Main line terminus in OO

[gordon s]

I guess this is part of the problem with forums and why simple questions can often lead to two opposing sets of views. This is not aimed at you personally, Grastairs, but it goes some way to explain why hackles can be raised when there are two conflicting sets of replies to questions posed on RMWeb or other forums.

 

All of us want to help fellow modellers polarise their thoughts on their dream layout and none of us deliberately set out to rubbish plans that others have spent hours putting together.

 

James has asked on several occasions how long does in take to do certain tasks and we've all shied away from providing an answer. I'm not sure if it was in this thread or the N thread but it was said by someone it doesn't take much skill to lay track. Yes, you're right, it doesn't take much skill to lay track badly and we've all seen trains negotiate trackwork like a roller coaster or constantly derail through poorly laid point work. Laying track requires perfectly flat baseboards and track underlay. If you want continual problems then you can lay track in minutes. If you want decent running quality then it will take hours of preparation on each piece of material involved in the trackbed long before an inch of track is laid in its final position. It can take hours and several attempts to align track well in both planes.

 

Similarly, Grastairs makes the comment that planning and modelling goes on in his head, but then makes some assumptions that the mechanics of a vertical storage yard should not be too much of a challenge. Having built a very large traverser sufficient to take 16 trains, each with with 8 coaches and a loco, the mechanical alignment issues were immense.

 

I don't apportion blame to anyone, but that's why these types of threads often become heated. We all have different expectations and what is acceptable to one person is not to another. I'm amazed how many exhibition layouts I see with poorly laid track and questionable running quality.

 

I guess those of us who come across as cautious or even negative are just trying to temper unbridled enthusiasm with a modicum of reality. Without that, you will only experience disappointment as few things will go to plan.

Edited February 25, 2018 by gordon s

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your replies: that is helpful. The more that I read (both on the forums and elsewhere), the more that I think that quite a bit of testing is going to be very helpful before I start building things. I wonder the extent to which, if at all, I can sensibly start testing things, before the shed is complete?

 

I attach a slightly revised version of the plans, with the lower level fiddle yards reorganised to take up less space (to allow more room for the end of a workbench to sail underneath them), and with both sets of fiddle yards colour coded and labelled.

 

Mike - the floor will be insulated: that is part of the package. In relation to operators, I was not specifically planning on having multiple people operate the layout at once (as stated, I am very interested in computer control - but will have to test what this is capable of doing either with some testing infrastructure that is never intended to be turned into a permanent layout, or with the smaller N gauge layout before committing to a project that requires this in order to work well). It would be good to have the option to have one or two additional operators, and I think that there should be space for a few people in the shed with a layout to this plan: the middle part of the well (not including the tight squeeze at the end) is 4.5m long and between 0.75m and 1.1m wide.

 

In relation to different people having different skills and doing things at different rates - this is one of the main reasons that I am wary of vague advice about "complexity" (especially as regards electronics/logic/programming, where I do have quite a number of years of experience, albeit in a slightly different context), and why I do not think it rational immediately to abandon this idea entirely on the basis of that vague advice without trying a smaller layout and various tests first. (It is really very, very odd that people appear to be hostile for the sole reason that I have not publicly committed to abandoning building a layout along these lines immediately that such a thing be suggested, but have instead stated that I will build a smaller layout and carry out some tests first, and in the meantime revise these plans based on specific feedback received so far and seek further specific feedback on the plans as revised).

 

As to the Nelevator - that is intriguing: I had no idea that those things existed. I am not sure that this will actually be simpler to use than a helix, however; does anyone here have experience of using one? I note the point that the trains would then need turning, and I imagine that a Nelevator plus a whole train turntable (do these exist? How much space would they take?) would probably be quite a lot more complex than a helix, which is quite a well known railway modelling standard by now (although they were unheard of 25 years ago, from what I recall).

 

As to track laying, as stated before, I plan to have the baseboards built professionally, so hopefully I will not need to worry about the flatness of the surface (at least, so far as the baseboard is concerned) to which the track is applied. In respect of the underlay, the convention I know is to use cork, although there are other products (are these worthwhile, or is it not worth the extra money for, e.g., the DCC concepts trackbed?). Obviously, this will have to be cut to the right size with a sharp knife following measurement, laid out in draft with the track resting lightly on it, then glued to the baseboard before the track be finally fitted on top of it using the conventional pinning method (perhaps with the addition of glue; or do people recommend using glue instead of pins?). Is there anything that I am missing here, especially about ensuring the flatness of the cork? I was planning on using the 1:1 printout from SCARM (if I use Peco track at least) to align the track in exactly the right position. I realise that this will require quite a bit of paper and toner.

