Main line terminus in OO

[jamespetts]

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

 

Andi

 

I had wondered about making the N gauge layout portable - but the trouble is: where would I set it up to run it? Would it work above the upper board of the OO gauge layout, I wonder? I suppose if I put it there, I should only need enough clearance (25cm? 30cm?) so that the boards cleared the scenery, without regard to ease of access of the OO gauge layout.

 

Whether even this works depends on what a sensible level separation between the upper and lower levels of the OO gauge layout is, and I have found it extremely difficult to get any useful information on this topic. If the minimum separation is 70cm, then, with the lower level of the OO guage layout at 80cm, the upper level would be at 150cm, meaning that the N gauge layout would have to be positioned at at least 175cm (with a 25cm separation between it and the OO gauge layout) above the floor, which strikes me as a little high even for me, and I am quite tall.

 

If, conversely, the height separation between the upper and lower levels of the OO gauge layout needed only to be 60cm, then the upper level could be at 140cm and the N gauge layout at 165cm, which would still be high, but workable.

 

Another issue might be how easy that it will be to set it up and put it away again: if this is too much work, having to do this every time that I wanted to use the N gauge layout would make it impractical. How long does Bow Locks take to set up and break down, may I ask?

 

Dagworth - personal attacks are utterly inappropriate and positively improper.

[Dagworth]

Dagworth - personal attacks are utterly inappropriate and positively improper.

Eh????

 

Bow Locks is the name of the layout!

 

Andi

[jamespetts]

Dagworth - my apologies most sincere: I confused your name with Denbridge. I was referring to Denbridge's claim that I am a "fool" in that remark. My question to you was how long that it takes you to set up and break down your layout - I should find it very useful to know that.

 

In posting the above, I did not realise that replies continued on the following page, so I post further replies here.

 

Peter - people are being "quarrelsome" by stating in strident and accusatory tones that I am "rejecting advice" (in cases where their advice has conflicted with that of others and where I have tried to find more information to decide which advice is most likely to be accurate) and made derogatory personal comments, as in Denbridge's last post. I am aware that the suggestions come from those with modelling experience. That is why I am taking them seriously (and have revised my design no fewer than 6 times on account of those suggestions). It is totally inappropriate to direct personal criticism towards me merely because I have not unquestioningly deferred to specific people's advice in circumstances where that advice conflicts with other advice, also from people with modelling experience.

 

Gordon - I am very interested in knowing as much detail as possible about the potential pitfalls of various aspects of layout design. I have revised my design accordingly. I did ask you some questions about the measurements of your layout that you had had difficulties with - do you have records/a recollection of this, or is this information no longer readily accessible to you?

Edited March 3, 2018 by jamespetts

[Dagworth]

I had wondered about making the N gauge layout portable - but the trouble is: where would I set it up to run it? Would it work above the upper board of the OO gauge layout, I wonder? I suppose if I put it there, I should only need enough clearance (25cm? 30cm?) so that the boards cleared the scenery, without regard to ease of access of the OO gauge layout.

 

Whether even this works depends on what a sensible level separation between the upper and lower levels of the OO gauge layout is, and I have found it extremely difficult to get any useful information on this topic. If the minimum separation is 70cm, then, with the lower level of the OO guage layout at 80cm, the upper level would be at 150cm, meaning that the N gauge layout would have to be positioned at at least 175cm (with a 25cm separation between it and the OO gauge layout) above the floor, which strikes me as a little high even for me, and I am quite tall.

 

If, conversely, the height separation between the upper and lower levels of the OO gauge layout needed only to be 60cm, then the upper level could be at 140cm and the N gauge layout at 165cm, which would still be high, but workable.

 

Another issue might be how easy that it will be to set it up and put it away again: if this is too much work, having to do this every time that I wanted to use the N gauge layout would make it impractical. How long does Bow Locks take to set up and break down, may I ask?

 

Dagworth - personal attacks are utterly inappropriate and positively improper.

I wasn't suggesting making the N-gauge layout fold up, I was suggesting that you build a small layout as a test bed, as others have suggested. Such a layout could then be stored for use when you feel the need to run trains while you build the big one.

 

I can set the whole thing up in about 20 minutes. packing down takes less time.

