yard that is the same length as the layout, allowing any length train to run on or off.  I'd remove the engine shed in your plan, straighten the headshunt and extend it onto the removable fiddle yard board - this would give ample headshunt room.  Making the headshunt too short is a mistake that I've made in the past and won't be repeating because it makes the layout difficult to operate (there's a reason that the inglenook plan is called a 'puzzle').

 

After making similar changes to my layout, it became much more fun to operate and I'm not left wanting any more track.  The only other thing I might have done is to make the whole baseboard a little deeper to allow for more scenery, but that's a very subjective point.

[Jherek]

Thanks James,

 

I tried moving the wye's left to increase the left of the headshunt and I didn't like it, so here is the plan I plan to mock up now, I've only got 7ft between the walls so I'll add a 2ft fiddle yard with parallel tracks - I'll see if I can do a traverser plate.

 

Although I could go deeper 18-24" I restricted myself to 12" so the layout will blend in with shelves. I've made the baseboard so I don't think I'll be going any bigger than 5' x 1' for the scenic board.

 

Simon

 

 

 

 

[jamesg]

This plan is looking great now.  A 2' long traverser will add plenty of room to the headshunt - I'd start thinking about using the space to make the loop longer instead.  Is it likely that the locomotive bringing a train in will shunt it, or will the locomotive be shunt released from the train by a second locomotive?  If the former, it might be worth changing the left-hand crossover on the left for a right-hand one, making the top half of the loop longer.  If you can, test everything fully before committing to a layout.

 

Understood that a 1' wide board is best.  As long as the warehouse backscene won't be too deep, there should be enough room for the three parallel tracks.

 

I'm really looking forward to seeing the layout evolve now.

[andyram]

I like the track plan. It looks a promising project. I will follow with interest.

[Jherek]

I've printed out the track plan 1:1, laid it out and assembled a metcalfe viaduct kit, it was obvious that I could only fit two double track arches on the board and I've altered the head shunt to run parallel to the top track and moved the wyes. 

This plan uses one more point (turnout). I've lengthed the passing loop and reversed the left hand crossover (thanks jamesg). By pushing the top two tracks apart, I can move the engine shed onto the middle 

track, keeping the tracks parallel and giving more room to scenery on the back left. I've decided that the canal should be modelled off the board, I'm considering a bolt on section on the front with canal, which I would add at a later date, this frees up on the foreground and 

front right for something like a brewery or factory serviced by a switch back. 

[jamesg]

This is good, you can bring a good length train onto the top of the loop now - it looks like this section will be the bottleneck on the length of train that can be accommodated.  The location of the engine shed is better as well; it can be accessed without disturbing any vehicles in the canal siding.

 

While the brewery/factory siding adds interest, it's going to be difficult to access.  Wagons will have to be propelled into the headshunt and reversed along the canal siding.  Could the two Y points linking the canal, brewery and loop be replaced by a single slip?  That way, both sidings can be accessed without shunting wagons into the headshunt.

[Jherek]

I could replace the wyes with a single slip, that would make sense, however it reduces the space above the brewery/factory siding and I've already got a couple of wyes handy. I'm going to fit the track with the wyes and have a go, if it's no good, I'll change it. 

[kev]

You got some good feed back so i would lay track and run trains to see if you like the layout then go from there all the best

kev

[andyram]

It is looking good. Maybe you could add a small platform near to the warehouses to allow you to run a short passenger train if you wish.

[peak experience]

I prefer your very first design. I like the small 'disused' siding; I'd use it as a cripple siding for the odd broken wagon or as a lay-by for a shunter. I like the engine shed and it's approx' position but I wouldn't have it approached by the radius of curve in your design, it looks too tight. Other than that, I think it offers lots of operational potential.

[Jherek]

Just thought I'd post a few pics to show what I've done so far and my thoughts - 

 

 

 

IMG_6350

 

IMG_6349 

 

 

I've made the baseboard from 22x44mm pine in a 5ft ladder with an top mdf (what was kicking around ) and topped with cork floor tiles, there's a separate 2ft fiddle yard to the right ( out of camera).

The back/side boards are 3mm white covered hardwood, lighting via an under cabinet link strip light, I need another for more even lighting. I also need to bring the light out by 3-4 inches to avoid shadows on the front track. 

