Main line terminus in OO

[Joseph_Pestell]

Thank you all for your replies. Firstly, to answer the query about the top right hand part of the track plan: the part between the tunnel entrance and the slip connexion is intended a gradient (which gradient continues inside the tunnel), so that, by the time that the tracks connect to the slip, they are level with the main line. The crossover is intended to be part of the gradient. The SCARM calculations showed this gradient to be circa 3% (although it is difficult to be exact as SCARM does not allow points to have a different elevation at one end than the other). As I have mentioned before, the plan was for only shorter trains to use the gradiented sections: all of the longer trains would remain on the flat.

 

Thank you for the information regarding curve radii and long trains: this is most helpful. It may well be that adding weight may be necessary in some cases. Can anyone suggest a suitable minimum radius of curve for a non-scenic area for long trains (circa 12 carriages) in OO gauge that can be achieved if the locomotives can be suitably ballasted?

 

In relation to a starter layout, I have been giving some thought to what might work best. I am currently attracted to the idea of an N gauge layout set in the late 1980s (which is something that I should probably want to build in any event), being an intermediate sized through station on a main line in the Western Region, featuring some basic carriage sidings and locomotive stabling facilities for semi-fast locomotive hauled trains to turn (as in Oxford). I should probably have wanted to build a layout conforming to this description in due course in any event, as this depicts the time and place when and where I was growing up.

 

A question is how best to fit this into the proposed shed leaving room for a larger OO gauge layout on a different level. I was considering having this occupying the whole of the wall opposite the windows (but not going around a corner), with space either above or below for the eventual OO gauge layout. Has anyone any suggestions about how to set this arrangement up so that the two layouts do not interfere with one another (e.g by the supports for the higher layout getting in front of the lower layout) and both are at a sensible viewing height? Is there a way of having an adjustable height shelf on brackets affixed to the wall, I wonder, so that the layout can be pushed up when not in use or to work on the electronics and pulled down when in use?

 

I will have a go at designing a track plan for this simpler layout and posting that in a separate thread when I get the time.

 

To get long (12 coach) trains around tight curves will be very problematic. Apart from the power of the locomotives, the other factor is making the coaches free running enough. Ordinary rtr will need to tweaking.

 

The best example that I can find dates back more than 50 years, the early 1960s, Ken Northwood's North Devonshire. He could get an 80 wagon freight train around a 2'3" radius curve. By changing your layout design a bit, you may be able to do that, although it would need some gradients.

[Denbridge]

To get long (12 coach) trains around tight curves will be very problematic. Apart from the power of the locomotives, the other factor is making the coaches free running enough. Ordinary rtr will need to tweaking.

 

The best example that I can find dates back more than 50 years, the early 1960s, Ken Northwood's North Devonshire. He could get an 80 wagon freight train around a 2'3" radius curve. By changing your layout design a bit, you may be able to do that, although it would need some gradients.

Ken Northwood built seriously heavy and powerful locomotives. Not a good comparison at all really  

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your replies. First of all, here is the original SCARM file for this layout, which should give a clearer idea of how things were put together in case anyone was unclear.

 

As to carriages being free running, may I ask what alterations that one would need to make in order to do this so that I can assess the viability of applying such alterations to all the stock that would be likely to form the longer trains, so that I can assess in turn the viability of any given radius of curvature for those longer trains in the space available to me?

 

In relation to having two layouts sharing the same supports and being dismantleable, I suspect that that is not likely to be optimal here, partly because there would be nowhere to store the larger layout when dismantled, and partly because it would be a lot of work to switch between layouts which might well discourage me from using whichever of the two layouts should appeal to me most at any given time if that layout were not the one in use at that moment.

 

One thought that I had had to try to alleviate some of the multi-layer problems is to have the upper (smaller) layout be narrower than the lower layout, and have the upper layout fixed to the wall (thus needing no supports that would interfere with the lower layout). If the separation between them were about 1m, the upper level layout could be slightly below eye level and the lower level layout could be a good height for sitting.