 

Andi

Edited March 3, 2018 by Dagworth

[Dagworth]

Dagworth - my apologies most sincere: I confused your name with Denbridge. I was referring to Denbridge's claim that I am a "fool" in that remark. My question to you was how long that it takes you to set up and break down your layout - I should find it very useful to know that.

 

Ah, I took it as you reading Bow Locks as its second meaning....

 

A

[jamespetts]

I wasn't suggesting making the N-gauge layout fold up, I was suggesting that you build a small layout as a test bed, as others have suggested. Such a layout could then be stored for use when you feel the need to run trains while you build the big one.

 

Andi

 

Ahh, I see. That is an interesting idea. Perhaps if the N gauge layout transpires to be impractical, this might have to be considered.

 

However, do you think that a demountable/portable N gauge layout with a 25cm separation from the upper level of the OO gauge layout might be workable? I should hate to give up on the idea of the N gauge layout, not least because that gives me the chance to model the railway scene that I remember from childhood, and something a little different (viz. a through station) to that modelled in the OO layout.

[Dagworth]

 

Ahh, I see. That is an interesting idea. Perhaps if the N gauge layout transpires to be impractical, this might have to be considered.

 

However, do you think that a demountable/portable N gauge layout with a 25cm separation from the upper level of the OO gauge layout might be workable? I should hate to give up on the idea of the N gauge layout, not least because that gives me the chance to model the railway scene that I remember from childhood, and something a little different (viz. a through station) to that modelled in the OO layout.

Referring back to my photo of yesterday, consider how far you could reach over a board set 1.5m from the ground, and how you would work on such a board. 

 

This time the class 40 is on top of our upright freezer which is 145 cm tall. You can see that I can only just comfortably reach the nose 55 cm from me.

Now add another 45 cm of baseboard (5cm taller too) and then add trains and platforms etc. Now try to reach the loco that has stalled at the back climbing the gradient from off the helix.

 

 

Andi

[jamespetts]

Thank you for that demonstration - that is most useful.

 

The tallboy in my bedroom is ~155cm high, albeit not as deep to allow for good comparisons. However, imagining attempting to work on trackwork at that height suggests to me that 150cm is probably a little too high.

 

It is very difficult to work out sensible heights without having a better idea of a the necessary minimum level separation between the upper and lower levels, however.

[gordon s]

Thank you for your feedback. As ever, the specific details are useful, whereas the more generalised exhortations to be less complex in general or general assertions that what I have designed will not work (without any clue as to how to discern the closest thing to what I have designed that will work, and why the threshold is there rather than anywhere else) are less useful, as I can only sensibly plan within specific constraints. It is impossible to optimise within non-specific constraints.

 

As already noted, the plan is for the helix to have an access from beneath. I do not think that anyone has actually given me any real idea of numbers for level separation and how any degree of level separation actually makes a difference. I should also note that the idea that I have a great amount of "hidden" track seems to have persisted, even though I have made clear that fiddle yard track on the lower level is no more hidden (apart, possibly, from having a curtain of some sort which could easily be moved out of the way) than track on the upper level.

 

One possibility that might be contemplated is to have a greater separation between the upper and lower levels of this layout than between the upper level of this layout and the N gauge layout above, but to have that modularised into perhaps 3-4 sections and readily demountable.

 

Paul: in relation to your layout, what was the depth at the main flat part of the fiddle yard? What was the diagonal to corner distance? It looks as though all of those slightly higher level tracks would readily block access to the rear yards beyond, whereas the plan for this layout is for two essentially flat areas with a substantial separation between them, connected only by an open sided and open bottomed helix at one end. I did look at your thread briefly, but since it was 143 pages long, realised that I could not sensibly read the whole thing, and could not easily find the most important parts. If you could direct me to them, that would be useful.

 

Edit: As to the slow/fast pairings, they are paired by use on both the Great Western Mainline and the Midland Mainline (two of the areas that this layout could represent), so it would be odd to have them paired by direction in this layout. It would also be harder to design the station, since, at present, the relief lines feed the slow platforms and the main lines the main platforms.

 

 

Dagworth - my apologies most sincere: I confused your name with Denbridge. I was referring to Denbridge's claim that I am a "fool" in that remark. My question to you was how long that it takes you to set up and break down your layout - I should find it very useful to know that.

 

In posting the above, I did not realise that replies continued on the following page, so I post further replies here.