 

I do think that reliability is likely to be very important, and have spent some time researching things significant to reliability. Recommendations that I have found so far include using electrofrog points (or possibly the new unifrog points if I end up using Peco bullhead rail), increasing the weight of both locomotives and rolling stock, using the PowerBase on difficult sections, installing "stay alive" capacitors in the locomotives if they prove to be prone to stalling, using high quality DCC decoders (i.e., buying "DCC ready" rather than "DCC fitted" and fitting my own decoders), keeping the track clean (I believe that there are special track cleaning tanker wagons), wiring the layout using power districts so that a short circuit in one area does not affect the whole layout, using as large a radius set of curves as can be fit in the space and not having gradients too steep. I suspect that using mostly more modern locomotives is also likely to be helpful (especially if I am using code 75 track). I should note that, freight shunting not being an interest of mine, the possibility for complexities and derailments from shunting small loose wagons is at least eliminated.

 

In any event, thank you all for your help so far; it is appreciated.

['CHARD]

I'm just going to praise James here for his interaction and gratitude.  It takes some gumption to have your dream layout pulled about in the amphitheatre of (in some cases) armchair pundits; heaven knows I'm more of a headspace modeller than an actual one, through force of circumstance for the past five years I would add.

 

Far too often we see a grand scheme posited on here and the OP disinterested in responses and feedback, both supportive and critical.  I think the OP's response and ongoing finessing of his concept does him immense credit, and far from being patronising here, I'm hopeful that we will all be able to share an informative and potentially groundbreaking build in due course.

 

Let's continue this in the positive and upbeat way that seems to have broken out.  

[royaloak]

Thats better, top left corner why not angle the whole junction angled upwards towards the corner and then have a bigger radius corner to get onto the side, it is all a bit straight and 'clinical', something you rarely see on the real railway.

 

Maybe even have the lines heading towards the helix as the mainlines and have the station roads off that, of course if it is a mainline station then the through lines would have platforms. 

 

Why are all the platforms straight, giving them a slight curve would add interest and make it easier to add platforms to the through lines.

Edited February 25, 2018 by royaloak

[gordon s]

If you haven't already see this thread, it might be of interest to you.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/98901-this-is-euston/page-52

 

Euston in a shed.....

 

OK, it's beautifully made hand built track not RTR, but this was started in May 2015, so coming up for three years ago and a way to go yet.....

 

A main line terminus, with a lot of track and little scenery as yet.

Edited February 25, 2018 by gordon s

[mightbe]

I'm fairly confident I could put together an 8-9 platform station with junction and throat largely as shown, just in a more attractive way that gets you visual breathing room. As stated above, the plan is largely sterile. Can you indicate the dimensions of everything?

[shady]

Most if not all of us will have built a layout in a pre existing space , and most of us will have wished that space was slightly different and been forced to change our plans to meet the fixed dimensions. I say that because some would say build the shed first , then plan the layout . If I had a blank canvas and could tweek the dimensions of the layout space , then personaly I would try my hardest to check that any must have feature would both fit in and work before I fixed on the dimensions.

 

If I was building your plan the main areas that I would want to test out first would be.

 

1) How wide is the widest station board , am I very confident that I can rescue/uncouple a loco from stock at the rear few platforms .(I am assuming that any automated uncoupling system has not worked on this occasion and of cause the station is full of other trains)

 

 If I cant be sure of reaching over to the back , is it possible to design the shed so that a window (or maybe a flap similar to a burger van ) can be opened to enable access , accepting that this will reduce both the security and possibly the weather tightness it might make all the dfference.

 

2) on the very rear lines how long is there from the start of the gradient to the point that the roof of the train has to be lower than the base board and any braces and or wiring looms , it looks very tight. (if I build a helix the start will be able to do one complete circuit , before having to go under anything)

 

3) When a train has fallen off inside the helix how do I  rescue it ? I cant come from above as the station is in the way , due to the nature of the winding tracks on a helix I doubt I can reach in from the side. Can I crawl under the lowest part.

(my own plan would require that the lowest part is high enough so that I can lay on my back on a mechanics crawler to get inside the helix without any danger of hitting my head on anythng sharp as I am not confident that I can design a lifting section on a helix)

 

4) It seems to me that the layout success hinges on whether your preferered steam engines , will happily and repeatably traverse the combination of points and curves in green.

I dont know the answer to that as I dont run steam and only ever use set track curves in testing set ups , but I would make sure I did before I had the shed built. If not worse case the shed and boards are built , the tracks down and I find out that only 6 or 7 coach trains work , if I had known that at the start would I have built 12 coach platforms ? , would I have changed the plan / the shed dimensions or the scale.

 

My gut says that the shed won't be wide enough to do what you want (in OO), I hope that I am wrong.

 

If a salesperson gives me a verbal assurance , that there will be no problem with a product and of cause we can deliver it on such an such a date , easily get round or through an obstacle and the final dimensions will be x y z , experience has made me cautious on how strongly to accept that assurance.

 

I do get your enthusiam , and the burning desire to be doing something towards your goal , but your layout will depend on the results of your tests , also be aware that even though someone else will be building the shed and someone else will be building the boards, you are very likely to have to do some DIY yourself and this will require some tools and maybe some practice before you are happy with the results.

 

 

Shady

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your replies. That Euston layout is looking very impressive so far - and all with hand built track and locomotives, too! It must take some serious skill and patience to build all the track by hand for something like that. That will be quite splendid when it is done, I am sure.

 

In relation to the position of the station throat - I had considered shifting it upwards a little to slacken the curves, but I thought that that would then make it too far from the edge of the baseboard to be able to reach, and one of the other pieces of advice was to make sure that the more complex things especially were close to the edge of the baseboards. I wonder whether reducing the size of the baseboard at the front in that area might assist? I do wonder whether that would make the baseboards rather unevenly shaped so as to make the resulting well less useful in space than it might otherwise be for the equivalent amount of area. Also, would putting the station throat further up not eat into what is otherwise the only significant uninterrupted space left for scenery?

 

In relation to straight platforms, I thought that these would be significantly easier to model than curved platforms (one can, after all, buy prefabricated straight platforms, which should significantly reduce the work involved in installing them) and would take up less shed space for a given length of platform. After all, many mainline termini do in fact have straight or mostly straight platforms: Paddington's are mostly straight apart from some curvature at the Western end, those of Euston, King's Cross and Marylebone are entirely straight, as are those of Charging Cross, Fenchurch Street and Liverpool Street. Waterloo has some curvature, but mainly at the end, I think, and I think that Victoria is similar.

 

Mightbe - instead of giving the measurements in this thread, I thought that it might be easier just to upload the .scarm file, which is here.

 

Edit: The above reply crossed with Shady's, so I reply to that here.

 

I agree that it is helpful to plan the layout before finalising the shed. On the basis of measurements and calculations this afternoon based on this layout (as revised following advice on this thread), I am likely to change the position of the door and remove one of the planned windows - which I can do as I have yet formally to place the order for the shed.

 

The widest station board is 1.1m. The plan is for this layout to be circa 1.2m off the floor. Having just conducted a brief test using my measuring tape and monitors, I think that I can reach that far, although it is hard to be sure without an actual flat surface at that height and depth, which I do not have. I should have to make sure that any overall roof that I might have is easily removable for these purposes - does anyone have any experience with removable overall roofs?

 

On the suburban dive-under, there is just over 3.1m of linear gradient before the start of the helix, which I have specified as being 70mm below the upper track level. I do not imagine that there will be much, if anything, in the way of wiring at the far end of the station. As to the helix, being able to rescue things from inside is a very good idea - thank you for that: I will ask the baseboard builders to cut a hole in the centre so that it can be reached from below. The current plan is for the lower level to be circa 900mm above floor level. The desk at which I am typing this now is 800mm above floor level, and I can get under that without too much difficulty.

 

In relation to testing with long trains, I do not think that I can do that until I have the shed, as I do not think that a track to fit a 12 carriage train will sensibly fit in any of the rooms in my house.

Edited February 25, 2018 by jamespetts

[Denbridge]

Thank you all for your replies. That Euston layout is looking very impressive so far - and all with hand built track and locomotives, too! It must take some serious skill and patience to build all the track by hand for something like that. That will be quite splendid when it is done, I am sure.