 

One possible issue with having the upper level layout fixed to the wall is the propensity of wooden buildings to change size/shape with fluctuations in temperature. The building that I am considering having constructed would be insulated (to the extent that all the walls are 20cm thick), so this might reduce this issue, but I am not sure by how much. The plan was to have the upper layout along one side of the wall only (see the discussion here), although that does not leave much space for the fiddle yards, requiring manual adjustment of trains. A better solution would be to allow the upper layout to be built around one corner, allowing one of the fiddle yards to use the short far side of the shed, but this might then cause difficulties if the walls were to expand or shrink with heat/cold. One possible solution is to have the upper baseboards on the short side resting on but not fixed to the supporting brackets, and leaving a gap between the end baseboard and the far wall, but I do not know the extent to which this would be workable: thoughts on that suggestion would be appreciated.

[F-UnitMad]

A few years ago my lad had some Hornby OO steam locos; A3 & A4, the newer loco-drive ones rather than the very old tender drives. They couldn't pull 7 coaches around a 3rd radius curve, and even struggled at 36" radius. I know all-wheel-drive diesels have better traction, but this is a 1930's Era layout, I understand?

[jamespetts]

A few years ago my lad had some Hornby OO steam locos; A3 & A4, the newer loco-drive ones rather than the very old tender drives. They couldn't pull 7 coaches around a 3rd radius curve, and even struggled at 36" radius. I know all-wheel-drive diesels have better traction, but this is a 1930's Era layout, I understand?

 

Yes, the plan is for a 1930s era layout in the GWR era, meaning mainly 4-6-0s for the longer trains. I think that I might have to conduct my own tests at some point with a suitable 4-6-0, a long rake of coaches and some track temporarily laid on the floor (settrack, perhaps) to see what can be achieved so as to calibrate the constraints for design: I will have no way of actually coming up with a workable revised design without having actual numerical data for the constraints within which I must work to get reliable running.

 

(Incidentally, I wonder whether the tender drive locomotives had better or worse traction? I have some old tender drive locomotives in the loft).

 

Incidentally, was the problem wheel slip? Two possible ways of dealing with this might be ballasting the locomotives and using steel track for the tight turns, but I do not know how much that this would actually help nor how much ballast could actually be fitted into a DCC fitted locomotive.

[rovex]

I suppose you could always double head your longer trains

[Denbridge]

Yes, the plan is for a 1930s era layout in the GWR era, meaning mainly 4-6-0s for the longer trains. I think that I might have to conduct my own tests at some point with a suitable 4-6-0, a long rake of coaches and some track temporarily laid on the floor (settrack, perhaps) to see what can be achieved so as to calibrate the constraints for design: I will have no way of actually coming up with a workable revised design without having actual numerical data for the constraints within which I must work to get reliable running.

 

(Incidentally, I wonder whether the tender drive locomotives had better or worse traction? I have some old tender drive locomotives in the loft).

 

Incidentally, was the problem wheel slip? Two possible ways of dealing with this might be ballasting the locomotives and using steel track for the tight turns, but I do not know how much that this would actually help nor how much ballast could actually be fitted into a DCC fitted locomotive.

My under construction layout has a maximum capacity of 8 coaches. When laying out the design I carried out some tests. On level track none of the RTR GWR 4-6-0's as bought were happy with 8 coaches on a 2' 6" radius curve. All slipped to a greater or lesser degree. On a 3' radius the were all pretty happy, though a couple didn't like starting a stationary train on the curve. This was on level track. I will add weight to mine, but even then I doubt they would be too happy with 10-12 coaches on similar radii. Fortunately for me, most of my loco's are built from kits or scratch and are easily up to pulling big heavy trains.

[Denbridge]

I suppose you could always double head your longer trains

The sensible option is to build a sensible layout using decent radius curves and not fill every square inch with track.

[The Stationmaster]

The sensible option is to build a sensible layout using decent radius curves and not fill every square inch with track.

 

This seems to me to be a sensible approach and the radius of your curves should be a planning starting point.  for example looking at my layout planning I have a space c.17 ft long which sounds great until you do a bit of thinking.  A double track mainline is what it will be all about with a single station where yard sidings will connect to a 'line of local interest' (ljght railway).  So started with specific ideas for my pointwork but soon found, just by using Peco templates, that what i had in mind would take up too much room.

 

How did I get to 'too much room' - easy.  A 3 foot radius curve at each end immediately consumes 6 feet off the total 17 feet (in reality slightly over 6 feet of course).  That leaves 11 feet - but I want a station platform about 5 feet long to ensure that its length makes short passenger trains look  short and not filling the platform length (I might be able to shorten the platform a little, but not much).  So it's then 5 feet knocked off the 11 feet which at most leaves only 6 feet to accommodate the pointwork.  Using Peco bullhead points two crossovers back-to-back in the running lines (one includes a single slip) consumes another 4 feet - which leaves me with 2 feet before I've even put in a connection tho the goods yard let alone the light railway.  

 

The message - curves consume space at the ends of you layout and pointwork eats up space within the 'straight' part especially if you're looking to use realistic radii for the pointwork.  We all have different ideas of what we want - I got the 'out & back' terminus out of my system very many years ago but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea for anybody else.  But what is a constant for all of us is the way space can be very quickly used up or overused - less really can be more.

[Denbridge]

You may also consider that, aside from operating limitations, any mainline with curves much under 3' radius looks faintly ridiculous and toy like. Especially with the need to space the lines further apart to set track distances.

[jamespetts]

Thank you for the information. A 3ft (~314mm) curve would along the short side of the room without too much difficulty, but it would not be possible to have a reversing loop in the space with this radius. I note that there is a Youtube video

of a Hornby King hauling 12 carriages without difficulty on an oval layout, although it is difficult to discern the minimum radius of the curves there.

 

I can imagine that it would be most awkward to have to put a turntable in the fiddle yard and set everything up for the locomotives to detach, turn, and run around their trains there.

 

Incidentally, in relation to the very last reply, I repeat what I have stated above and what should be clear from the diagram in any event: all of the tight curves on this layout are either in yards or non-scenic areas.

 

Edit:

Youtube video seems to show a Hornby King (albeit the older model) hauling 19 carriages around what appears to be a 3rd radius curve on Hornby track, apparently without difficulty. Edited February 23, 2018 by jamespetts

[Denbridge]

Thank you for the information. A 3ft (~314mm) curve would along the short side of the room without too much difficulty, but it would not be possible to have a reversing loop in the space with this radius. I note that there is a Youtube video

of a Hornby King hauling 12 carriages without difficulty on an oval layout, although it is difficult to discern the minimum radius of the curves there.

 

I can imagine that it would be most awkward to have to put a turntable in the fiddle yard and set everything up for the locomotives to detach, turn, and run around their trains there.

 

Incidentally, in relation to the very last reply, I repeat what I have stated above and what should be clear from the diagram in any event: all of the tight curves on this layout are either in yards or non-scenic areas.

I give up. I forecast that should you follow the path you seem keen on, within a year you'll either opt for something more sensible or there'll be a lot of stuff hitting ebay

[Joseph_Pestell]

Let's go back to the two=layout proposition.

 

You can built a pretty decent N gauge layout on quite a narrow shelf, especially if that shelf is 7m long.

 

N always looks much better high up. So brackets off the shelf wall at about 5' height will work fine leaving space for the 00 below. In the time it takes you to build the N gauge layout, you will have time to refine the 00 layout plan. Don't try to build both at once.

[jamespetts]

Let's go back to the two=layout proposition.

 

You can built a pretty decent N gauge layout on quite a narrow shelf, especially if that shelf is 7m long.

 

N always looks much better high up. So brackets off the shelf wall at about 5' height will work fine leaving space for the 00 below. In the time it takes you to build the N gauge layout, you will have time to refine the 00 layout plan. Don't try to build both at once.

 

Thank you for your suggestion - that is helpful. This is what I am currently thinking of doing.

[njee20]

I must say I don't understand the vitriol coming from some posters (most notably Denbridge), whilst I agree that things like the gradients look excessive, at the end of the day if you want a 'train set' full of track then fill your boots. It's your money, your layout, and your hobby, no one else's. Someone else may want to run a specific timetable as it was on 12th July 1931, renumbering stock to ensure perfect fidelity, with a weather appropriate backscene. Someone else may be happy running a German steam loco alongside a US diesel, hauling some LNER coaches. Each to their own!

 

I model N, and modern image at that, so I can't comment on train lengths, haulage power etc, but I'm surprised by people saying locos won't manage more than 6 coaches on a 30" curve, yet a 36" one is fine.

 

I started out building a small layout, mainly because that was the space I had available, but also because 'that's what you do'; you have to start small, and hone your skills on something manageable. I never used it, because it wasn't what I wanted in a layout - I wanted long trains and what not. I laid some track, and that was about it. It languished in the spare room until a house move facilitated a bigger layout. I immediately scrapped the original layout, and built a larger one. It's been 3 years and I've not done any ballasting or scenery, but all the track is down, some of it relaid as I've learnt along the way, I've wired all the points up, and integrated with JMRI and a touchscreen to operate them. It's not a given that you'll become disillusioned just because it's a bigger job. Yes I got bored of some things, but you can mix it up a bit. Bored of laying track? Wire up what you've got. Bored of wiring? Add a couple of signals.

 

We're now looking at moving house again and I'll (hopefully) have more space, so I'm considering upsizing again, because I can. I can recover everything I've done, and repurpose the boards. IMO there's not much point in building an 80s N gauge branch line unless that's what you want to have (and it seems it's not). Just because a layout is big doesn't mean you can't focus on small sections of it, completing individual bits, or start with one loop before laying others etc. I've learnt huge amounts on my layout, would I have learnt more on a smaller one? I'd have obviously moved on from wiring points more quickly if I had 5 to do, instead of the 50 pairs I did, but meh, if I was never inspired to get the layout out to work on the 5 it's moot. I've got all sorts of ideas of what I want to do, some of which will probably be many many years away, but that's ok, nothing's ever finished after all!

Edited February 23, 2018 by njee20

[NittenDormer]

James, there seems (to me) to be too much negativity getting directed towards you. Its going to be YOUR layout. You build it according to what YOU want. There is nothing wrong with the entire surface taken up by track - if that is what you want. There is nothing wrong with set track curves - if that is what you want. There is nothing wrong with ambition. Or gradients.

 

A word of caution though. Can you afford this? By which I mean a couple of thousand on track, plus a few kilometres of wire, a few tonnes of ballast, any scenic stuff? (For you to think about, don't need an answer here).

 

The other factor is time. This is not an overnight build. f you are retired, to be blunt, how long will you stay fit and healthy enough for the work involved? If you are still working, how much time do you have to commit to this? What happens if this enthusiasm doesn't last (particularly a factor if it is going to be a couple of years before trains are running).

 

I get a couple of evenings in the garage per week, if I am lucky. 18 months on, baseboards are not yet finished. Good luck, and happy modelling, whatever you choose.

[jamespetts]

NJee - thank you for your supportive post.

 

I did actually want to have a 1980s N gauge layout as well at some point, as I wanted to model what I remember growing up, so the smaller layout will not be wasted; I will just start on that one first. I did initially think of building a small layout just to practice, but I thought that I should be better off building something that I am going to want to keep in the long term in any event. As might be seen from the topic that I have posted in respect of that layout plan, that layout will not be a branch line, but a main line with some real operational interest.

 

I shall see how that goes (and perhaps acquire some OO gauge stock to test how long trains work on tight curves and gradients before building anything permanent, as it seems to be difficult to get a consensus on that question), and perhaps refine the terminus concept to take into account the results of the findings with gradient and corner tests when I get a chance to perform them.

 

Nitten - thank you also for your supportive post. I am not retired (37 years old, so a little early for that yet), but do have time in the evenings quite often. I was thinking of getting the baseboards built professionally as I am not much of one for woodwork, but I can imagine that the finer work of laying track would be more enjoyable and I am quite looking forward to wiring with DCC, as computer programming can be quite enjoyable and I can see that somewhat similar logic might well be involved in the wiring, especially with DCC. Hopefully, if I am able to get the smaller layout working and then commission a revised version of the larger layout piece by piece, that should be satisfying. I am fairly used to hobby projects with very long lead times: one of my other hobbies is coding an open source computer game called Simutrans-Extended (which also heavily features trains, among other forms of transport), and the current sub-project on which I am working in that has an estimated lead time of one year (which might be extended somewhat as I have been distracted by planning model railway layouts and a shed to put them in in the last few weeks).

 

Can anyone enlighten me on which are the most time consuming parts of layout building (assuming using ready to run vehicles, pre-assembled track, DCC and no OHLE)?

 

As to the track filling the baseboards, I like to think of it more as the baseboards being trimmed to the area around the track. I do not think that that is unrealistic per se: after all, the fourth wall of the layout has to end somewhere. Some of the layouts with large scenic sections can be really quite beautiful, but, where space is limited, a large purely scenic area is not a priority for all of us. With enlarged curves in the depot, a revised version of this layout ought to look reasonably real, even if the depot curving back to be parallel to the station is not ideal. (I do find it a little odd that many people are suggesting having more scenic area in proportion to the track to make it look less like a train set, yet at the same time encouraging me to have unrealistically short platforms and trains, which, in my view, would make the layout look far more like a train set than a scenic area that does not extend far beyond the track's edge in most places).

 

My main concerns about this layout at present having considered the constructive feedback on this thread are:

(1) whether the long trains will go around the (flat) reversing loops in the fiddle yards, and, if not, whether a loop large enough for them to go around in will fit in my proposed shed, and, if not, how to deal with the fiddle yards;

(2) whether the shorter trains will be able to navigate the gradiented reversing loops;

(3) whether the transition from flat to gradient is likely to be too harsh for the crossover on the LT lines at the rear of the station (top of the diagram);

(4) whether I will be able to get enough height separation for the Underground section to allow sensible access to the wiring beneath the main boards (I wonder whether a helix might help with this?);

(5) being able to reach the suburban platforms with their complex pointwork and shunting operations given the number of main line platforms (and possibly overall roof) in between; and

(6) the lead time for track laying and wiring (for all other operations, such as signalling and scenery, a much longer time is acceptable, since, once the track laying and wiring are complete, I can at least operate the layout, and the baseboard building I intend to get done professionally).

 

I note that a large number of these concerns (being 2, 3, 4 and 5) relate to the split level design, so I may have to reconsider this aspect in particular (and especially the Paddington style split suburban platforms and tunnel entry; I wonder whether something more similar to King's Cross, where the trains leave the main suburban lines and dive into tunnels before reaching the station, joining up with a quadruple track section of Underground (the City Widened Lines) would make more sense, as it would greatly simplify the underground section and require only one gradiented section rather than two, giving much more space for the transition, allowing for a flatter gradient, and would also eliminate much of the complexity on the difficult to reach suburban side). It seems that issues (1) and (2) are susceptible to relatively straightforward testing when I acquire the shed (although will require me to acquire some stock and track for the test; and I note that, it is not just 4-6-0s that will need to haul 12 carriages, but 0-6-0PT station pilots, too).

 

Issue (6) remains; I should be able to get a better idea of that in the course of building the smaller layout, although if anyone can give me any idea of how long that these processes actually take (assuming using DCC and not building one's own track - the people who do that evidently have some serious skill and patience) for any given amount of trackwork, that would be most helpful. I note, of course, that having less in the way of large scenic sections would reduce the amount of time and effort needed to complete the scenic work.

[mightbe]

I don't think it's been answered; the reason people might think you're using settrack points is because even large streamline points are only 44" radius (with a 60" substitution radius), which is vaguely industrial in prototype terms. They're fine enough when used sparingly but the ladders make them look tight--bearing in mind that the slips are 24" radius.

[mightbe]

There is nothing wrong with the entire surface taken up by track - if that is what you want. There is nothing wrong with set track curves - if that is what you want. There is nothing wrong with ambition. Or gradients.

 

I'm inclined to disagree; there's a time and a place to step in and say "People have been here before; they weren't as happy with it once they got going. Here are some tips to avoid potential disappointment."

 

Conventional wisdom is there for a reason; I think of it like distilled information that exists to maximize success and satisfaction. And in this case it saves a substantial amount of time and money.

Edited February 23, 2018 by mightbe

[jamespetts]

I have been experimenting in SCARM to try to see how this original layout might be modified to deal with some of the more specific issues raised in this thread. The revised plans are attached: I have also completed the fiddle yards for the lower layer.

 

I was able to get all of the upper level areas (those which would involve long trains) to use no less than 505mm radius curves (i.e., 3rd radius in Setrack terms; again, these curves being only in the fiddle yard areas, aside from the depot access: I wonder whether I should actually create a total scenic break between the station throat and the depot to hide the sharp curve?), but it is not possible to have the reversing loops for the Underground lines using anything wider than 438mm radius curves (i.e. 2nd radius in Setrack terms).

 

I have adopted a more King's Cross and less Paddington like arrangement with the suburban lines, with them simply diving into a tunnel at the back of the station (non-electrified), and coming out in the lower section alongside electrified lines, and the London Underground trains would then run only on the lower level. Thus, the only trains that would now negotiate the gradients are suburban trains of circa 5 carriages hauled by a large tank engine, and short freight trains also hauled by a tank engine.This has allowed much smoother curves in the station throat.

 

The separation between upper and lower baseboards has increased to 145mm, but that still seems not enough to me. I wonder whether the better thing would be to install a helix at the station end to allow a much greater separation. I think that there might be space for this if I move the lower level station closer to the end/corner. If I were to use a 2nd/3rd radius helix, I could reduce the gradient on the lower level to 2% from the current 3% (the gradient on the upper level leading to the tunnels is now <2%), so all that would be necessary for gradient handling would be the ability for short trains to negotiate a 2nd radius 2% gradient helix.

 

The layout now allows considerably more room for scenic elements at the back where some of the LU lines previously were.

 

However, the increased size of the return loop in the upper level fiddle yards does leave less room for a workbench: the door (which is outward opening) would be in the lower right hand corner of the image, and there is only 1m of space between the end of the reversing loop and the end of the room. It is difficult to assess the significance of this without being able to work out better how this will interact with the space, and it might be better to do that when the shed has been built.

 

There is also a tight squeeze of 400mm between the boards at the tightest point at the reversing loop, which is not ideal, but which is at least passable. I considered removing the platform closest to the reversing loop, which would save circa 13cm in width, this would not assist much, as the lower levels still need this full width for their reversing loops, so I might as well have the full width of platforms.

 

None of this deals with issue (6) (total time taken to build), aside from the fact that this does simplify the previous arrangement somewhat: I will need more data for that; but it does at least make some progress towards addressing many of the other issues discussed. I will still need data on how long trains are able to deal with 505mm radius curves and short trains are able to deal with 438mm radius curves, but the videos of the Hornby King class hauling a considerable number of carriages up a gradient and around what looked as if it was a 3rd or 4th radius curve looked encouraging. I will have to conduct my own tests in due course.

 

In any event, thank you again to those who have provided constructive feedback: it is much appreciated. Any further such feedback on this revised version would likewise be appreciated.

[gordon s]

Please give some thought to all that hidden track and the 145mm separation.  How do you intend to replace a turnout that fails in the lower area?  It only takes one tie bar to come apart and it's virtually impossible to repair without removing the top level.  One point motor failing under the top board will be a huge problem.

 

Equally so, how do you intend the wire the upper level with the lower level in place?

 

Even if you wire in sections away from the lower level, you will still need to connect the various sections once they are in place.  The logical way would be to complete the top section first as then you can access the underside.  Of course that then poses another set of challenges building the lower level.....

 

With the length of trains you wish to run, a single pair of wheels derailing will quickly become a multi axle derailment and that will always happen in the least accessible place.  Just take a minute or two to think about an accessible space of less than 100mm with a row of 70mm high trains in front and behind.  You now have to reach into a restricted space and will will be doing that virtually blind as you cannot see the train let alone the pairs of wheels that have left the track. 

 

How will you keep all the track clean on the lower level?  You will find that the 145mm clearance is rapidly taken up with baseboard cross members, wiring looms, point motors and frog switching requirements.  A CMX track cleaner may be the answer, but then your steep gradients may prove too much.

 

Having been down the computer control route, the amount of wiring is significant and you have a largely hidden set of storage yard roads.  You will need a occupation detectors and a system of knowing how far into a road a train has progressed without stopping short of fouling the exit pointwork.  None of this is impossible, but the amount of work is considerable.

 

At the end of the day, you will do your own thing and I applaud that, but please make that decision knowing all the pitfalls and have plans to deal with them before laying any track.

 

I'll leave you to it now as I have no wish to be labelled as negative. 

[njee20]

It’s conventional wisdom. It’s not law. Not everyone wants the same thing.

 

Even if the OP does discover that some years down the line I don’t quite get the animosity, people have said “not what I’d do”, isn’t that enough? He can do with that information as he pleases. Some are dangerously close to projecting their own wants onto the OP.

[Chimer]

It’s conventional wisdom. It’s not law. Not everyone wants the same thing.

 

Even if the OP does discover that some years down the line I don’t quite get the animosity, people have said “not what I’d do”, isn’t that enough? He can do with that information as he pleases. Some are dangerously close to projecting their own wants onto the OP.

 

Agree entirely.  There is a knack to giving advice that the advisee doesn't want to hear.  It involves sugaring the pill a bit.  Some people on here either can't or won't do that.  It doesn't mean their advice isn't good, it just makes it less likely to be accepted.

 

It's the difference between "that's very ambitious and will be difficult to achieve" and "you're off your head".

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[F-UnitMad]

Agree entirely.  There is a knack to giving advice that the advisee doesn't want to hear.  It involves sugaring the pill a bit.  Some people on here either can't or won't do that.  It doesn't mean their advice isn't good, it just makes it less likely to be accepted.

 

It's the difference between "that's very ambitious and will be difficult to achieve" and "you're off your head".

 

Cheers

 

Chris

An excellent post, the key to which I've put in bold, & where I think some of the 'negativity', born of frustration, is coming from.

I don't think I've stated that James is "off his head" (nor would i) & indeed he is free to do as he likes with his layout. But right at the start he asked for advice on his plans, but to give an example; it is clear that the 'general consensus' which does exist, from experience - that steam locos are going to struggle with long trains on tight curves - does not seem to be getting through; compromise will likely be needed, either shorter trains or easier curves. I'll give my own example of this; I have an American outline, O scale layout, on which one curve tightens right down to about 26inch radius. Accepted wisdom is that such a curve is "impossible" in O scale. I can "prove" that it isn't, with my own YouTube videos - but - & it's a big BUT - there has to be compromise; train length has to be shorter than it could be, as locos will slip otherwise; my 6-axle diesel can't pull stock around it due to overhang, & steam locos (if I had any) certainly wouldn't be able to negotiate that curve. However, I understand & accept those compromises.

So while as another poster has said, 'there's nothing wrong with trainset curves', that does not translate to "you can run anything at all round a trainset curve without any problems".

Some questions are just unanswerable - lead times on tracklaying, for example. Every layout & situation will be different.

Edited February 24, 2018 by F-UnitMad

[Harlequin]

I don't see the point of the lower level at all because you'll only ever see a tiny proportion of it, where the lines are near the edge of the baseboard and even then not fully. It's a massive amount of effort and complexity for very little reward and I would strongly recommend abandoning it.

 

If you want to model the underground as part of your terminus it might be better to have somewhere where the underground line momentarily opens up to the main level and implement a really simple loop through it on a demountable board so that an underground train appears every now and then.

 

On the terminus level: I think you're saying that the green tracks are non-scenic and therefore they simply have to work practically, not look realistic, right? If so, fair enough but even so, everything you can do to open out the radii will make the curves more friendly for long trains.

 

The station seems unbalanced to me: much too much platform vs. station throat and approach lines. Platform is very boring to look at. So I would reduce the number of platforms and reduce their length.

 

Maybe locate carriage sidings in the north west corner and locate loco stabling in the south west corner, outside the (increased) curve of the main running lines.

 

I would try to rationalise the fiddle yard so that the storage sidings are as straight as possible and all of similar length (maybe with parallel point ladders). I would reduce the reversing loop to a single track. And I think I would try to re-organise things so that the southern board is mostly non-scenic, devoted to the fiddle yard and other technical stuff.

 

Also, I suggest you think more about the environment around the station platforms - the background, the station concourse, station buildings, surrounding roads and buildings, etc...

Edited February 24, 2018 by Harlequin