Ed Winterbury Posted September 12, 2017 Author Share Posted September 12, 2017 Sorry for the pestering and please keep the ideas coming! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chimer Posted September 12, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 12, 2017 Sorry for the pestering and please keep the ideas coming! Aaaarrrrghhhh! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 Layout design. There are 133 pages of layout threads in this section of RMWeb, 25 threads per page. Most of them have a track plan somewhere in the first few pages, or a photo showing an overall view. Then in the "Layout and Track Design" section of the "Skills and Knowledge Centre" there are 62 more pages of threads, most of which start with someone's original idea (or lack of idea) of a plan and are followed by everybody else's ideas on how to improve it - most of which will be contradictory. So that's about 5000 ideas for you to look at, at least 500 of which will fit into your available space. Rural, urban, busy, sleepy, modern, ancient, goods yard, loco depot, station, harbour, with or without any scenery, with or without any points (?), even Discworld iirc - all railway life is there. Until you have a clearer idea of what you might like to do, asking us to produce #5001 is a bit - umm - pointless. Have you got any track yet? If you have, it might be worth just sticking some of it at random on one of your 6' x 2's and playing trains for a bit. Tell us what you've got, and someone might even draw you a plan that uses it, maybe for a shunting puzzle to find out if you like shunting trucks about. It seems to be my fate to play bad cop on this thread....... Bad cop? More like both good cop & bad cop While many of us will have seen some discussions several times, someone new will not have done & trundling through loads of old threads can be a bit daunting. I agree that there are many ideas & plans which have been discussed on here in the past, but you could lose your like (& mind) trying to look them all up. Forums are great for chat but not the best at storing information in a structured manner from which it can be easily retrieved. I like your second point about laying some track & just running trains for a while. It is rewarding to have got to a point where you can run trains & can help to choose what you really want to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold sjrixon Posted September 12, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 12, 2017 This... https://www.modelrailwaysdirect.co.uk/publications/brm-htb-how-to-buildyour-first-train-set/ 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) As for Track Plans, well. ''A'' Decide what era / Region then firstly look at a Prototype. ''B'' Then trim to suit. So for example if you want a Modern Busy Terminus, have a look at Cromer, Blackpool, Portsmouth Harbour. If you want GWR Rural Country Scene, then look at Ashburton, Bodmin, etc. Your FIRST PRIORITY should be deciding on what YOU want then look at some Prototypes, then ask for help fitting it into your available space. PECO do some excellent books with small Modern Terminus Track Plans, most of which would fit your size board. Edited September 12, 2017 by Andrew P 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted September 12, 2017 Author Share Posted September 12, 2017 Thanks, sorry for pestering and please keep it coming! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aac Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 Thanks, sorry for pestering and please keep it coming! Please, just consider this link, specifically the photos in posts #9 and 10. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/123673-severnside-recycling/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejstubbs Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 Thanks, sorry for pestering and please keep it coming! Please do stop doing this, it does become really quite annoying. If you want to "bump" your thread then I'd suggest posting a summary of the ideas you are currently toying with in terms of a layout - ie provide some actual input from yourself. This will give people an idea of which direction you're thinking of going in, and is likely to spark input from people who have seen or even done something similar. The first reply on this thread from Clive Mortimore asked seven questions to help provide context to your request for advice. As far as I can see you've so far spent most of your effort answering the last one, about the space you have available, and little to nothing about the preceding six. But those are arguably the most important ones to think about before starting to design something: answering those will help to understand your requirements - space is just a constraint. If you are totally devoid of any initial inspiration then you could buy one or more of the trackplans books which have already been recommended on this thread and peruse them thoroughly - or even flick through the model railway magazines in W H Smiths every so often (until they shoo you away!) IIRC, though, you've already joined in on one of the many threads on here about Minories, so why not post about the ideas that that basic plan has sparked in your mind? I'd also echo Chimer's suggestion to just slap some track down and "play trains" for a bit, as a way to get an understanding of what kind of things motivate you. You may discover that you find it highly satisfying to watch trains go round and round. Or shunting might turn out to be your thing. You might even decide that the actual operation of the layout isn't the main interest for you, and that what you most enjoy is building the scenery and structures that give the railway a "real life" context. Simply asking other people to recommend you a layout runs the risk that you end up building someone else's layout ie one that would push all their buttons, but might not push enough of yours. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) The original intention might have been for it to be 3rd rail themed but most of the photos of it in BRM had steam in shot - alongside blue and grey EMUs - and they added a turntable to it later! The awkward layout was compounded by the fact that the goods shed and yard were parallel to platform three, but only accessible via a headshunt which kicked back off the platform three road. I always thought that arrangement looked pretty inconvenient. I presume the idea was to use a loco from the stabling point to draw the goods wagons back in to the headshunt, but even that would have required a bit of to-ing and fro-ing to get the loco from one side of the layout to the other. The project featured in the January to April 2010 editions of BRM. There was a later article, in the December edition, which covered the construction of the turntable, and the addition of a short scenic section featuring a canal. I'm afraid that awkwardness was down to Cyril Freezer. The BRM project layout Cannon's Cross was closely based on the goods warehouse version of Minories from the 1957 article but widened slightly to be a goods yard rather than a covered warehouse. For an "other end of the line" SR terminus (I was reminded of Littlehampton) that seemed entirely appropriate. However, I always thought Cyril Freezer's original addition of goods to the basic scheme was a bit of a last minute bolt on (Were Peco's TT-3 Wonderful Wagons already in preparation in May 1957?) His subsequent versions of Minories that included goods/parcels faciltiies all AFAIK had then as a kickback from platform three or a headshunt alongside it. The narrow goods warehouse isn't a bad idea for a City terminus as it occupies less width than a goods yard and there were prototype examples. There was also a good example of this in the P4 layout Clarendon. I think the original plan might work with no extra length by adding a crossover between the goods headshunt and the inbound main line You might though have to assume a crossover beyond the scenic section for goods departures Not looking clearly enough at my own plan. So long as the goods siding next to the platform 3 track can be used as a goods departure road then a short goods train can reach the outbound main line. For a smallish goods yard we're probably looking at trip workings to a marshalling yard. The other thing that did seem a bit odd with Cannon's Cross was to have both a small MPD and a separate loco layover siding but others have turned that spur into a short parcels road. This was Brian Thomas' original O scale "Newford". A very nice Southern Electric version of Minories that was later sold to become part of "Littleton" Edited September 12, 2017 by Pacific231G 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted September 12, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) Yes, please stop continually apologising, and please don't stop apologising with an apology for continually apologising; the thread exists to disseminate information for everyone's mutual benefit and you are actually allowed, even encouraged, to ask questions, and the only thing you have to apologise for is continually apologising! You use of MDF as a baseboard material is not what I'd have recommended, and may have issues in a damp kitchen environment, but elsewhere in your home may be ok for a good bit more than 5 years at a time, so long as there is no need to move the layout very often and they are properly braced and strengthened, which will make them heavy. I use it, and my running is pretty good If you don't mind the comment, Ed, you seem a little scattergun in your approach at the moment and perhaps do not yet have a clear enough idea of what you want your model to do in terms of operation or be of, if anything, in terms of concept or period, to make a start on it without needing to re-plan half way through, an enthusiasm draining prospect. For now, might I suggest making a plank, which I know will be exactly the sort of limited operation one train a week on alternate Thursdays branch you don't want, but work with me for a moment; by a plank, I mean a limited space branch on one solid piece of wood, a shunting problem, simple branch terminus, or depot layout quickly and easily built and put into operation and capable of being run off one pair of wires. It will give you a bit of a better idea of what you are reasonably capable of (which I suspect is more than you think you are), show you the basics of track planning, laying, and wiring, generally give you a bit of background experience in the limitations of set track geometry and tension lock coupling, and not cost a huge amount of money. Because it can be quickly got into operation, you will be able to maintain enthusiasm and momentum where getting stuck with a bigger project might sap those things. If you rely on 'out of the box' RTR it can be up and running in an afternoon session. Mine was called Plankton, but the world has forgiven me for that, now. By the time you've done that, you'll have answered a lot of your questions yourself and be answering others on this site! Some of your questions can only be answered by yourself, as it is your railway and you are the only person authorised to apply Rule 1 to it! When that's done, and armed with your new found knowledge and experience, you will be in a much better position to make decisions about, plan, build, and operate a bigger and more operationally interesting railway. And your plank can still fulfil a role as a layout in a smaller room or a branch terminus off the new big layout. This is intended as general advice, and I hope you won't take it as criticism or as patronising, which is certainly not my intention. My advice on the subject of the very next thing to do is to go up the pub, sit down in a quiet corner