 

Peter - people are being "quarrelsome" by stating in strident and accusatory tones that I am "rejecting advice" (in cases where their advice has conflicted with that of others and where I have tried to find more information to decide which advice is most likely to be accurate) and made derogatory personal comments, as in Denbridge's last post. I am aware that the suggestions come from those with modelling experience. That is why I am taking them seriously (and have revised my design no fewer than 6 times on account of those suggestions). It is totally inappropriate to direct personal criticism towards me merely because I have not unquestioningly deferred to specific people's advice in circumstances where that advice conflicts with other advice, also from people with modelling experience.

 

Gordon - I am very interested in knowing as much detail as possible about the potential pitfalls of various aspects of layout design. I have revised my design accordingly. I did ask you some questions about the measurements of your layout that you had had difficulties with - do you have records/a recollection of this, or is this information no longer readily accessible to you?

 

I see now.  I was rushed for time and saw the name Paul so I just skipped over it....

 

The boards were 1m deep so 1.4m across the diagonal.  This was my first layout and pre dates RMweb, so everything will be from memory.  It was around 500mm from the lowest level to the top and you had to reach in to do any repairs, hence my concern.

Edited March 3, 2018 by gordon s

[clachnaharry]

The station throat looks thoroughly improbable to me.

['CHARD]

Andi - is that a nicely distressed Lima Class 40?  I recognise it's thread-drift, for which I apologise to the OP, but as you're watching this thread I'm taking the liberty, cheers!   

[Dagworth]

Andi - is that a nicely distressed Lima Class 40?  I recognise it's thread-drift, for which I apologise to the OP, but as you're watching this thread I'm taking the liberty, cheers!   

No mate, it's a completely knackered Lima 40

 

Andi

[chaz]

When I suggested a small project as a test-bed to acquire skills and try out doing stuff I would not expect you to keep this. Once it has served its purpose I would strip it down, anything useful to be recycled and the rest binned. 

 

I would advise against making the test-bed in N gauge if you intend your big project to be OO. You need all the aspects to be as relevant as possible. 

 

Chaz

Edited March 3, 2018 by chaz

[wiggoforgold]

Hi James

I’ve been following your original post, and the replies, with interest. I’d like to add my views, but first I should say that In general I’d add my voice to those counselling caution, and warning against taking on too much too soon.  The big shed makes sense, no point in starting with a smaller structure, only to knock it down in favour of something bigger in the future.  However, once you’ve got the shed, I’d be cautious about filling it up with trains right away. You are on a learning curve and you haven’t modelled for nearly 40 years.  If you are like me, you will find that your skills increase quite quickly, and what you can obtain now from your model shop is streets ahead of what you could get 40 years ago, so your aspirations may change.

I’d start with something small, maybe a cameo using part of the proposed layout, which could be incorporated into the larger layout later. Starting small will enable you to assess your skills and where your modelling interests lie, and you can have something finished and running quickly, which will act as a spur to go on. I’d be worried that stating on a larger project at first, could lead to frustration with apparent lack of progress, and disillusion.

As for the plan, I’m a proponent of the “less is more” school.  My layour “Diddington “ is in a room 6.5m x 4.5m, but it only utilises part of that space.  I’d be inclined to  use the space you have available to build a much simpler layuit, maybe a branch terminus or a country through station, but take the opportunity to set it properly in a landscape.  If you haven’t already done so, you might take a look at Pendon, or look at David Jenkinsom’s 4mm “Little Long Drag” scheme which was in the Railway Modeller in the early 1970s. (I had a copy of the Modeller article, but I think it may have been thrown out in a cull of old magazines about a month ago. If I’ve got it, and you’d like it, you can have it. PM me your address so I can send it to you if I can find it)  Another idea would be to use the Americal Short line approach, and model a complete branch line. You could have intermediate stations that generate their own traffic, and use a walk around control set up so you could move round with the train as it worked from station to station . Something set in the Welsh valleys moving coal or steel might be appropriate.

Whatever you decide to do, all the best with your endeavours.

Alex

[Mike Storey]

I would be lying if I said I had read all the posts to this thread, but I must have read a good half.

 

It may not be welcome advice, but you will achieve nothing until you start trying to build something yourself. There is no "empirical" absolute evidence of any of the quarts into pint pots you are trying to achieve. The variables are too numerous. Accept or ignore advice as you see fit. But if you spend enough time reviewing what other people have managed or not, you will see why.