 

In relation to the position of the station throat - I had considered shifting it upwards a little to slacken the curves, but I thought that that would then make it too far from the edge of the baseboard to be able to reach, and one of the other pieces of advice was to make sure that the more complex things especially were close to the edge of the baseboards. I wonder whether reducing the size of the baseboard at the front in that area might assist? I do wonder whether that would make the baseboards rather unevenly shaped so as to make the resulting well less useful in space than it might otherwise be for the equivalent amount of area. Also, would putting the station throat further up not eat into what is otherwise the only significant uninterrupted space left for scenery?

 

In relation to straight platforms, I thought that these would be significantly easier to model than curved platforms (one can, after all, buy prefabricated straight platforms, which should significantly reduce the work involved in installing them) and would take up less shed space for a given length of platform. After all, many mainline termini do in fact have straight or mostly straight platforms: Paddington's are mostly straight apart from some curvature at the Western end, those of Euston, King's Cross and Marylebone are entirely straight, as are those of Charging Cross, Fenchurch Street and Liverpool Street. Waterloo has some curvature, but mainly at the end, I think, and I think that Victoria is similar.

 

Mightbe - instead of giving the measurements in this thread, I thought that it might be easier just to upload the .scarm file, which is here.

some points you may consider regarding Euston. It would give you a lot of ideas of what is practical if you read through the posts, find the size of the layout and double the measurements. Also of note is his tightest radius, just under the 4mm equivalent of 3' radius. Also, his motive power will all be diesels and electrics, which are always more powerful than steam.  

[Junctionmad]

I’m a professional EE with a background in embedded systems , so I understand the requirements of layout automation, right down to chip level so to speak. I have a good home office /lab/ workshop that’s currently sepetate fron my layout. I have cnc tools, oscilloscopes, power tools out the wazoo , I ve being building things since I was 12.

 

To give you some concrete examples , PECO streamline on cork , DCC dropper wiring , block detection wiring , servo point motors , on a club layout , took 6 months to lay and wire up , about 300 feet of track and points, droppers were placed on every section of flexitrack , no reliance on rail joiners . This was two people working 3 nights a week, for a few hours ( there were gaps were individuals were absent etc ) . These would have been reasonably experienced builders ( 2-3 layouts ) this was regarded as fast work.

 

Working on your own takes longer as you get distracted and at times loose your “ mojo” and tend to leave the layout , my magnum opus has about 250 feet of track on a 20 by 12 foot removable baseboard , I have begun sections in a bed room but the shed it’s going into is being built at present ( cavity wall block , insulated corrugated roof ) . I can easily see it taking me 3-4 years to get the track finished( rtr plain track , hand build points )

 

I like many others , find that I don’t want to work one project to completion , so I tend to have several projects on the go , custom electronics for the layout , kit build , cut and shut conversions , scratch builds , etc and spend weeks not actually near a baseboard.

 

Did I mention , I’m retired ( more or less ) , but then factor in DIY, family time , holidays away , etc etc and the time available to model is nothing like you think it is . You’ll be stunned how little can be accomplished in a few hours in the evenings ( assuming your not knacketed fron the day job ) , if you have teenagers , divide all available time by 3 !!

 

Then factor in loss of Mojo from time to time.

 

None can give you any accurate estimates to build your layout , it’s far too personal , but good track laying , with all the associated wiring , is slow painstaking work ( and don’t mention ballasting)

 

Hers my practical suggestions based on my personal experience or watching club layouts or helping friends layouts

 

1. Decide are you primarily a “ builder “ or an “ operator”

 

2. If you are an operator, Plan you layout build in sections , so that something , a subset, can be got running reasonably quickly , to satisfy your desire to run trains

 

3. Critically evaluate your skills , have you laid this type of track recently , have you wired a layout recently , have you any practical knowledge of DCC and computer automation , allow a lot more time then you think if you are lacking in direct experience.

 

4. If in doubt , build test setups , these can be short 2metre test planks , evaluate track laying technique , cork versus plain , versus foam insulation , point motor types and drives , DCC. DCC automation , block detection , uncouplers ( TL, Kadee , etc ), control panels etc. on a big layout , there too much at stake to make errors

 

5. consider removable/modular baseboards , crawling under baseboards is a royal pain , all my baseboards are now 6mm ply box construction with 6mm ply tops. do not use MDF. I can now work on each section n the comfort of my workbench.

 

6. build the baseboards to suit the track plan . Don’t build baseboards blind

 

7. Wiring a layout of this size will be considerable , DCC power districts , block detection , point and signal wiring , ancillary wiring , and stacks of DCC droppers and frog switching wires. You need to extremely comfortable here as mistakes cost time. You need to know and factor in all the requirements for automation from the start.

 

8, in my experience any hidden or obstructed track should not have ANY pointwork on it. Nada , non. No. You need direct unemcumbered access to pointwork.

 

9, fiddle yards should have straight parallel track , thousands of exhibition layouts can’t be wrong. Setting up stock on curves is a nightmare. Bear in mind that tightly packed fiddle yards are extremely difficult to reach into and very tiring on the arms.

 

10. Good computer automation is tricky , there is lots of setup , experimentation etc. all this takes time

 

11. 1 in 50 straight gradients will work with care , do not have curves or points on gradients.

 

 

In summary , leaving aside the issues with the track plan , this would seem to me to be a 10 year layout to build , are you up for that , is your mojo sustainable. In watching people build layouts there are two things that cause them to dump it

 

A. They realize they cannot( too long , or not enough skill/ patience) build to the standard they expected and get disillusioned

 

B. They loose their mojo , get distracted and abandon , or effectively abandon , the layout.

 

For a long build layout , house moves, family issues are factors

 

I visited three large domestic layouts recently , one to fix poor wiring issues ( as the layout grew the understanding of the wiring confused the builder ) , and the other two to buy stock from layouts being dismantled as the owners were a, moving house and b, needed the room for a returning adult daughter , life and curve balls etc.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Junctionmad

[jamespetts]

That is very useful detail - thank you. One thought is that the lower level can be operated in a self-contained way, and is considerably simpler than the upper level. I wonder whether it would be worthwhile starting there?

Edited February 26, 2018 by jamespetts

[Denbridge]

That is very useful detail - thank you. One thought is that the lower level can be operated in a self-contained way, and is considerably simpler than the upper level. I wonder whether it would be worthwhile starting there?

I still feel the lower level is pointless and will cause more problems than it can warrant. Having so much hidden track to serve a very short scenic area is really both a waste of effort and a potential disaster zone.

If you were to just concentrate on the upper level, sorting out the design faults, you could potentially have a very good and interesting layout.

[Junctionmad]

That is very useful detail - thank you. One thought is that the lower level can be operated in a self-contained way, and is considerably simpler than the upper level. I wonder whether it would be worthwhile starting there?

If your primarily desire is operations , runnng trains , rather then building layouts. I’d suggest you break your track plan down into sections that can be completed within 6 months to provide continuous running. ( that’s 6 months to fully wired track but no scenics etc

 

as for the two layer track plan , you need to really be comfortable with access to the lower track or design it with easy to remove top sections.

 

Personally I’d try and have a layout on a single level , with sections lowered to represent underground etc.

 

All that track work with a further baseboard above it , is a receipe for trouble. Even with considerable intervening height ( ie , 300 mm)

Edited February 26, 2018 by Junctionmad

[Denbridge]

If yiur primarily desire is operations , runnng trains , rather then building layouts. I’d suggest you break your track plan down into sections that can be completed within 6 months to provide continuous running. ( that’s 6 months to fully wired track but no scenics etc

 

as for the two layer track plan , you need to really be comfortable with access to the lower track or design it with easy to remove top sections.

 

Personally I’d try and have a layout on a single level , with sections lowered to represent underground etc.

 

All that track work with a further baseboard above it , is a receipe for trouble. Even with considerable intervening height ( ie , 300 mm)

the helix won't work. Radii will be too tight. 

[Junctionmad]

the helix won't work. Radii will be too tight.

 

I know , the two layer aspect of this design, is in my experience, a huge issue and potentially a show stopper , I operate a friends layout and it’s a three level design in 16 by 12 , it works but the track is very well laid and the hidden sections are two track wide , accessible from both sides and no pointwork. Even that is too much for me. My proposed layout has a single branch line that climbs over the main line in a hidden section and I’m serously considering just having no gradients and a hidden ( though accessible ) diamond to carry the branch through the main line. Edited February 26, 2018 by Junctionmad

[Denbridge]

I know , the two layer aspect of this design, is in my experience, a huge issue and potentially a show stopper , I operate a friends layout and it’s a three level design in 16 by 12 , it works but the track is very well laid and the hidden sections are two track wide , accessible from both sides and no pointwork. Even that is too much for me. My proposed layout has a single branch line that climbs over the main line in a hidden section and I’m serously considering just having no gradients and a hidden ( though accessible ) diamond to carry the branch through the main line.

I have no wish to be negative. I've tried to offer advice based on hard won experience on many layouts, over more than 40 years, mistakes and all. Tight curves and gradients are a show stopper on any layout with mainline pretensions. Access is another. Plus, probably 90% of complicated layouts attempted by solo builders never get finished, usually by virtue of the amount of work, realisation that the design does not work in practice and most importantly the cost factor. There are some very large and successful layouts, but when you study them, they are usually, in essence, basically simple in concept. All on one level, sensible curves etc, etc. Roy Jackson's marvellous Retford is a case in point. Yet even as experienced as Roy is, he had to rebuild one area of this huge layout. Why? Because he had to include some gradients. These were very shallow by most standards, but he had to make them even more gentle to allow his trains to negotiate them and bear in mind most of his loco's are kitbuilt and therefore have better tractive effort than modern RTR.

[Junctionmad]

Plus, probably 90% of complicated layouts attempted by solo builders never get finished, usually by virtue of the amount of work, realisation that the design does not work in practice and most importantly the cost factor.

 

Of course , we have no actual completion stats , no definition of “ complex” , but I broadly agree , I find money not to be an issue for most people , stock is expensive , layouts are comparatively cheap. You buy a lot of PECO for £1000

 

The big issue is sustaining the interst over a long period , especially as aspects of a big layout can be very tedious

 

Personally I don’t like gradients or hidden track and strive to remove them from any layout design.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Junctionmad

[Denbridge]

Of course , we have no actual completion stats , no definition of “ complex” , but I broadly agree , I find money not to be an issue for most people , stock is expensive , layouts are comparatively cheap. You buy a lot of PECO for £1000

 

The big issue is sustaining the interst over a long period , especially as aspects of a big layout can be very tedious

 

Personally I don’t like gradients or hidden track and strive to remove them from any layout design.

I can sort of agree, though a reasonable estimate for this layout would be around 3 1/2 to 4 grand for the trackwork alone. Then add the cost of point motors/servos, wiring etc the price is astronomical and the baseboards haven't been factored in. Then IF it was ever built, the amount of stock required to do it any justice would come into the tens of thousands assuming off the shelf products. Even a 2nd hand 12 coach rake of good quality coaches with a good steam loco, say a castle, would be around 250 quid minimum, and more likely double that. so, just 10 mainline trains eats up somewhere between 2500 and 5000 quid and still nowhere near the requirements of this plan.

[Fenman]

I can sort of agree, though a reasonable estimate for this layout would be around 3 1/2 to 4 grand for the trackwork alone. Then add the cost of point motors/servos, wiring etc the price is astronomical and the baseboards haven't been factored in. Then IF it was ever built, the amount of stock required to do it any justice would come into the tens of thousands assuming off the shelf products. Even a 2nd hand 12 coach rake of good quality coaches with a good steam loco, say a castle, would be around 250 quid minimum, and more likely double that. so, just 10 mainline trains eats up somewhere between 2500 and 5000 quid and still nowhere near the requirements of this plan.

 

While all that is true, we have no idea how wealthy the OP is. (And of course, it's none of our business.)

 

For me, the sums you've mentioned would be not inconsiderable. But I know there are some people who would not even look twice at them, or pause at double those prices, or even ten times those prices.

 

It's also I guess a question of timing. If, as everyone says, this layout will take many years to build, dividing those sums by the number of years makes them look much more "reasonable".

 

And if he's anything like me he's been hoarding stock over the years on a "just in case" basis. While I feel lucky to have bought as much as I could reasonably want when the RTR prices were a fraction of what they are now, the last time I started adding up how much I'd spent over the years I stopped before I'd finished, needing to go and have a lie down.

 

It's clearly a hugely ambitious idea. Good luck to him! I really look forward to reading the thread as it develops.

 

Paul

[Denbridge]

While all that is true, we have no idea how wealthy the OP is. (And of course, it's none of our business.)

 

For me, the sums you've mentioned would be not inconsiderable. But I know there are some people who would not even look twice at them, or pause at double those prices, or even ten times those prices.

 

It's also I guess a question of timing. If, as everyone says, this layout will take many years to build, dividing those sums by the number of years makes them look much more "reasonable".

 

And if he's anything like me he's been hoarding stock over the years on a "just in case" basis. While I feel lucky to have bought as much as I could reasonably want when the RTR prices were a fraction of what they are now, the last time I started adding up how much I'd spent over the years I stopped before I'd finished, needing to go and have a lie down.

 

It's clearly a hugely ambitious idea. Good luck to him! I really look forward to reading the thread as it develops.

 

Paul

I think I'd have a coronary if I totalled up how much I've spent on this hobby over 40+ years. HaHa. 

However the main thrust of the various posts isn't to put James off of his ambitious plan, it is to try and convince him that it is effectively unworkable, assuming it ever got built.Off the shelf Steam locomotives, even modified, will simply be unable to pull the kind of trains he wants on radii and gradients he proposes to adopt. I would hate to see him spend so much money on a lame duck.

['CHARD]

.... .... a 2nd hand 12 coach rake of good quality coaches with a good steam loco, say a castle, would be around 250 quid minimum, and more likely double that. so, just 10 mainline trains eats up somewhere between 2500 and 5000 quid and still nowhere near the requirements of this plan.

 

Now, bearing in mind that I find myself back in the planning stage of my 'last big layout,' with neither a man cave nor a track plan to show for it yet, I have pretty much every item of stock needed to operate a good representation of the timetable, without the same stock appearing twice except for its booked return working.  

 

So, while James' plan does on face value appear daunting, he may have already, like me, assembled the rolling stock portfolio required, as a form of stake or investment in the project.  I'm not going to venture a figure, but it would nave four noughts.

 

 

EDIT: Fenman beat me to it  

Edited February 26, 2018 by 'CHARD

[Denbridge]

Now, bearing in mind that I find myself back in the planning stage of my 'last big layout,' with neither a man cave nor a track plan to show for it yet, I have pretty much every item of stock needed to operate a good representation of the timetable, without the same stock appearing twice except for its booked return working.  

 

So, while James' plan does on face value appear daunting, he may have already, like me, assembled the rolling stock portfolio required, as a form of stake or investment in the project.  I'm not going to venture a figure, but it would nave four noughts.

The point many have been trying to put across is that the plan simply will not work. Off the shelf steam locomotives simply will not haul the kind of trains envisaged on radii this tight, and that is not even considering the impossible helix. If he was going Modern image with Diesels driving on multiple axles he would be in with a shout. but not with steam. And has been said, the lower level is a disaster waiting to happen through access problems alone. 

[Dagworth]

 

So, while James' plan does on face value appear daunting, he may have already, like me, assembled the rolling stock portfolio required, as a form of stake or investment in the project.  I'm not going to venture a figure, but it would nave four noughts.

I get the impression that the OP has currently none or next to no stock at all.

 

Please bear in mind that I have not done any railway modelling since I was about 13, so might well not be as up to speed as some of the more veteran modellers with especially the practical aspects of modelling.

 

Andi

['CHARD]

The point many have been trying to put across is that the plan simply will not work. Off the shelf steam locomotives simply will not haul the kind of trains envisaged on radii this tight, and that is not even considering the impossible helix. If he was going Modern image with Diesels driving on multiple axles he would be in with a shout. but not with steam. And has been said, the lower level is a disaster waiting to happen through access problems alone. 

 

Yes, I get this, I was just suggesting that he may have been accumulating trains in blue, red and whatever boxes, and therefore the cost of said trains was already sunk.  

 

However, Andi has identified my misunderstanding of the situation, it would appear....

 

I get the impression that the OP has currently none or next to no stock at all.

 

 

Andi

 

 

 

[Denbridge]

Thank you all for your replies: that is helpful. The more that I read (both on the forums and elsewhere), the more that I think that quite a bit of testing is going to be very helpful before I start building things. I wonder the extent to which, if at all, I can sensibly start testing things, before the shed is complete?

 

I attach a slightly revised version of the plans, with the lower level fiddle yards reorganised to take up less space (to allow more room for the end of a workbench to sail underneath them), and with both sets of fiddle yards colour coded and labelled.

 

Mike - the floor will be insulated: that is part of the package. In relation to operators, I was not specifically planning on having multiple people operate the layout at once (as stated, I am very interested in computer control - but will have to test what this is capable of doing either with some testing infrastructure that is never intended to be turned into a permanent layout, or with the smaller N gauge layout before committing to a project that requires this in order to work well). It would be good to have the option to have one or two additional operators, and I think that there should be space for a few people in the shed with a layout to this plan: the middle part of the well (not including the tight squeeze at the end) is 4.5m long and between 0.75m and 1.1m wide.

 

In relation to different people having different skills and doing things at different rates - this is one of the main reasons that I am wary of vague advice about "complexity" (especially as regards electronics/logic/programming, where I do have quite a number of years of experience, albeit in a slightly different context), and why I do not think it rational immediately to abandon this idea entirely on the basis of that vague advice without trying a smaller layout and various tests first. (It is really very, very odd that people appear to be hostile for the sole reason that I have not publicly committed to abandoning building a layout along these lines immediately that such a thing be suggested, but have instead stated that I will build a smaller layout and carry out some tests first, and in the meantime revise these plans based on specific feedback received so far and seek further specific feedback on the plans as revised).

 

As to the Nelevator - that is intriguing: I had no idea that those things existed. I am not sure that this will actually be simpler to use than a helix, however; does anyone here have experience of using one? I note the point that the trains would then need turning, and I imagine that a Nelevator plus a whole train turntable (do these exist? How much space would they take?) would probably be quite a lot more complex than a helix, which is quite a well known railway modelling standard by now (although they were unheard of 25 years ago, from what I recall).

 

As to track laying, as stated before, I plan to have the baseboards built professionally, so hopefully I will not need to worry about the flatness of the surface (at least, so far as the baseboard is concerned) to which the track is applied. In respect of the underlay, the convention I know is to use cork, although there are other products (are these worthwhile, or is it not worth the extra money for, e.g., the DCC concepts trackbed?). Obviously, this will have to be cut to the right size with a sharp knife following measurement, laid out in draft with the track resting lightly on it, then glued to the baseboard before the track be finally fitted on top of it using the conventional pinning method (perhaps with the addition of glue; or do people recommend using glue instead of pins?). Is there anything that I am missing here, especially about ensuring the flatness of the cork? I was planning on using the 1:1 printout from SCARM (if I use Peco track at least) to align the track in exactly the right position. I realise that this will require quite a bit of paper and toner.

 

I do think that reliability is likely to be very important, and have spent some time researching things significant to reliability. Recommendations that I have found so far include using electrofrog points (or possibly the new unifrog points if I end up using Peco bullhead rail), increasing the weight of both locomotives and rolling stock, using the PowerBase on difficult sections, installing "stay alive" capacitors in the locomotives if they prove to be prone to stalling, using high quality DCC decoders (i.e., buying "DCC ready" rather than "DCC fitted" and fitting my own decoders), keeping the track clean (I believe that there are special track cleaning tanker wagons), wiring the layout using power districts so that a short circuit in one area does not affect the whole layout, using as large a radius set of curves as can be fit in the space and not having gradients too steep. I suspect that using mostly more modern locomotives is also likely to be helpful (especially if I am using code 75 track). I should note that, freight shunting not being an interest of mine, the possibility for complexities and derailments from shunting small loose wagons is at least eliminated.

 

In any event, thank you all for your help so far; it is appreciated.

James, the main problems with your design, as I see it are as follows ( lets disregard how much you are trying to cram in).

I curves. Off the shelf steam locos simply will not haul the length of trains you require.

2. The helix simply will not work in the area you have. The gradient, combined with the set track curves will cause the same problems as above.

3. Access. There id far too much track under the high level. A potential disaster area, dealing with derailments and maintenance/repairs.

4. there is a disproportionate amount of hidden track feeding a small viewing area.

If you were to abandon the low level, you could move the whole terminus back towards the wall of your shed. Getting rid of the through roads also removes a double junction. With only a small amount of redrawing, you can increase the radii of the mainline approach to the terminus, using curved and tandem turnouts, making it all flow better.You may still have some issues with the return loop, bottom right, but since this is in the hidden fiddle yard, there is no requirement for trains to operate at the slower speeds of the scenic area. The other point to note is that some of the fiddle yard roads are too short to be of any use, but that is easily overcome. I honestly feel that these changes would give you a workable, achievable layout.