with a pint, and have a think about it all... Edited September 12, 2017 by The Johnster 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted September 13, 2017 Author Share Posted September 13, 2017 Ok. I'm now going to answer the questions put forwards at the start of the thread. I have now ascertained over the past week and 4 pages that I will be working in the BR 1960s era since I have 6 or 7 locos in that era with suburban stock. The rolling stock is something I can upgrade. That also answer a few other questions. As to a location, I am not too bothered if it is real life or not, so long as it keeps operational potential. I don't mind a bit of shunting, but I don't want that to be the main task. I don't care what board setup I should use but I have got a photo of the room I'm working with. Unfortunately, the mentioned 12'x8' room is not usable, after discussing the matter with the household authorities. I hope that answers everyone's questions, and please keep the help coming! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted September 13, 2017 Author Share Posted September 13, 2017 Last year, I set up a hastily thought out 12'x8' continuous run, but it was frustrating to have to crawl in and out, as well as the fact that it was more or less just two loops and not much more. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aac Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 ........and please keep the help coming! I'm not sure that you are clear in your own mind what help you need. You have space constraints yet want a fairly grandiose set-up, mixed UK and non-UK stock, DC locos but hope to do DCC (If they are convertible - do you know?), and baseboards that will become a liability. This forum is full of ideas and examples for all the challenges you face, so it might be worth settling down for a few hours to see what others do when the harsh realities and limitations of cost, space, time and know-how moderate their dreams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted September 13, 2017 Author Share Posted September 13, 2017 Forums are great for chatting in the here and now, but quite bad for archiving and later retrieval. It is for this reason that I invite everyone who might know this and that about different ideas. That is probably ideal, instead of me trawling through the forum endlessly. If everyone has a few ideas, then there may just be one I want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted September 13, 2017 Author Share Posted September 13, 2017 Yes, and once more, please keep the ideas rolling in! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted September 13, 2017 Author Share Posted September 13, 2017 As noted by Ejstubbs, I will now offer links to some of the layouts that inspire(d) me. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/92607-emsworth/, but the layout requires far too many expensive locos I don't have. With shunting ideas, I have thought of a 'Timesaver' idea. The tunnel mouth could lead to a fiddle yard on one end and a through line on the other. Here's a photo. Another issue would be the terminus design. Minories might work? I am not too insistent on a mainline anymore, a branch is fine, so long as there are enough trains. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free At Last Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 As noted by Ejstubbs, I will now offer links to some of the layouts that inspire(d) me. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/92607-emsworth/, but the layout requires far too many expensive locos I don't have. Yes, the pictures are very inspiring. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted September 13, 2017 Author Share Posted September 13, 2017 Yes, and? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejstubbs Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Minories might work? I am not too insistent on a mainline anymore, a branch is fine, so long as there are enough trains. One of the good things about Minories and its ilk is that it's the terminus of a double track main line, rather than a single track, so you can have trains arriving and departing in close succession (or even simultaneously, if you have the mental bandwidth to drive two trains at once - or two operators, or computer control). It was designed the way it is for pretty much exactly that reason. I'd suggest having a look through danstercivicman's Birmingham Hope Street layout thread as an example. Helpfully, he has provided the timetable that he operates the layout to. My layout, while not being Minories-like (it only has two platforms for start, rather than three) is the terminus of a double track main line for similar reasons (although my operations are by no means as intensive as are achieved on some Minories layouts). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted September 13, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 13, 2017 (edited) So it's back to the kitchen, or nothing. I still think an exploratory plank will give you a better idea of your capabilities and focus your intentions, but we have now narrowed this to the 60s changeover; very popular choice with a huge amount of support from the trade and vast amounts of information for at least the next 20 years while those of us that remember it die off and all our records and photos are landfilled. Area and stock are not important, yet. The plan you have just illustrated would do nicely for the plank, with the advantage that it is small enough (I make it about 5' x 2') to be put up on a living room table and stored in a cupboard or utility room when not used; the household authorities may go for this, especially if they are amenable to sharing their kitchen with a railway.. You seem to be heading towards some sort of Minories derivate with a freight component for the eventual bigger layout, and this is a proven