Buildings are metcalfe for now, I wanted some quick scenery for now and to scatch build stuff later. Wiring is DC, I'm going to DCC when I fix the track down. 

 

After a few weeks of playing with operating the layout, I've come to a few conclusions - 

 

• I need hands free uncoupling so I've bought kadees and will be burying magnets under the track.
• Insulfrog points short with old locos and my lovely new peckett stalls on them, so I will replace the points with electrofrog.
• The kickback siding front right doesn't add interest
• The layout needs some buildings front right and left for the trains to disappear behind.
• I can't help thinking making the baseboard 6 inches wider would open up more scenic possibilities and help the layout breathe, adding a tapered baseboard extension to the front would help
• Right now I'm thinking of replacing the two wyes with a single right hand point

 

Simon

[Pete the Elaner]

I am surprised insulfrog points cause shorts. Electrofrogs require more wiring but once this is done, they will be better.

Do you need double track access? The layout looks too small to justify it. The original line could only access 1 siding; access to the others required shunting. The new line in your re-design can access all sidings so I would keep this & remove the other one.

Less track may allow you to make it look uncluttered without having to add mode ground space for scenery & buildings.

Every track needs a purpose. If you can't think of a purpose for it, don't lay it. That will also give you less pointwork to buy & wire up.

[rue_d_etropal]

I would look at those points closer before replacing them.The isolated gaps are not that big, and problems can be caused by track not being dead level.  Hard wiring them and adding isolated sections cures a lot of the problems. I have seen more problems with electrofrog points, especially when temperature varies(home/exhibition venue) .

[Pete the Elaner]

I have seen more problems with electrofrog points, especially when temperature varies(home/exhibition venue) .

I can see where you're coming from with that. Poor Electrofrog performance is usually caused by poor application, not environment though. The environment just gets the blame because whoever wired the point up did not know they did an incomplete job, then blames the point for being poor.

If they knew how to wire it completely, they would have done this in the first place.

 

Straight from the box, an Electrofrog point can be unreliable, especially a code 75 one which has no under-rail contacts & relies point blades for contact...the same blades which have usually been painted rust colour.

Once the underside contacts have been cut, the rail ends insulated, the switch rails fed separately & the frog powered by a reliable switch, Electrofrog points will give better running. That sounds more complicated than it is, especially if you work on 1 point at a time.

[jamesg]

Hi Simon,

 

Excellent work so far!  The warehouses use the vertical space very effectively, without overwhelming the trains.  Removing the kickback siding will give some more room for scenery, without compromising operations.

 

As I understand the plan, the middle road on the right is a headshunt, and doesn't extend beyond the station limits.  The rearmost road on the right represents the branch and ultimately a main line.

 

If you go down the route of using electrofrog points, it's worth setting them up properly, especially for DCC.  This means switching the frog using an external switch or frog juicer.  Be sure to cut the wire bonds first, this will stop the point's internal (unreliable) switching conflicting with an external switch, causing a DCC short.  But, like Simon Dawson says, it's a good idea to check that the insulfrog points are dead level and that everything (track and wheels) is clean.

[rue_d_etropal]

My point(sorry no pun intended!) is that there is no need to over complex the build. I have probably builft more layouts for exhibitions than most here. Granted many are experiments, and are only shown once, but all have worked. I never use electrofrog, but do make sure the locos I use, actually work properly.

I now wire up my points, continental style, and that is more a belt and braces than is absolutely necessary. A friend has had several exhibition layouts, mostly with insulated frog points, and had no problems. We even tried out the new Peckett on our test circuit which has both Peco and Hornby setrack points and it performed perfectly. In fact most problems are caused by dodgy pickups on locos. I am just building a new boxfile lid layout and that uses Peco curved setrack points which have a longer dead section. I tested it using a Hornby 2BIL motor unit and it worked perfectly.

 

I also recommend investing in a carpenter's pencil, as a thin layer of graphite improves running. It does make rail slipery so is no good for mainline trains or any slope, but for shunting layouts they work far better than a track rubber, although I do suggest using one initially, as it will scratch the top surface of the rail, and binds the graphite in even better. It is even possible to run a thin line along part of the plastic part of the frog.