Main line terminus in OO

[Junctionmad]

Why not take a statistical view , if 8 people are telling you the approach is wrong and one is telling you it’s right , then maybe .......

 

radio announcer

“Be aware , there is a car , traveling the wrong way up the motorway “

 

Caller to radio programme

“ a car , there loads of cars going the wrong way “

 

Don’t be that person , yes avoid “ group think “ , but rationalize carefully

[jamespetts]

Junctionmad - I am not familiar with the word "cellotaoec", and an internet search for that word returns no results. Can you elaborate on what this is? Given that you use Templot, incidentally, do I infer correctly that you build your own custom track? I have not much used general CAD software (I have used 3d modelling software, but that is rather different); do you know of any links to resources as to where I can usefully find information about how best to use this for wiring planning for model railways? May I ask - does anyone else plan wiring using CAD software? What problems do you find that this tends to avoid?

 

A spreadsheet for wiring numbers is a very interesting idea - I shall bear this in mind.

 

As to getting my whole torso into a space, I am trying to think of a way of testing this. I have tried using underneath my desk, but that is 800mm high above the ground (this gives access with room to spare). Perhaps I could measure underneath my bed and check whether that is a good proxy? That might be useful, although its usefulness might be limited owing to the lack of separation from the floor.

 

Incidentally, I just checked using SCARM, and there are no points or crossings more than 825mm from the edge of the baseboard on this plan (and most are within 700mm of the edge of the baseboard), not counting the edges that are along walls, of course.

 

I will not be deferring to others unquestioningly no matter how many times that you or anyone else insist that I do so. The number of people who hold a view is not relevant to whether it is true. If there is an actual video of somebody driving a train hauled by a model steam locomotive in OO gauge successfully up a 3rd/4th radius helix with 8 carriages, it really does not matter how many people insist that it cannot be done with 6 carriages: I will be extremely sceptical of any such view unless those people are able to produce empirical data that are more probative than the video. So far, none have done so. Moreover, the more that people insist to the contrary of what is contained in what is extremely probative evidence without providing at least equally probative contrary evidence, the more that I have good reason to be very sceptical of anything else that those people claim without providing high quality independent evidence.

[Dagworth]

 

This is a 120cm long board. 

The top of the board is 80 cm from the floor

The nose of the class 40 furthest from me is 1 meter from me.

The vertical ruler is 45cm long

The back of my head is about 70 cm above the board.

I'm 172cm tall.

 

Now try putting another board above this one and imagine the contortions to even try to put a loco on the track at that distance, let alone repair a dodgy soldered wire.

 

That's what I mean by full and clear access. 

 

Andi

Edited March 3, 2018 by Dagworth

[mightbe]

What is your job? (No, it's not an irrelevant question.)

 

I ask because you seem to think layout design is quantifiable. (It's not, I'll tell you right now.) 

 

The design is poor for reasons other than helix, the hidden track, the access, the clearance, the gradients, the radii, the fiddle yard, and the multi-level set up. Those are just the red flags, if you will. You have quite a comprehensive list of things wise modellers avoid, as has been said. 

 

Given the extent to which the above influence the fundamental design, there's no point in listing things to be corrected or improved at the surface-level. 

 

Earlier, I suggested starting from a blank canvas, as we all do things better the second time 'round. This is still sensible advice, but I think more time should be spent analyzing others' layouts first. This will show you what works and what doesn't, as well as tipping you off to the subtler common practices of design.

 

EDIT: If I may, an analogy:

 

A middle-aged man approaches a local piano teacher about beginner's lessons, "I've never really learned properly, no lessons or anything like that," he said. The teacher agrees and a time is set up to meet. The man has listened to hundreds of CDs, Argerich, Rubinstein, Gould, the lot, and feels he is well acquainted with piano repertoire. At the first lesson, he greets the teacher with a big smile and the two take a seat at the piano. The teacher asks if the man has ever played before, just for fun, and he replies "Yes!" suddenly pulling a book from his bag. Without a second's delay the man  starts to play. It's a Chopin ballade, the first, in G minor. Not wanting to offend the man or crush his spirit, the teacher very politely decides to not speak and to let him get to the end. Before she had the chance to say something the man asks, with total seriousness, "Now what did you think about the ritardando I added at m. 67; was I maybe just 5 beats per minute too slow? I want it to sound like Rubinstein's." 

Edited March 3, 2018 by mightbe

[DCB]

Interesting stuff, much of which I don't agree with!  The critical clearances is between the track and what is above it. Now most people put a bit of 2 X1 and a 9mm baseboard between the track above and the track below then in 00 add 70mm for clearance giving 130mm between levels,  I think my record is 70mm between levels at the critical point, the upper track being supported on a piece of PCB at the critical point I did wonder about soldering rail direct to the PCB to save a bit more.  My Critical Loco is a Tender drive Hornby King, almost 60mm high. 

 

Hidden sidings with minimal overhead clearance are a no no in full DCC.  Too much scope for crashes when you can't see which loco is which. Wire it as DC with points controlling which road is energised and it should be ok. We have used 4 hidden loops and 7 hidden sidings under a removable terminus on DC (see pic) and it has only been off once in 35 years. panelling in under the framing to stop wires etc drooping helps immensely as does Peco code 100 electrofrog 3ft radius points and H&M point motors.  Note my wring loom and boxed in point motors and wiring above the N class waiting to use the turntable. Tje baseboard is about 2ft 6 wide and yes getting to derailments is challenging so I try to avoid them.

 

Helix are problematical for steam locos.  Somewhere around 2nd Radius most 0-6-0 locos start lifting a wheel due to the twist in the rails, less severe radius and the coning on the tyres lets the wheels stay on the track, certainly I have a bit of 3rd radius which does not cause problems except to long wheelbase 4 wheeled wagons which have had to be banned, whereas the 2nd radius spiral causes noticeable wheel lift on 4-6-0s etc.  With 00  Bo Bo diesels and H0  Co Co  diesels  there is not a problem nor have I had any issues with vehicles falling in to the inside of the spiral apart from aforementioned long wheelbase 4 wheelers which have had to be banished to the cupboard and soon to be on eBay.  

 

If the planned station is to use steam locos up the spiral it won't work, if its for EMUs there should be no problem, as long as 1 bogie in 6 is powered though the gradient will be around 1 in  36   110" ish per turn so 2 3/4 " height per turn 70mm.  No room for 9mm baseboard, but 2mm steel or Aluminium with settrack glued down should work.  Add in a 9mm baseboard (which wont twist enough anyway and the gradient edges towards 1 in 24 or 1 in 20.  Gradient radius and overhead clearance are all interdependent.  My garden line has a ruling gradient of 1 in 14 that is not a mis print 1 in 14 and Lima class 37s haul 6 coach trains quite successfully as long as the rails are dry.

 

If you have a station with platforms on the upper level with a minimum clearance track below use the platform as framing or bracing.  I am just adding more hidden sidings and fitting fish plates when you can't see what you are doing is challenging, so I'm designing a jig.

 

More than one way to skin a rice pudding.  The worlds your lobster,

 

 

Edited wrong value of Pie.

Edited March 3, 2018 by DavidCBroad

[Denbridge]

Incidentally, Chimer/Chris - I missed your points 2 and 3 earlier. I have just spent some time attempting to implement your suggestion no. 3, but I cannot get the geometary to work out on the bottom left hand corner: there is not space to have the various crossings without making the curve radii there too tight.

 

As to no. 2, the idea of these crossovers is that they allow a train in the main storage yards to enter on the relief lines.

 

Edit: My posts crossed with Denbridge's and Junctionmad's above posts.

 

Denbridge, it seems that you are the one who does not listen: I have stated repeatedly that bland generalisations are worthless, yet you repeat bland generalisations ever more emphatically. That is not constructive or helpful. Merely stating that "it will not work" tells me nothing about how to know the precise parameters of what does and does not work so that I can plan something that does work, nor does it assist me at all to resolve the conflict between your advice/information and that of other sources. Your more specific contributions have been very useful. Please do not mar that by demanding unquestioning deference to the generalities that you assert.

 

Junctionmad - the reason that I do not combine the upper and lower fiddle yards is that there is not space to do so: either for enough tracks in the fiddle yards, or for the necessary gradients/helices.

 

It really does not assist to repeat over and over that you do not think that the lower level will work without explaining the reasons, and, where the information that you give in support of your reasons conflicts with other sources, give me some empirical basis (or accept that there is none) for preferring your view/information over that from other sources. Without that, I am not equipped to make an independent decision, and you are simply demanding unquestioning deference, which is not helpful at all.

you have not had generalisations, you have had facts from several people. We are all clearly wasting our time. Beginning to think this is a wind up.

[Denbridge]

Incidentally, Chimer/Chris - I missed your points 2 and 3 earlier. I have just spent some time attempting to implement your suggestion no. 3, but I cannot get the geometary to work out on the bottom left hand corner: there is not space to have the various crossings without making the curve radii there too tight.

 

As to no. 2, the idea of these crossovers is that they allow a train in the main storage yards to enter on the relief lines.

 

Edit: My posts crossed with Denbridge's and Junctionmad's above posts.

 

Denbridge, it seems that you are the one who does not listen: I have stated repeatedly that bland generalisations are worthless, yet you repeat bland generalisations ever more emphatically. That is not constructive or helpful. Merely stating that "it will not work" tells me nothing about how to know the precise parameters of what does and does not work so that I can plan something that does work, nor does it assist me at all to resolve the conflict between your advice/information and that of other sources. Your more specific contributions have been very useful. Please do not mar that by demanding unquestioning deference to the generalities that you assert.

 

Junctionmad - the reason that I do not combine the upper and lower fiddle yards is that there is not space to do so: either for enough tracks in the fiddle yards, or for the necessary gradients/helices.

 

It really does not assist to repeat over and over that you do not think that the lower level will work without explaining the reasons, and, where the information that you give in support of your reasons conflicts with other sources, give me some empirical basis (or accept that there is none) for preferring your view/information over that from other sources. Without that, I am not equipped to make an independent decision, and you are simply demanding unquestioning deference, which is not helpful at all.

you have not had generalisations, you have had facts from several people. We are all clearly wasting our time. Beginning to think this is a wind up.

Junctionmad, there is no reason to believe that there can be no middle ground between, on the one hand, a full 3D mock-up, and, on the other, just providing some (even approximate) quantification of the specific constraints to which you implicitly refer. I have asked specifically about the extent of level separation necessary quite a number of times now, and have had no clear response (and such responses as I have had have been inconsistent with other sources, and I have not had, despite asking, any explanation of why the views of those expressed here should be preferred to other sources).

 

There is repeated reference to "hidden track". Every time that this is referred to, I point out that there will be very little track that is hidden. Every time that I do so, this is totally ignored, and a few posts later, reference is again made to "hidden track" without reference to what I wrote previously. Do you think that track  is "hidden" merely because it is on a baseboard below another level? If so, does this depend on the height separation? If not, that is absurd. If so, what degree of height separation makes the lower level "hidden", and why this number in particular?

 

Again, as to the helix, I have had (and specifically referred to, with links) conflicting information on this. Instead of trying to engage with the conflicting information, you and some others appear to do no more than demand in positively aggressive tones that I unquestioningly defer to your view. I will not unquestioningly defer to anyone's view about anything, ever. It would not be rational to do so, especially in the face of conflicting information. I will consider people's views and the reasons for them and make an independent judgment based on those reasons and such other information available to me about the underlying merits of those views. If you want to persuade me that your views are correct, you will only succeed in doing so by providing a specific empirical and reasoned basis for doing so. The more that you demand that I accept that you are correct without doing so, the more that I will be wary of taking anything that you say seriously.

 

In terms of planning wiring and point motor access, what sort of planning had you in mind? For example, what do you think that planning point motor access entails? Do you do this for your own layouts? If so, it would be helpful to have a description of what you do. Likewise the wiring - do you mean a schematic wiring diagram, or a geographical plan of wiring runs? I was considering preparing a schematic wiring diagram at some point, but I think that I will need to know more precisely how some of the components work in order to do so in a useful way. Again, do you do this for your own layouts? If so, it would again be helpful to know the techniques and systems that you use for this.

 

Edit: Incidentally, it really is very important from a practical perspective to understand precisely the reasons that it is asserted that the lower level will not work. If the problem is the vertical separation between that and the upper level, this can be solved by abandoning the N gauge layout if necessary and increasing the vertical separation (although, of course, I will need to know to a reasonable degree of precision what degree of vertical separation is necessary in order to implement that degree of vertical separation). If the problem is the helix, then this can simply be tested empirically; if this really does not work, then the layout would not need very great changes to separate upper and lower levels as some have suggested, but it would seem silly not even to try when this can fairly easily be changed after the fact and when the information as to whether it is likely to work is conflicting.

OF COURSE YOU HAVE HIDDEN TRACK. Most of the low level is hidden since it is inaccessible.

[DCB]

One thing I would consider is a change to the loco sidings. Multiple roads off a turntable is a pain in the butt both to the full size and to the modeller. Normally there are multiple roads points one end and a turntable the other see Ranlagh (?) Bridge just outside Paddington and a great many MPDs.  Getting the third loco in off a siding accessed by a turntable is so much hassle you never bother.  I know, its bad enough with 6 feet if headshunt let alone having to turn 2 extra locos twice each time.

 

Edit   Kings Cross (KX)  had a loco turning and coaling facility immediately outside the station and Paddington had Ranlagh(?) Bridge just down the line for oiling round and  turning locos before their return trips.  These make good models as you can see the locos. My experience is locos in an engine shed might as well be in a cupboard as you can't see them, except at night with the room in darkness and the engine shed lights on'.  We scrapped a 3 road 2ft loco long shed in favour of a 2 road 18" one for this reason.

 

BTW our Bachmann B1 can haul about 3 coaches up a 1 in 36, the Hornby Grange  is similar. My heavily weighted Triang Halls manage 7 just and 13 on a 1 in 100 which was supposed to be the level part of the layout...

Edited March 3, 2018 by DavidCBroad

[Pete the Elaner]

IMG_2611.JPG

 

This is a 120cm long board. 

The top of the board is 80 cm from the floor

The nose of the class 40 furthest from me is 1 meter from me.

The vertical ruler is 45cm long

The back of my head is about 70 cm above the board.

I'm 172cm tall.

 

Now try putting another board above this one and imagine the contortions to even try to put a loco on the track at that distance, let alone repair a dodgy soldered wire.

 

That's what I mean by full and clear access. 

 

Andi

& further to that, if you have a running problem over a particular point, you will need to look at it from different angles in order to see what is going on. Using a camera or mirrors is not always as good as watching it live.

Before you assume you'll be ok, remember Murphy's laws.

 

Bread always lands butter side down (in this case, the most awkward one will be the one to go wrong).

If anything can go wrong, it will.

If something can't possibly go wrong, it will still manage to go wrong.

[chaz]

My advice is to build something simple. A very small BLT would be suitable and I suggest limiting it to say four points on maybe two narrow rectangular baseboards. Treat this first project as a necessary test bed, not an end in itself. Lay the track and wire it and test the running thoroughly with a couple of locos typical of those you intend to use later. Don't stop testing and refining until the running is to an acceptable standard for you (no derailments? no stalls? no coupling failures?). You need to know how to get your work to the standard you want - if you don't want a large layout with sections you can't use. You could also add a few of the sort of buildings, scenery etc that you plan to use on the larger project. You don't have to "scenic" the whole layout, just enough to give you confidence that you can tackle what you are planning to the standard you want.

 

You will then have acquired a lot of the skills you will need AND will have a much clearer idea of how much time it is going to take. The experience gained will inform your planning in a powerful way and will help you to avoid an expensive disaster.

 

Follow the link to my Dock Green layout. A very simple O gauge layout (nine points) which took two blokes four years to complete and we are both retired and one of us (me) could keep at it almost full-time for a couple of those years.

 

ATB

 

Chaz

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your feedback. David - thank you for the suggestions apropos the engine sheds. I have revised them as suggested, as appended in the attached revised plan. Incidentally, the text in your post referred to a revised plan of the lower level, but I could not see that; was that an error?

 

Denbridge - thank you for the photographic demonstration - that is very useful. It may well be that I either have to abandon the N-gauge layout idea entirely (which would be a shame, but I do not want it to interfere with this) and increase the level separation between upper and lower considerably, but I will have to consider this further after some testing.

 

Chaz - this advice was given much earlier in the thread, and my original plan was to build an N gauge layout before starting on this one, but given the level clearance issue, I am not entirely sure about that. One suggestion that has been made is for me to build a test track with 1-2 sets of points to familiarise myself with track laying, wiring and ballasting, so I might attempt that. I am not quite sure where I might store an entire layout if not above the one planned here.

 

In relation to layout design being quantifiable, the claims that people are making are, by their very nature, quantitative claims (i.e. that something is too complex, that the gradients are too steep, the radii are too tight, the level separation is too little). In so far as these claims are meaningful, let alone true, it is logically necessary that those specific elements of layout design are indeed quantifiable. Indeed, it is obviously the case that curve radii, gradients, helices and level separation and their effect on accessibility and model train traction are by their very nature quantitative things. It is no use making inherently quantity-dependent assertions then, when pressed for details, falsely stating that the things in question are "not quantifiable".

 

Edit: Incidentally, the revised plan did not attach for some reason, so I have uploaded it to my server again. It is here:

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by jamespetts

[Chimer]

In relation to layout design being quantifiable, the claims that people are making are, by their very nature, quantitative claims (i.e. that something is too complex, that the gradients are too steep, the radii are too tight, the level separation is too little). In so far as these claims are meaningful, let alone true, it is logically necessary that those specific elements of layout design are indeed quantifiable. Indeed, it is obviously the case that curve radii, gradients, helices and level separation and their effect on accessibility and model train traction are by their very nature quantitative things. It is no use making inherently quantity-dependent assertions then, when pressed for details, falsely stating that the things in question are "not quantifiable".

 

This is your fundamental error.  These things are not quantifiable in any simple way, there are too many variables, including (inter alia) your skills, experience, size and flexibility.  You are trying to reduce an art to a science.  And you are refusing to accept advice from some of the greatest artists in this field (not me!), whose work, including trials and tribulations, can be seen on this forum, because they cannot quantify their hard-won experience in simple numerical terms.

 

Crack on by all means.  We will be very interested to see the results.

 

Chris

[jamespetts]

Chris - there is a fundamental difference between a thing being not quantifiable and a thing being difficult to quantify. As already explained clearly, the relevant matters (curve radii, gradients, level separation, etc.) are inherently quantitative things. Also, none of those things are particularly hard to quantify. That a thing is difficult to quantify makes it all the more important to try to quantify it when the quantity of that thing is, as here, precisely that which makes a decisive difference to whether something worthwhile is achievable or not.

 

As to "refusing to accept advice", I have had conflicting advice (both here and elsewhere), all from people who are experienced with modelling. It is positively perverse to berate me for not accepting one set of advice when other advice has conflicted with it. What on earth do you imagine that you will achieve by doing that?

 

I repeat again, since it is plain that you have not understood (or have purposely chosen to ignore) what I have written before on the topic: no amount of aggression will persuade me to defer unquestioningly to anyone. Ever. Indeed, the more aggression, the more that I am liable to be very suspicious of advice from the person being aggressive, and for good reason. If I take advice, it is because the person who gives it has provided a good explanation for why it is good advice in the light of all the other information that I know about the topic, and in the light of any conflicting advice received from other sources.

 

What on earth do you think that you are achieving by trying to have an argument with me? I have made it plain beyond all doubt that I will never - ever - unquestioningly defer to anyone; and I have also made it plain beyond all doubt that I am receptive to specific, practical, empirical advice.

 

It is thus a waste of time for anyone to demand that I accept anything. It is definitely not a waste of time to give me specific, practical empirical advice; indeed, I have, as is overwhelmingly apparent, accepted a large quantity of such advice and modified my plans accordingly.

 

Please stop wasting everybody's time with non-constructive quarrelsome comments. As I have had to state repeatedly because it has (improperly) been ignored repeatedly, that I am not unquestioningly deferential does not mean that I am not receptive to specific, practical advice and information.

[The Stationmaster]

Hi, I'm 'Chard and I'm attending this meeting of Layout Planners Anonymous because I just can't stop my over-ambitious schemes for my 'last big one,' that will be started - honest - when I'm happy with the man cave (as yet unbuilt). 

 

I'm not being flippant, because truly I am as guilty as the best armchair layout planner (at the moment, although I do have an active workbench again) of over-ambitious dreaming and doodling of my dream scheme.  

 

But what Gordon has laid bare there, quite poignantly and painfully in the raw, is a far more advanced and complex version of something I had rigged up in the loft when the children were young.  No photos exist, although the baseboards remain in situ, repurposed for storage of tat.  It was the second attempt at a loosely West Midlands-themed folded figure of eight, which accessibility effectively killed off, because I simply could not commit enough time to keep it running consistently, and eventually loss of morale set-in.  Even in a decent size loft, the gradients combined with reverse curves that meant I wasn't even able to indulge in my favourite restorative pastime, of watching trains roll by at prototypical speeds.  Because only an old Mainline 56 could be trusted to perform sufficiently well to achieve this seemingly modest task.

 

I restarted in the garage, a duck-under to access soon replacing a hinged section, and a hidden incline (why was it hidden? - because it was unrealistically steep) to access an upper branch terminus above a set of curved hidden staging loops.  Over-complexity again soon allowed in the gremlin of unreliability, and access issues resulted in the scaling-back of operation so that the worst performing parts of the network could be avoided.  I ripped out the remains of that layout last summer to create storage space after a change in family circumstances.

 

So what am I planning now, in a space that probably amounts to 9' x 25'? A twin track tail chaser, homage to a secondary main line.  A main line known for its ruling gradients of 1:75 and long inter-yard freights, cartrains and sparse passenger service.  Am I having gradients - No, I will simulate these by scenic methods.  Am I having points?  Trailing crossovers will be included in the initial plan, but they will be purely cosmetic, switched out and hardwired to avoid collection and conduct problems.  If I do run to a station, the goods yard will be prototypically lifted.  

 

What am I saying - less is more.  I know this is at the absolute opposite end of the scale from what is planned here at and under Paddington, but I am resolved to strive for absolute simplicity because decades of experience has taught me that over ambition brings dejection and loss of mojo.  And in my case ushered in other interests, like writing and performing live music - so maybe the learning experience wasn't without merit, as modelling's loss (as if!) is rock's gain (yeah, really   ) .

 

Interestingly, albeit in a shorter (17ft) and slightly narrower space I am going down exactly the same course albeit with working (I hope it will remain that way) pointwork but not very much of it as laying out even Peco large radius point templates soon dissuaded me of my slightly less than modest ambitions for part of the layout.   Less is undoubtedly more.

 

I still remain rather puzzled about the helix and the fact that you are talking about accessing it from underneath.  It will have curvature of around 18" radius (obviously it can't be much more than that if the whole thing is around 1 metre wide overall) and so the gap in the middle will be somewhat less than 3 feet and you will only be able to get to anything within the helix by lying on the floor under it - unless the whole layout is a considerable distance off the floor.   So I really can't see access from underneath working.

[Zomboid]

Everyone here wants you to enjoy this terrific hobby that we share. Why would any of us want anything different?

 

If you won't believe that your helix won't work without the maths, then that's fine. Go ahead and build it and see for yourself.

[Denbridge]

Chris - there is a fundamental difference between a thing being not quantifiable and a thing being difficult to quantify. As already explained clearly, the relevant matters (curve radii, gradients, level separation, etc.) are inherently quantitative things. Also, none of those things are particularly hard to quantify. That a thing is difficult to quantify makes it all the more important to try to quantify it when the quantity of that thing is, as here, precisely that which makes a decisive difference to whether something worthwhile is achievable or not.

 

As to "refusing to accept advice", I have had conflicting advice (both here and elsewhere), all from people who are experienced with modelling. It is positively perverse to berate me for not accepting one set of advice when other advice has conflicted with it. What on earth do you imagine that you will achieve by doing that?

 

I repeat again, since it is plain that you have not understood (or have purposely chosen to ignore) what I have written before on the topic: no amount of aggression will persuade me to defer unquestioningly to anyone. Ever. Indeed, the more aggression, the more that I am liable to be very suspicious of advice from the person being aggressive, and for good reason. If I take advice, it is because the person who gives it has provided a good explanation for why it is good advice in the light of all the other information that I know about the topic, and in the light of any conflicting advice received from other sources.

 

What on earth do you think that you are achieving by trying to have an argument with me? I have made it plain beyond all doubt that I will never - ever - unquestioningly defer to anyone; and I have also made it plain beyond all doubt that I am receptive to specific, practical, empirical advice.

 

It is thus a waste of time for anyone to demand that I accept anything. It is definitely not a waste of time to give me specific, practical empirical advice; indeed, I have, as is overwhelmingly apparent, accepted a large quantity of such advice and modified my plans accordingly.

 

Please stop wasting everybody's time with non-constructive quarrelsome comments. As I have had to state repeatedly because it has (improperly) been ignored repeatedly, that I am not unquestioningly deferential does not mean that I am not receptive to specific, practical advice and information.

Not one person with experience has supported your plan. People have made a lot of effort to give you advice. But anything that points towards the utter stipidity of it, you dont like. Not wasting anymore time on you same as several other people.

[jamespetts]

The Stationmaster - the idea is for the lower level to be 800mm off the floor.

 

Zomboid - I have no idea what people's motivations are for being unnecessarily quarrelsome. As I have stated before, the plan is exactly to test emprically the extent to which a helix is workable.

 

Denbridge - I have no idea what you mean by "supported [my] plan". People with experience have specifically contradicted some of the claims that you and others have made about helices and level separation, which appear to be the only remaining reasons that, in respect of the latest versions of the plans, you cite for there being any difficulty. There is a video on Youtube the link to which I provided showing a steam locomotive haul 8 carriages up a helix. Generalised statements that the whole plan will not work are worthless: I (or anyone in my position) can only usefully engage with specifics as to precisely what the threshold is between what will and what will not work in any given respect (and you must know what that threshold is to be able to make a credible claim that any given design is on the wrong side of it).

[Dagworth]

One suggestion that has been made is for me to build a test track with 1-2 sets of points to familiarise myself with track laying, wiring and ballasting, so I might attempt that. I am not quite sure where I might store an entire layout if not above the one planned here.

 

One of the big problems of building a large layout is keeping focused and keeping your mojo going. I needed a side project a couple of years ago, not all smaller layouts need to take a lot of space to store. Have a look at http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94290-bow-locks-was-a-bit-on-the-side/

 

Andi

[jamespetts]

Dagworth/Andi - thank you for that suggestion. That was the original idea of the N gauge layout, but the difficulty is that that might prevent there being sufficient level separation between the tracks on the OO gauge layout, and I will not really have anywhere to put another layout if not at a higher level than this one in the planned shed.

[Denbridge]

The Stationmaster - the idea is for the lower level to be 800mm off the floor. You will not be able to reach 75% of the lower tracks once the upper boards are in place. Your arms arent long enough. You would need to get your whole upper body under the terminus. As for accessing the helix from the inside? No way could you get in that space and use your arms and hands. But you know best. Just build the thing. Then youll wish youd listened.

 

Zomboid - I have no idea what people's motivations are for being unnecessarily quarrelsome. As I have stated before, the plan is exactly to test emprically the extent to which a helix is workable.

 

Denbridge - I have no idea what you mean by "supported [my] plan". People with experience have specifically contradicted some of the claims that you and others have made about helices and level separation, which appear to be the only remaining reasons that, in respect of the latest versions of the plans, you cite for there being any difficulty. There is a video on Youtube the link to which I provided showing a steam locomotive haul 8 carriages up a helix. Generalised statements that the whole plan will not work are worthless: I (or anyone in my position) can only usefully engage with specifics as to precisely what the threshold is between what will and what will not work in any given respect (and you must know what that threshold is to be able to make a credible claim that any given design is on the wrong side of it).

[Joseph_Pestell]

Not one person with experience has supported your plan. People have made a lot of effort to give you advice. But anything that points towards the utter stipidity of it, you dont like. Not wasting anymore time on you same as several other people.

You already said that some days ago. But you are still here :-)

[Dagworth]

Dagworth/Andi - thank you for that suggestion. That was the original idea of the N gauge layout, but the difficulty is that that might prevent there being sufficient level separation between the tracks on the OO gauge layout, and I will not really have anywhere to put another layout if not at a higher level than this one in the planned shed.

Bow Locks folds up into a pair of 1'x1'x3' boxes, they would store under any layout

 

Andi

[Denbridge]

You already said that some days ago. But you are still here :-)

Not anymore. This guys a fool

[Peter Kazmierczak]

James,

I don't think anyone on here is being "quarrelsome". You initially asked for help and all the different contributions from some (very) experienced modellers have been offered freely and with the best intentions.

 

Of course, it's totally up to you if you want to follow their advice or not. 

 

Just bear in mind that many of the suggestions offered are from modellers who have been there and done that.

 

I once started building an eight-platform terminus with multiple approach tracks. Got all the track laid, wired and ballasted. But it was just too big and complex for me so I lost interest.

 

Whatever you do, we all wish you well.

[gordon s]

James, I'm at a bit of a loss now as to how to assist you.  You asked some interesting questions at the front end and several of us took time to dig out photographs and write replies to tell you of our own experiences.  We've probably all been down the route you are proposing and I guess human nature is such that we hope the painful and expensive mistakes we have made in the past might help to enable others to make an informed decision as to how they want to build their own layout.

 

It's so much better to know about these potential pitfalls at the front end than plough on regardless and then hit a brick wall.  

 

As others have said, no one is forcing you to do anything as it's your layout and you should do whatever you want to do.

 

Rather than repeat what's been said already, I have been following the development of Peterborough North for some years now as I was lucky enough to see it as Peterborough when it was laid out in Gilbert's loft.  The size of his room is somewhat similar to your planned shed at 25' x 10' and whilst it is a through station rather than a terminus it has lots going for it.  I'm sure Gilbert won't mind me saying this, but all his baseboards were bought in and his track was built and laid by a professional (Norman Saunders) so running quality will be excellent.

 

The thread on Peterborough North now runs to over 400 pages, but please take some time to read the very first post.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/18451-peterborough-north/page-1

 

There are no single specific numbers to the questions you ask.

 

Personally I wouldn't have a gradient less than 1:100 nor a curve of less than 3' radius.  I'd allow at least 400mm between levels.  Now I know others will jump in and say nonsense, I use 1:30 and so on.  That will always be the case as there is no single answer to the questions you raise.

 

Eventually it all comes down to personal choice.  That's the beauty of this world, we're all free to make decisions as we see fit.

 

I hope you have sufficient info now to make an informed decision.  Just go for it and let us know how you get on....Good luck...

Edited March 3, 2018 by gordon s