plan with plenty of operation and a bit of shunting when you want it. Shunting seems to be a personal thing; some people regard it as a chore, and others, myself included, find it incredibly relaxing and therapuetic. I would abandon the MDF boards for the plank, it needs to be lightweight and rigid. A plywood top braced by 2 x 1 edge mounted, with the wiring contained beneath it by an easily removable hardboard sheet for protection when the layout is stored is the way I'd go for it. The big layout in the kitchen may yet see some use for the MDF, but it will need to be very well sealed, and resealed every time you compromise the sealing material by drilling or cutting into the boards. I would use 50/50 water/pva, brushed on thick and liberally, both sides and the ends, which should keep the damp out, but you may be re-thinking your boards altogether by now. My advice, FWIW, is to leave the big layout for now and build a plank. Decide on trackwork standard for both of them, as you will be running the same stock on both; setrack or Peco flexi, Code 100 or Code 75. Setrack will save space but may limit the type of stock you can run or how it will look; 64' coaches were common in the 60s and look odd and out of line with each other on reverse curves. Model railway curves are insanely out of scale in terms of sharpness as a rule anyway, something the rivet counters who tear each newly released model to pieces for inaccuracy should bear in mind a little more than some of them do, but setrack, even no.4, would be unacceptable to me personally on the visible part of a layout (I have a no.3 in the fiddle yard). If you go for Flexi, it is available in Code 100 or 75; 100 is a coarser scale which might be more suitable for your older stock inherited from the bought layout, and 75 may prove a little fragile for the plank if it is to be regularly taken down and stored. The next decision is couplings. Simplest, and probably what is already fitted to your stock, are tension locks which will in any case probably be necessary if you go the setrack route in order to prevent lock buffering. They are by no means the standard they claim to be, and not easily upgradable to modern NEM pocket types on older stock, and you may have some faffing about to do to obtain reliable running with them. Alternatives are Kaydees, which I get confused about owing to the plethora of different fittings but have a loyal following on this site, the various 'Sprat and Winkle' automatic types, and scale, which means instanter chain or screw for the 60s period. All need to be mounted at a standard height above rail level to work reliably, and scale couplers are not conducive to good running on curves much sharper than 30 inches radius if propelling, an intrinsic feature of Minories derivate plans. These two elements, track standards/geometry and couplings, will determine the minimum radius of curvature you can use. The length of your longest train will determine the length of the longest fiddle yard siding and platform road, with end clearance allowed for, and the length of your longest locomotive will determine that of headshunts and loco spurs, again with clearance allowed for; armed with these two dimensions you can draw up your track plan. Personally, I have never been able to build a layout exactly or precisely according to the plan, whether it's one I drew up or a published one, and my attitude to 'the plan' is that it is a guidance and not an absolute law, fixed and immutable as the courses of the stars in the heavens. But keep to the 3 determining dimensions and ensure that clearance is adequate for your longest stock to pass on curves. It may be a help, especially if you are using setrack, to make up card cutout 'forms' of the pieces and pointwork; you can then lay these out on the board(s) to see that they fit and how they look. You will need at an early stage, before final wiring and no later than the tracklaying and before ballasting, to decide on a control system. This means you need to find out if your older locos can be upgraded to DCC, and how to do this if you are doing it yourself or if the budget will stretch if you are having it done professionally; I can'd advise you with this as I'm a DC Luddite and don't understand the finer points of how chips are installed. Plenty for you to think about there, Ed; we're making a bit of progress, now. Have fun with it, there's no point otherwise! Edited September 13, 2017 by The Johnster Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejstubbs Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Yes, and? I believe Free At Last was making a joke. There are no pictures on that thread since photobucket banned third party hosting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejstubbs Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 tension locks which will in any case probably be necessary if you go the setrack route in order to prevent lock buffering Or even buffer locking. (Isn't lock buffering what happens when an inland waterway gets very busy?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted September 13, 2017 Author Share Posted September 13, 2017 I see, thanks for the advice, I'm taking things on board and please keep them coming! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted September 13, 2017 Author Share Posted September 13, 2017 I think I'm going to risk board sag, so there's no more kitchen issues, just layout design and space. Once more, any design is ok, including branches. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted September 13, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 13, 2017 Or even buffer locking. (Isn't lock buffering what happens when an inland waterway gets very busy?) Yes, I'm not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that. Buffer locking is what I meant! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts