Main line terminus in OO

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your feedback: that is helpful.

 

In relation to the lower layer: I am keen on having an interesting model of a working Underground station, so should prefer not to abandon this if possible. I think that it is a little lacking in interest at present; I am thinking of altering the design to add some centre terminating platforms on the electrified side, if there is space, to resemble something like Aldgate, Tower Hill or similar, albeit with a City Widened Lines setting.

 

As to the height separation, I can well see that 142mm would be impractical, and that was one thing that concerned me when I first designed this. One possible way to solve this, as discussed above, would be to use a helix - if I can fit one in, it should in principle be possible to have a consistent 2% gradient over a number of turns rather than the 3% gradient currently specified. Can anyone suggest a sensible degree of height separation between upper and lower areas to enable adequate access to the rear of the lower area and the underside of the upper area?

 

Incidentally, Gordon: I think that your post was very helpful, and should not want you or anyone else to desist in posting helpful, specific, practical feedback on account of the understandable criticism of those who have been somewhat less constructive and more tending towards hyperbole than clear, practical advice in their approach. It is precisely this sort of information that I am after in posting this thread in the first place.

 

I do not entirely understand those who believe that I have not been receptive to advice regarding minimum radii for long trains; I have specifically posted an altered design with increased minimum radii and spent some time researching the matter, and have also explicitly stated that, owing to somewhat inconsistent information that I have had so far, both in this thread and from other sources, I intend to test this practically before building any layout incorporating such curve radii. I should be very grateful if anyone who believes that I have not been receptive to advice on curve radii could explain why, in light of that, they take that view?

 

Phil - thank you for your feedback. You are correct that all of the green and yellow areas on the plan are non-scenic areas, so it is not relevant that the tight curves do not look realistic in these areas, but is relevant if a long train cannot get around them, and it is on this topic that I have had somewhat inconsistent and incomplete information, which is why I aim to test this practically before building any such layout as stated above.

 

As to the long platforms, I suspect that this is more of a matter of taste: I am keen on the idea of having realistic length trains, even if that means long platforms and less room for background scenery. Some might find long platforms boring; but I find unrealistically short trains grating. It is a matter of taste rather than of practicality in this instance.

 

In relation to the station throat, ideally it would be longer, but it is already 2.7m long, compared to the platforms, the longest of which are 3.8m long, not including the ramp, so it is not enormously out of proportion as far as I can see. Given that there is good access to all of the lines using only long radius turnouts, does it really need to be longer?

 

As to the carriage sidings and depot - I should prefer to have them on the same plane as the station, but there is no room for that without significantly shortening the platforms (which could then allow the carriage sidings to be shortened), and I should prefer not to do this if at all possible for the reasons already given (i.e. my preference for realistic lengths of trains). Indeed, I estimate that the platform lengths would have to be reduced by about half to allow for this, which would only allow trains of up to 6 carriages - only one carriage longer than the normal length for London suburban trains on the Great Western.

 

Actually, now that I have taken out the electrified dive-under that was intended to represent the Hammersmith & City, I wonder whether there might be room for the engine shed, even if not the carriage sidings, in the top left/north west corner? An interesting idea which might allow the fiddle yards to be straighter, which I note is recommended. However, a disadvantage of this would be that the engine shed would then be in a far corner and hard to reach - might this be impractical? Would a corner engine shed be better or worse than curved fiddle yards? It would also reduce the overall scenic area of the layout, which goes against other recommendations. I thought that it might be nice to have a raised section behind a retaining wall with some terraced buildings and a 'bus stop in that area.

 

As to the overall scale of the project, it is very difficult to know quite what to do with people's suggestions in this regard without more data. When I build the smaller layout, I should get an idea of how long that the basic tasks - track-laying and wiring (recall that I intend to have the baseboards built by contractors on account of my lack of woodworking skill) should take for any given amount of track.

 

I note that there are people who have posted threads on this forum featuring lovely layouts with perhaps 25-30% of the trackwork that this plan has - but who have built the layout in finescale and made every single piece of trackwork by hand (from what I understand, a simple set of points/crossings can take an experienced modeller circa two hours to build from a kit), which does not seem to be an undertaking of a lesser degree in terms of time than a considerably larger layout using only prefabricated track, especially given the need to re-wheel every item of rolling stock.

 

I know that this may be hard to remember with any precision now, but if anyone can for any given layout built with DCC, entirely off-the-shelf track and no OHLE (the complexity of which layout can be discerned by way of a link to a thread on this forum or elsewhere with a track diagram and/or photographs) give me an idea of the time that it took between the completion of the baseboards and the time when the track was all laid, and the time between when the track was all laid and the wiring was at least basically complete (barring any later refinements), that would be very helpful. The more data points of this sort that I can gather, the better understanding that I can get of the magnitude of any given project.

Edited February 24, 2018 by jamespetts

[royaloak]

JamesPetts, do you work for the DFT?

They like to rewrite the laws of physics as well, ballasting locos to try and get them to pull long trains up curved steep gradients will only result in the locos burning out.

 

As others have stated you are cramming far too much track into the available area.

 

What you are planning to build will be completely unworkable unless you are some sort of computer genius.

 

You will get completely demoted, lose interest and stop building the layout before 10% of the track is down.

 

By all means build the baseboards to fit the area and then start tracklaying bearing in mind it will have to be controllable by one person.

 

Do you work full time? How much time will you be able to put into building this layout?

 

Do you want any scenery or is it just a layout consisting of as much track as is humanly possible to squeeze onto the baseboards.

 

You do seem to be trying to avoid some of the points others are making, most of them would have personally made some of the mistakes they want you to avoid.

 

This post probably comes across as rather 'abrupt' but they are all valid points you need to consider if you are ever going to get trains up and running.

 

Signed somebody about to start on a 14ft by 12ft layout with the potential to run around the back garden at a later date who realises that KISS is the way to go.

[jamespetts]

Royaloak - I can only make use of advice that is not vague, so stating that I am trying to fit "too much" into the space is not useful without a reliable means of calibrating where the threshold between "too much" and a reasonable amount is, as well as an explanation for why it is calibrated at that level so that I can make sense of any relevant variables (e.g. whether the threshold is set by practicality or aesthetics, and, if by practicality, the nature of the practical issues so that I can investigate the extent to which those specific practical issues can be overcome and what effect that that would have on the resulting calibration).

 

In relation to ballasting, would any degree of ballasting be liable to cause any model locomotive to burn out, or does it vary depending on the amount of ballast and the particular locomotive in question? If the latter, do you or does anyone else have any idea where I can find a reliable source of information in this regard? That would be most helpful.

 

When you refer to the layout being "unworkable", can you elaborate on what you mean by that? I stated in the original post and then had to repeat in at least three subsequent posts that I was planning to use computer control for this layout, as I am well aware that it would not be operable manually by one person (and was before I started planning it). As for needing to be a "computer genius" - do you have experience of attempting to automate a layout? If so, I should be grateful if you could let me know the practical difficulties that you encountered so that I can understand what you mean by this comment. I do have quite a bit of experience in computer programming, which I anticipate will be helpful with wiring and control aspects.

 

As to trying to avoid points, can you elaborate more precisely on what points that you think that I am trying to avoid (bearing in mind that this is a thread in which I am seeking advice, not in which I am making some sort of claim that requires justification)?

 

In relation to track laying, I have asked a number of times for some sort of idea about how long that that specific element takes, but I have not had any sort of answer, and I notice that many of the layouts displayed here and elsewhere have considerably more than 10% of the trackwork planned here, so I am afraid that I do not understand where you get the figure of 10%. Can you elaborate? As stated several times above, the plan at present is to build the smaller layout first and see what sort of time that that takes before committing to a layout based on the concept discussed in this thread, but it would be extremely helpful, as I have already stated, to get some idea about the time that track laying and/or wiring takes for any given amount of trackwork.

 

For those who seem to think that I am not receptive to advice - what I am seeking when posting on this forum is not for somebody else to make the decision about what sort of model railway to build for me, but for others to give me useful, specific, practical information so that I can make that decision myself. If I am not deferring to the opinions of others as to what sort of model railway to build, it is either because insufficient reason or data has been given for me to make an informed independent decision about whether there is a good reason for me to do as advised or not, because what is advised is not sufficiently precise to enable me to formulate a specific plan taking into account the constraints suggested, or because it is apparent that the advice in question is or appears likely to be based on aesthetic considerations in circumstances where I do not share the relevant aesthetic preferences of the person giving the advice.

 

Thus, repeating the same generalised statement about the layout being too complex in increasingly emphatic or in some cases hyperbolic tones really does not assist at all, but information such as experience of specific practical problems of particular features (e.g. sharp corners, small degrees of separation between different levels, etc.) are extremely useful, and I very much encourage anyone who is able to assist further in that regard to do so.

 

Edit: I notice with interest the DCC Concepts Powerbase, which is advertised as significantly improving adhesion with relative ease. Has anyone any experience as to how well that this works with long trains and tight corners and/or shorter trains and gradients? I note that

was able to get a Hornby B1 to haul 8 carriages up a 3rd radius helix (I cannot recall whether 2% or 3%) using this system. Edited February 24, 2018 by jamespetts

[royaloak]

You have squeezed track into every inch of baseboard, how can that not be too much?

 

A locomotives wheels need to be able to spin instead of stalling the motor, ballast it too much and it will stall, if you dont notice it is stalled then it will heat up and the white smoke will escape, as for the Powerbase, shoving 24V (or whatever it does) into the track wont change the problem of adhesion and drag unless it is really clever and works in the same way as WSP or supercreep on real locos which I cannot see happening.

 

You have many different routes available so how are you going to prevent collisions?

Saying 'computer control' doesnt really answer the question, the program would have to be huge to cover all available routes, no I dont write programs but being a train driver I do have dealings with the Automatic Route Setting Equipment on a daily basis, it is named appropriately and that is a huge program with the full timetable written into it and I have recently been reading a paper about some tests they did with qualified signallers against A R S E in a busy box and the signallers were more efficient up to 6 hours into their and it was only when fatigue started to take hold that the A R S E was better, it was noted that in a busy box the signallers would not be expected or allowed to work 6 hours straight anyway!

 

 

Points avoided, you want to run 12 coach trains around inclined curves, people have pointed out the problems and your answer is 'ballast', see the point above.

 

Lets try a different approach-

How many people will you have working on building the layout?

How many man hours a week can be realistically spent on the layout?

 

What sort of cost and timescale are you (realistically) looking at having-

the baseboards finished?

The track laid?

The wiring complete?

Your computer control system running reliably and debugged?

Any scenery done?

 

Demoralisation (is that a word?) can be a huge problem on a big project and yours is a huge project!

That is what everyone is trying to help you avoid.

 

Nobody can advise you how much is too much because we are all individuals, some like track, some like scenery, some like prototypical, some like freelance, it is all relative.

 

In the space you have available (which most people would kill for) you could have a wonderful scenic mainline with a decent sized depot and freight yard (or whatever you want) instead of hundreds of yards of track which wont be used except to store your trains on.

 

One thing is certain, we all want more than we can realistically have, and I include myself in that!

 

I hope that explains things a bit better.

Edited February 24, 2018 by royaloak

[Siberian Snooper]

If you want underground trains in an underground situation, can I suggest that you follow the MRCs route on their Copenhagen Fields layout and use ovals of track with the station viewed through a slot in the side of the layout. It's very effective and there are no visible bends. You could build this totally separately to the main layout and it could also double as your test track, for what will or will not go around your minimum radius curves, it could also be used as a test bed for full automation, before you build the main layout on top of it.

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your replies. Royaloak: I think that you may have misunderstood the PowerBase product. It consists of (1) steel plates underneath the track; and (2) high strength permanent mangents attached to the bottom of the locomotives. The tests which I have found seem to suggest that it can more than double the ability of model locomotives to haul long trains up gradients.

 

I am having difficulties in understanding why you think that the discussion of ballasting amounts to "avoiding" traction issues. I have spent a great deal of time trying to explore traction issues and the precise extent to which (1) it is an issue; and (2) it can be alleviated, in light of conflicting information, have resolved to test this myself. I have also (more recently) learnt about PowerBase, which seems to be very effective.

 

Do I understand that when you were referring to points (plural) being avoided, you actually meant just the one issue of traction?

 

Incidentally, I am not planning on running 12 carriage trains around inclined curves, nor have I ever been. I have had to state at least four times now that I have no plans to do so, even though that ought to have been clear from the original post. The 12 carriage trains will remain on the flat. The inclined curves will be used only by shorter trains.

 

As to computer control, I had spent some time researching this, and found iTrain, which appears to be a very interesting product that allows for a high degree of automation and also runs on Linux. Does anyone have any experience of using this software?

 

As to people working on the layout, my plan at this stage is to have the baseboards professionally built and then to lay the track and install the wiring myself. Neither of those tasks seem overwhelmingly difficult (given that I will be using prefabricated track, rather than making my own as some very talented modellers do) even for quite a bit of track, but I will in any event have a better idea of the relative ease or difficulty of tracklaying when I work on the smaller layout that I am planning to build first following advice earlier in this thread.

 

If anyone can, as requested above, share their experiences of the time taken for tracklaying (with prefabricated track and no OHLE) and wiring (with DCC) for any given size of layout, that would be extremely helpful.

Edited February 24, 2018 by jamespetts

[shady]

Hi , having seen your various posts re your old childhood layout and proposd new layouts in either OO or N I thought I would try and offer some points to consider. First off I am well aware that the written word does not always come across in the same manner as if spoken, so pleae dont take anything that follows as being in a negative vibe as its only ment to be helpful. ( I am currently in the early planning stages of a large , hopefully OO 1980s diesel layout myself, but only to be built after I have moved again(which hopefully will be my last move))( The complexity police will have a heart attack when they see my plans!)

 

If I was in your postion I would first try and consider the following (not neccesarily in any particular order)

 

01) Which time period interests me the most,1930's steam or 1980's diesel (even if you ignore the cost of two sepeate timescales , where will one be stored , Do I have the space?)

 

02) How much space is realisticly availably verses the length of trains I want to run.

 

03) Am I welded to either OO or N, if not which works best given the answer to 02) (I am almost welded to OO due to the size of my existing stock)

 

04) How long do I expect to remain at my current House as any large layout will take years rather than months.

 

05) Given the answer to 04 , how important is it to me to dedicate a large part of my current house/garden and my time/money to building a large layout at my current house.

 

06) How will my plans effect the saleability / price of my current house in the future. ( I wont care too much with my next house as they will have to drag me out kicking and screaming to an old folks home!!)

 

07) How easy will it be to dismantle the layout if I move (even if to only recover the points/motors/servos/automation equipment etc)

 

Having considered the above I would then decide on an area of the house /loft/ garden to use for my own version of the rainhill trials. If not possible/advisable to use the loft/garage (is there a garage??)

I would consider one or more cheap gazebo's / frame tents etc to create a cheap temp covered area just for the testing during the summer. Lidl/Aldi at times also do sets of tables that could be used as temp baseboard supports.

Living in a small terraced house without? a garage consideration would have to be given to how I would store any of this before/after use?

 

Purchase a box or 2 of flexi track and an array of complete circles of the various radius track 1-4 from either peco/Hornby/Bachmann etc and if possible consider shinohara as they do up to 36" radius in OO.

Various sets of pre built inclines (eg woodland scenic in OO) , a few loco's and enough stock to make up at least the longest/heaviest trains required on both the flat and on inclines  and a starter set of the dcc concepts Powerbase. Then conduct tests to see what is possible on the flat both straight and curved and the same again on various inclines both with and without the powerbase magnets.You really need

enough space so that the full train can clear the incline at both the top and the bottom, ideally a full circle/oval that goes up onside and down the other. Unfortunately the only way to confirm that something will work is to test it first, no 2 loco's will perform identicaly even out of the box new. Stock probably needs it' s back to back adjusting and reaming to help with free running (metal wheels are also better than plastic). I would also want to test how long trains perform through a test set up of any complicated junctions etc (if any move require a train to be pulled in more than one direction at the same time over points curves etc thats likely to cause problems)

 

If wanting to do automation , I would need to set up test boards to confirm which method of changing points / detecting trains etc etc would be used .(the placement of points and their motors/servo's need to

be considered when working out where the baseboard supporting braces go). The amount of complex wiring between detectors/sections/points/signals/lights in buldings/ etc etc should not be underestimated and some free space under the base boards will be required for all of these.

 

Also remember that just because a train will go up an incline or through a complicated junction once or trigger a detector, does not mean that it will always do so, this is where the benefits of a roundy roundy test track really come into play , if a train can be left doing circuits including an incline and or complex junctions/detectors again and again , you can build up a record of the probabilty of it doing so or alter the train or track until the probability is acceptable to you.Note if planning on lighted coaches then any pickups will increase the drag , even on the flat 12 coachs x extra drag could change what is or is not viable.

 

Gets some boards or shelf units etc and try different widths at different heights , experiment on how easy it is to reach over a board of say 3ft at different heights to rerail/couple/uncouple a train, now place a track at the front of the board with a train on it and repeat the experiment without touching the front train , try placing boxes inbetween (imaginary buildings) and try the experiment again. If you want multilevel

set up two boards and experiment with reaching inbetween the boards over trains to get at the rear tracks (simulating a lower fiddle yard).

 

The above might seem like a waste of time and money , but if the stock is what you really want then it can be used in the future , any track can likewise be reclaimed and the experaince and knowledge gained will be priceless. Imagine how you would feel if you spent tens of thousands of pounds and 5 or more years building/having built for you a large shed and layout only to findout that what you really want wont work or would work better if only that brace/point/curve was in a different place or the shed was 6 inches wider or longer.

 

Last summer I had a very heath robinson test track in the garage set up on not level Lidl metal self units, a bench and temp props. it was approx 6 foot x 16 foot oval using 25mm insulation board and snaped off poundland cocktail sticks to hold the track and inclines in position (drawing pins hold the track much better , but obviously dont work with magnets on loco's!!) . I then tested various old stock on standing starts on a 2% incline (predominantly on the straights) and was plesently suprised to find that a single weighted and magneted lima hst power car could start a full 8 length train and a weighted and magneted mainline 56 could start a 32 mgr train even without its traction tyres. What I also discovered that whilst I could always go up the inclines ok ,as I use 3 link couplings on loco's and wagons coming down the mgrs had a habit of buffer locking and derailing , and various hauled stock suffered the same problem (obviously only between the loco and the first coach). Modern built diesels and some old lima diesels would start load 12 airfix mk2's with ease. The next set of tests require a wider area , which other projects have prevented at present. (I would not recommend my heath robinson set up to anyone, better to have a more stable test area). My future tests might prove that 3 links are a no no with gradients on curves, I will be disapointed if that is the case , but I would rather know and change my plans accordingly before building a large layout.

 

Having confirmed what is and what is not possible, confirming that I had the money to build/have built a shed that wont make it difficult to sell the house in the future, I would go for the longest and widest possible, remembering that under the permitted development rules I can only use 50% of the plot before needing planning.I might even look into the possibility of having the two/three boundry fences replaced with walls that could be used as the backs of a U shaped shed with a removable section to cross the U (would allow use of the garden in the centre).  (the chances of getting 3 sets of neighbours to agree is probably very slight and if I had to pay someone to build the walls if might be prohibitaly expensive, but still cheaper than moving in London!!).

 

Assuming I was going for  7.5 x 2.5 metre shed in the back garden , I would ask the builder for clarification on how the cement/concreate for the base is going to be brought through the house. (my only experiance is either mixing by spade for a very small area or having a shute straight off the mixing lorry, with a group of mates and wheel barrows to shift it quick, neither of which are likely to be practical here). Is it possible to get a small cement mixer through the house to the rear garden? I might ask the electrician to comment on how best to get the mains into the shed and whether provision is best put in before the cement/concreate is poured or if he prefers to put the armoured cable protection through the wall after the shed is built. (in either case I would need to check that this instalation did not conflict with placement of my boards/framing and that the main off switch/consumer unit will also be very easy to access.

 

I would then consider how usefull or how inconvienient windows would be , if any windows were to have a limited space before a high fence , how much light on how many days of the year would they allow in,where would this light shine, would that help or hinder.

As I would only want the windows to be openable from the inside (for security) , how easy will it be to reach over the boards (when stock, buildings etc are in place) so that I can open them, the same to be considered with blinds or other coverings. Will the heights of any windows interfere with my plans for baseboards or their supports.

(my personal experiance with workshops/garages/sheds etc would suguest that each window can be more of a hinderance than a help, and I doubt that I would have any , prefering to rig up lighting that was where I wanted it, when I wanted it at a brightness level that I wanted, A number of intake and extration fans would deal with the ventlation that was controlable by me regardless of the weather)

 

For such a large comittement of both money and time I would want to be able to use this as much as possible so insulation , heating and ventilation would be a must, things that people overlook with insulation are that no matter how much insulation you have it only slows down the transfer of heat it does not stop it and if you completely seal a room (not that any british builder seems to have ever mastered that anyway!!!) every human inside will be breathing out water vapor all the time they are inside it , hence the more modern use of vapour barriers (must be on the warm side of the insulation). The better the seals on the room (I doubt that any shed will be well sealed as first built) the greater the importance of controlled ventilation as the water vapour needs to be removed else you will get mould/rot. A dehumidifier could also be considered.

 

How much insulation , well more is better than less but what type of insulation is the builder planning on using as 20mm of one type might be less effective than 10mm of another type, I would try and use at least 50mm of kingspan/celotex/recticel PIR boards in the walls and ceilngs cover that with a vapour barrier and then line with probably 5mm marine ply. This does give another problem as neither 5mm ply or insulation boards will be usable as load baring supports for any shelves or baseboad frames , so yet more planing on how your internal stud famework is constructed and marked/recorded so that it can be located later on (if required). If possible I would use 100mm and at a push I would use 25mm (50mm is not 2x 25mm price). (Due to issues with supply of one of the chemicals,currently PIR board pricing and availability are variable).Before designing the internal framework and insulating I would consider(consult the electrician) on where and how the mains supply wires are going/ where are my sockets going to be.

There are pro's and cons to both hidden and surface tunked wiring , but again plan how that would effect placing baseboards or supports (if hidden record and photo the placement before the ply lining is put in place)

 

There is nothing wrong with boards filled with track , each person gets to decide what they prefer for themselves. If I was in your position once I had decided on either N or OO I would build the layout that I wanted, if I decided that I did not have the space for what I really wanted , I would build a compromise or alternative but in the same scale as my final ambition so that the same stock could be used later, and with as many of the features that my long term plans require , so that any experiance will be easily transferable to my long term plans. I remain to be convinced that building a completly different type of layout in a different scale will help as much towards your final plans.

 

I have extreme doubts that it is viable to plan and build 2 large layouts in different scales in the same shed, one is going to get in the way of the other. If the shed is  8 foot wide (what is the true internal measurment after the insulation and lining) I have doubts on the abilty of large OO trains hauled by steam engines to repeatably and reliably treverse radius small enough to allow you your prefered U shape.

If you want automation then reliabilty is the key , for me that means that the minimum radius (as dictated by your experiments) has to be adhered too even in the off scene areas. If anything the harder it will be to get to a piece of track to rescue/ rerail a train the greater the level of extra leeway built into the radius/incline/junction.

 

If considering multilevel , then the baseboards need to be constructed so that one or idealy both levels are removable , even if this means undoing many fixings. If any board cant be removed then you can practically guarantee that is where an electrical problem will arise. Lying on your back soldering upwards is not recommended , doing so whilst supporting yourself above a lower level that is only a few inches below the top level will be practicaly impossible.

 

Shady

 

 

 

 

[jamespetts]

Shady - thank you for your detailed reply. I shall look forward to seeing pictures of your layout in due course! I should note that I am not building the shed myself; the whole thing is going to be built (including thick insulation and electrics) by a company that specialises in "garden rooms". The 7.5m x 2.5m is the internal measurement: the external measurement is 7.7m x 2.9m. I will then be having a separate heating/air conditioning unit fitted at a high level.

 

As to the cement/concrete, I did show the representative from the shed people the nature of the access through my house, and he said that that would not be a problem. Last year, I had about a tonne of slate chippings brought in that way, so I cannot imagine that cement/concrete would be much different.

 

Regarding having two layouts: I genuinely did (and do) want to be able to have a layout depicting the 1980s as well as a larger 1930s layout. I am not particularly wedded to any gauge, and selected N gauge for the 1980s layout because I can make better use of the space in that gauge. I looked into N gauge for the other layout, too, but found that there is not enough variety of stock available, and especially, no London Underground stock. I should probably have used N gauge for both layouts if there were enough stock because of the ability to fit more into the space.

 

In relation to there not being enough space to fit all three, I had thought to have the N gauge layout at 1.5m high, the upper level of the OO gauge layout at 1.2m high and the lower level of the OO gauge layout at 0.9m high. I am quite tall (1.85m  - 6ft 1"), so, for me, the N gauge would be at eye level standing, the upper tier of the OO gauge would be at lower chest level standing, and the lower level of the OO gauge layout would be at eye level sitting. That should leave enough room under the board of the lower OO gauge layout to solder by leaning forward from a sitting position without having to crawl under the boards - apart, perhaps, from the very far boards. I shall have to inquire in due course with baseboard makers how this might be achieved, and look into the extent to which anything can be attached to the wall of the shed. The N gauge layout would be built only along the long wall without windows.

 

In relation to the layer separation between the upper and lower levels of the OO gauge layout, I have investigated helices, and it seems that it is possible for me to fit a 2nd/3rd radius helix in the space, allowing me to have a full 30cm (1ft) separation between levels. I attach a revised track plan showing this arrangement, and at the same time adding more interest to the lower level station, which was liable to be tedious before. Now, the centre platforms are terminating platforms for some of the Underground trains, including the locomotive hauled Underground trains (all of which would have to terminate there, as the fiddle yards for the Inner Circle (east) have no reversing loop, so we can imagine this as having shades of Aldgate, which is not too far from the actual Pudding Lane).

 

Thank you very much for your testing suggestions. I do not have a great deal of space in the house to test with long trains (which is why I am having the shed built in the first place), but I could set up a temporary oval on the floor of the shed for testing in due course, and acquire the helix for testing the ability of trains to use the gradient with the tight curves with/without magnetic assistance, as well as for the longer trains to use 505mm (3rd radius) curves on the flat with/without magnetic assistance. I could then assess the viability of these plans in light of the results of the tests. I wonder whether there are any tests that I could sensibly run in a much smaller space inside the house? Pre-shed testing would be most useful if practical.

 

As to buffer lock, incidentally, I am currently inclined to retain the default tension lock couplers, which look a lot better than they did when I was a nipper, and which are fairly robust at preventing that sort of thing from what I understand - although, of course, I will need to test this, too, with a freight train downhill on the helix.

 

In any event, thank you again for your assistance: it is much appreciated.

[Harlequin]

The helix and the magnetic traction device simply add to the "complexity" and make this design even less achievable than before!

 

All of these designs are essentially two separate layouts with a difficult, expensive and rarely used connection between them.

 

A 30cm separation will still compromise your access to both the lower level and the underside of the upper level. Have you thought about the visual separation? How will you avoid seeing wires and point motors above the underground station? (Wouldn't the underground platforms, all 6 of them now, be in three or more separate tunnels in reality?)

 

 

I think this is all very aspirational and imaginative but you need to get down to the practicalities. First things first: Build the shed - everything else is contingent on that.

[Joseph_Pestell]

His "underground station" has a lot in common with Moorgate which was in the open until the 1960s.

[jamespetts]

Phil - if 30cm is not enough separation, may I ask what you think is sufficient and why? I chose 30cm because I had not had any answers here to my earlier question as to what was sufficient, and I saw that 30cm was used by a modeller who had a Youtube channel, and that appeared to be satisfactory.

 

Given that I do not plan on building the baseboards myself, does a helix really add that much by way of complexity? Putting the tracks on a helix is not that complex, is it, nor is putting some steel sheets underneath them (or am I missing something)?

 

The connexion between the main line and Underground lines is not planned to be used only rarely - there would be a frequent inner suburban service.

 

As to the Underground station, it is intended to represent a station in a cutting, as most of the stations in the City Widened Lines section were (and still are), the line disappearing into tunnels at the point where the scenic section transforms into the fiddle yard area. I shall enjoy seeing a lot of retaining wall at the back.

 

In relation to the appearance of the underside of the other layout/top part of the layout, is this really any worse than the ceiling of a room? Unless one is actually outside, one will never get an immersive view of a model railway looking upwards.

[Harlequin]

Re. separation. Think about reaching in to the back of the lower level to clean the tracks, pick up a derailed train or to solder a wire to the upper level - that sort of thing. And think about the potential damage to delicate scenic items as you do that...

 

Re. the use of the connection between upper and lower: your mainline traffic won't use it and I guess your dedicated tube-trains won't use it - only the suburban services that you mention. Maybe that's a bigger proportion of your traffic movements than I imagine. Fair enough.

 

A helix obviously adds complexity. It will take a lot more work to fix it in position, adjust it, set up the in and out transitions, lay track on it, wire it up, etc. And it will be relatively expensive compared to the other baseboards.

 

If the underground station is intended to be open to the main level in a cutting, why not model it that way, so that it's a more realistic part of the main model rather than a separate entity? Keep the non-scenic underground trackwork as simple as possible, on open baseboards so that you can reach both it and the main level above from underneath. [i'll sketch a section if I get time.]

 

Re. the underside of the top level: You won't directly see the underside if the top level baseboards from normal viewing angles but the underground station is quite deep so you'll have to get quite a low angle to see the back of it. Then anything descending from the upper baseboard, especially near the front, is likely to be visible. But more than that, the modelled underground will be uncomfortably close to the unmodelled structure of the upper level. There will always be the temptation for viewers to get down low for a closer look and if they then see timber and wires above the illusion will break down.

 

But I'm mainly worried that all this planning effort might be wasted if the shed can't be created as planned for whatever reason. Shed first.

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your reply. What degree of separation would you suggest if not 30cm? 35cm? 40cm? 50cm? Greater separation can be achieved by more turns in the helix, of course. However, I have to balance the degree of separation between the levels with the separation between the lower level and the floor and the quality of the viewing angles for the upper level, as well as the preference to have an N gauge layout (discussed in another thread) on top along one wall.

 

Having the Underground station opening out to the main section is an interesting idea, but I do not think that that would work here: there is insufficient space in the right place to allow for this, and in any event, the intention is for the Underground station to be depicted as being a number of miles away from the main station, thus separated by the scenic break. The plan is for trains to pause for a pre-programmed time in the helix to simulate the time that they would take to traverse the distance between the main station and the Underground station.

 

As to the complexity of the helix, presumably all but laying track on it and wiring it would be done by whoever builds the baseboards, so all that I would have to do is lay track on it and wire it, and neither of those seem to be enormously complex (especially, as far as the wiring is concerned, given that this is a plain track section).

 

As to planning, I do need to have a good idea of what I plan to put in the shed before finalising it and ordering it in order to make very sure that I do not need to adjust the size or door/window placement of the shed to fit with what I seek to achieve. There is of course a risk of wasted planning time, but that seems to be a less problematic risk than the risk of specifying the shed and then later finding out, too late to do anything about it, that a small change in its specification could have made a big change to what I could do with it. It is a difficult balance to some extent.

[sigtech]

Hello James,

I have been following both this topic, and the one directed to constructing an alternative 'N' gauge layout, with interest, it is turning into a long running saga - and for my part I suggest you spend some time looking carefully at the 'real' railway....

Many people on RMWEB have very generously offered advice, people who have 'been there, done it and got the teashirt to prove it'!

But for nearly every sensible suggestion offered, you have produced a counter argument to disprove or dismiss it....

It seems to me that you have already decided on your proposed course of action, and that all this is merely obfuscation of some kind. There is really not that much difference between Your original proposed plan and the present iteration, both are excessively complicated, and will be difficult to construct and operate - especially for someone who informs us that he has had no real connection to Railway Modelling since the age of 13!

There seems little point in asking for all this help/information, only for it to be rejected when it differs from your own held viewpoint...surely in this case you need to learn to walk, before you can run??

Regards

(SIGTECH).

[Harlequin]

You may need planning permission. See permitted development rules, part E.1.b.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/606669/170405_Householder_Technical_Guidance__-April_2017_FINAL.pdf

 

E.1 Development is not permitted by Class E if –

(b) the total area of ground covered by buildings, enclosures and containers

within the curtilage (other than the original dwellinghouse) would exceed 50%

of the total area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original

dwellinghouse)

[Chimer]

Hi James

 

A second radius helix has a circumference of (roughly) 9ft. So you would have the loco sitting on top of the 9th or 10th coach of your 12 coach trains, with both going in the same direction.  I'm not sure of the physics, but intuition says the forces involved are going to be, shall we say, confused?

 

On a more positive note, I have just dug into the box of stock waiting for my "last great layout" to see what my locos (none of which are modified in any way) can pull round my "in the meantime" 6' * 5' test roundy-roundy which uses 3rd radius curves and small radius (24" nominal) Streamline points.  So far, a Bachmann Jubilee and Hornby Fowler 2-6-4T have each managed to start and haul 12 R-T-R coaches round the bends OK, with a few derailments on the pointwork.  A Hornby 4-4-0 Midland compound just spun its wheels.  I'll try a few more later.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[gordon s]

James, can I give you a reality check on a helix?  Let's take the minimum clearance in 00 as 70mm.  What many forget though is you have to add the track bed thickness to calculate the overall gradient.  The minimum you can probably get away with is 6mm, so we need to climb 76mm every full circle.

 

The circumference of a circle is calculated  by pi x d or 2 x pi x r. (Apologies, I don't know the code for the pi symbol).

 

You want to use 2nd and 3rd radius curves, so taking each in turn you have a circumference of 2752mm for the 2nd radius and 3173mm for 3rd radius.

 

Divide those numbers by 76 and the gradient is 1:36 for 2nd radius and 1:41 for 3rd radius.

 

As I haven't read every post, I'm a bit confused what length train you want to run and up and down the helix, but it won't be 12 coach trains or anything like that.

 

Increasing the number of turns won't change the gradient.  The only way round it is to significantly increase the radius of the curved track.  With a reasonable length train and the curves which will add a considerable drag, I suspect you will be looking at a 1:100 gradient.  To achieve that you will need a circle diameter of 2.418m......

 

Edit:  Just looked back and can see you will probably run your underground trains up and down the helix.  A lot still depends then on the number of driven wheels and the weight of the train. 

Edited February 25, 2018 by gordon s

[jamespetts]

Sigtech - the suggestion that I am resistant to advice, which has been made repeatedly, is simply false. I have already dealt with this above. I have specifically taken advice on:

 

(1) starting with a smaller layout and reconsidering such things as may become apparent are necessary from experience with that smaller layout (and then have revised that layout diagram many times based on very helpful advice received in that thread);

(2) increasing the curve radii;

(3) increasing the separation between upper and lower levels;

(4) reducing the proportion of trackwork to baseboard;

(5) having less (and especially less pointwork) far from the edge of the layout;

(6) the need to test the ability of trains to negotiate gradients before building a layout incorporating them;

(7) the need to test the ability of locomotives to haul long trains around tight corners before building a layout with tight corners that is intended to accommodate long trains;

(8) the need to have a more interesting station on the lower level;

(9) having the space to have a gentle transition between flat and gradient without nearby pointwork;

(10) not having the engine shed primarily accessible via the turntable; and

(11) investigating methods of improving adhesion on corners and gradients.

 

I repeat what I wrote above:

 

 

For those who seem to think that I am not receptive to advice - what I am seeking when posting on this forum is not for somebody else to make the decision about what sort of model railway to build for me, but for others to give me useful, specific, practical information so that I can make that decision myself. If I am not deferring to the opinions of others as to what sort of model railway to build, it is either because insufficient reason or data has been given for me to make an informed independent decision about whether there is a good reason for me to do as advised or not, because what is advised is not sufficiently precise to enable me to formulate a specific plan taking into account the constraints suggested, or because it is apparent that the advice in question is or appears likely to be based on aesthetic considerations in circumstances where I do not share the relevant aesthetic preferences of the person giving the advice.

 

Thus, repeating the same generalised statement about the layout being too complex in increasingly emphatic or in some cases hyperbolic tones really does not assist at all, but information such as experience of specific practical problems of particular features (e.g. sharp corners, small degrees of separation between different levels, etc.) are extremely useful, and I very much encourage anyone who is able to assist further in that regard to do so.

 

I very much appreciate the specific, practical advice that has been offered in this and the other thread. I should make it quite clear - once I start building the smaller layout and get an idea of what is involved, and once I conduct the adhesion tests that I plan, I may very well significantly revise what I plan to do.

 

Just because I am not unquestioningly deferring to other people's ideas about what to do (which are not always consistent with one another, and in many cases have been based on an incomplete understanding of what I actually intend to do (such as the multitude of comments to the effect that I should need an army of operators to work a layout to this plan when I have made it clear that I intend to use computer automation or that I should have difficulty with the traction of long trains on gradients when I have made it clear that only short trains will use the gradiented section)) does not mean that I am not receptive to specific, practical advice and information. On many occasions, when I have asked for more information about the very general statements that some people have made, I have had no response.

 

I do not understand what you think that you are contributing by posting a message doing nothing other than asserting that I am not receptive to advice, especially when that is demonstrably false, and especially when I have made it clear many times over that I am extremely grateful for the specific practical advice received. The purpose of a discussion in this thread is not to have an argument about what I should build; it is to share information and ideas about what I have proposed so far and the consequences of it to enable me to make a more informed choice (which information might also be of assistance to others who may read this thread in the future). If I do not accept anyone's advice and end up with difficulties, that is my problem. It is simply out of order to post messages in an accusatory tone criticising me for not being more deferential, not least because anyone reading your post (and anyone else's with a similar tone or content) might be discouraged from offering further practical advice of the sort that that I have found extremely helpful so far because they may falsely be lead to believe that I unthinkingly reject any advice given, when that is clearly not the case.

 

Thus, not only is a post of this sort not constructive, it is positively harmful.

Edited February 25, 2018 by jamespetts

[jamespetts]

Phil - I did specifically check much earlier in the planning process whether the proposed shed shed would occupy more than 50% of the area of land surrounding the house as it stood in 1948, and spent some time calculating this, but it does not, and so this remains permitted development.

 

Chimer - as noted above, long trains will not be using the helix, so this is not an issue.

 

Gordon - I realise that the gradient will be circa 1:36: that is why I intend to test the ability of the relevant sort of train to climb gradients. As noted previously, the magnetic adhesion system seems very promising in this regard.

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

You may need planning permission. See permitted development rules, part E.1.b.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/606669/170405_Householder_Technical_Guidance__-April_2017_FINAL.pdf

 

E.1 Development is not permitted by Class E if –

(b) the total area of ground covered by buildings, enclosures and containers

within the curtilage (other than the original dwellinghouse) would exceed 50%

of the total area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original

dwellinghouse)

 

 

I do lots of planning work but I still find that clause difficult to understand. Not a good example of "plain English".

[jamespetts]

Just wondering, might you be able to achieve the transition between levels with some sort of lift? Drive train on, lower or raise as needed, drive train off.

 

That is an interesting idea. Do you think that that might be more practical than a helix? Does anyone here have any experience of using a lift in this way?

 

Edit: Incidentally, I realise that I had missed the second paragraph of Chris/Chimer's earlier post above: my apologies. Thank you very much for doing those tests - that is very helpful. Can you let me know a little more about the derailments on the pointwork? I should be very interested in the results of your future proposed tests.

Edited February 25, 2018 by jamespetts

[Harlequin]

I do lots of planning work but I still find that clause difficult to understand. Not a good example of "plain English".

Yes, indeed!

 

I read it this way:

• Curtilage is the boundary of the ground that you own, A
• Subtract the area of the house as built or as it was in 1948, whichever is later, H
• Calculate the area of all other relevant structures inside the boundary, including the newly proposed one, measured over their outside walls, C
• If (C > 0.5 * (A-H)) Then permitted development is not allowed

I only mentioned it because James's proposed shed is quite large and his garden is very small (judging by the Shed/Loft thread).

Edited February 25, 2018 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

James you asked a while back about the sort of comparative time the various parts of construction would take.  The answer of course is much the same as asking the length of a piece of string but always bear the following in mind -

 

Any time spent thinking about what you want plus planning how to achieve it, and testing how various extremes might or might not make it work (e.g. helix gradient and radius) will ultimately be worth far more than any of the time you spend building what you finally decide to build.  Take a look through various RMweb threads to see just how, and more importantly why, people have changed their minds once they've got a long way into constructing what they thought they wanted, what they thought they were building, and what their skill level allowed them to build.  And while it might sound trite or unambitious general model railway experience of most people is that less really is more (unless you happen to have bottomless pockets or a gang of skilled helpers and friends).

 

Do, please, think not only about what you want but how you (maybe with help from others) are going to operate it.  That will of course also lead you to control and electrical design as well as working out operating sequences and possibilities but don't forget the 'people design' aspect because if a layout as complex as the one you have in mind will only really work with several operators present they will need somewhere to sit or stand to you need to plan floor space as much as layout space

 

As far as constructing is concerned all of us have varying skills and varying tools and kit plus differing interests so what some find easy is a bind for others either because they don't like or their not good at it.  Once you get going you'll find out for yourself that it might take a lot of 'application' to get through some aspects of layout building - again plenty of hints about that in the various layout threads on RMweb.   But it won't matter whatever else you do if you don't get the track right and working reliably - again an area where extra time spent will repay itself later.  

 

One aside - if you are going to put this layout into an outbuilding of some don't forget yourself in the planning and construction of that building.  Cold feet, literally, can be a good way of putting off layout work or not helping your concentration and it's nota problem fan heaters and the like will necessarily resolve - your floor will need not only dampcourse/damp proof protection but insulation as well - insulation within the floor itself.  The concrete floor of my intended layout room has 4 inches (100mm) of expanded polystyrene underneath the surface concrete plus waterproof chipboard on top of the concrete.  The shed I built fora previous layout had the flooring plans sitting on top of 6 inch deep joists above a damp proof covering of the ground beneath the joists, oh, and sheet ply on top of the floor boards.  Floor insulation is just as important as wall insulation.

[Harlequin]

@James: I'm sure SIGTECH was not "trolling" or trying to be harmful in any sense.

 

It's just a bit frustrating for experienced modellers to see you working this through the hard way.

[gordon s]

Just wondering, might you be able to achieve the transition between levels with some sort of lift? Drive train on, lower or raise as needed, drive train off.

 

 

One of these?.....

 

http://www.nelevation.com/nelevator/