 

Planning to this level of accuracy in model railwaying has never avoided contact with the enemy..... or in this case, the baseboard.

[jamespetts]

Gordon - thank you: that is helpful. My apologies for the earlier error with your name.

 

Clachnaharry - can you elaborate?

 

Grastairs - there is nowhere suitable in my house for adjustable shelving like that. I am very particular about keeping the interior in Edwardian style/condition as closely as is practicable in modern times. I do not know yet whether that sort of thing would work in the shed (i.e. whether the walls will take a layout) or whether I will need free-standing shelving. Thank you for the suggestion, however: if it were possible, it might have been quite useful.

 

Chaz - that is an interesting thought. That seems to be closer to the test track suggestion that I had had from the person at The Model Railway Club last week. I have had conflicting information on the relevance of skills acquired by working in N gauge to OO gauge.

 

Wiggoforgold - thank you for your thoughts. I had thought about trying to build a section of the OO guage layout to start with, but the trouble is that the only potentially suitable thing for those purposes would be the lower level station, and that is probably not a good place to start because much of the stock that I should need for that would need to be made from kits, whereas the upper level stock would be ready to run. The plan was to see whether I am any good at kit building, and, if not, have the lower level stock built for me by kit builders, but I should rather have a go at doing them myself first.

 

Mike - I definitely plan to start trying to build something, and realise that this will be very important and that I may well (but also may well not) have to revise my plans substantially when I do so begin. However, I cannot do much until the shed is built as there is not really space in my house (discounting the loft, which is not really suitable) for anything other than a temporary floor layout, which I may well try to set up soon. It was necessary to plan in some detail to see whether it was necessary to alter the specifications, and, indeed, I have had to alter the specifications on account of the plans. I have now finalised the specifications for the shed, and will be paying the deposit early next week. There is no harm, and much benefit, to planning and gathering as much data as I can in the meantime, however.

[jamespetts]

I have been considering the height separation issue further. The advice as I understand it is, for a multi-deck layout, to have the lower level at a comfortable sitting height and the upper level at a comfortable standing height. Re-measuring my study desk (which is at a very comfortable sitting height for me), it is closer to 750mm high than 800mm. If I were to have the boards of the N gauge layout made so that they were modular and could be divided into three sections, mountable either on the wall above the OO gauge layout or on free-standing trestles, the height separation between the N gauge layout and the upper level of the OO gauge layout would be less critical, as the N gauge layout could simply be removed when operating the OO gauge layout. The N gauge layout could then be portable. On the basis of that, the following heights seem to be possible:

 

OO gauge lower: 750mm

OO gauge upper: 1,300mm (550mm separation)

N gauge: 1,600mm (300mm separation)

 

This then allows a 550mm separation between upper and lower decks of the OO gauge layout, while allowing a 300mm clearance to the N gauge layout when it is in place, which should be plenty to clear signals and overall roofs (indeed, 250mm may well be enough, allowing me either to raise the upper deck of the OO gauge layout by 50mm or lower the N gauge layout by the same amount), and reach into the upper level of the OO gauge layout should then not be an issue as the N gauge layout could be removed entirely when the OO gauge layout is in operation.

 

This would then allow me to practise making a complete layout on a simpler project than this planned layout and also allow me to have a portable layout, and one that represents the railways as I recall them growing up, as well as one that is operationally distinct (being a through station) to this project. The 550mm separation between the OO gauge levels would only have to be accessible from a sitting position, where reaching rather further with less clearance is easier than from a standing position.

 

My concern about this, however, is the amount of time and effort that it might take to set up and break down the N gauge layout every time that I want to use it. I know that someone else on this thread had a non-permanently installed layout. I wonder whether anyone who has a layout that has to be set up to use could comment on whether this is likely to be feasible?

 

Edit: One possible concern in building a fairly substantial layout before the OO gauge layout is that I notice that Hornby have discontinued the GWR Collett carriages (the good ones, rather than the Railroad ones) in the shirtbutton livery, which is the perfect livery for the era that I am modelling. These carriages have a very poor secondhand availability (both in this livery and the earlier 1920s GWR livery), suggesting that, once remaining stocks dissipate, it will be extremely hard to get hold of these for quite a number of years until Hornby (which I understand is in some financial difficulty and has been reducing its product ranges) decide to produce some more (the same seems to be an issue for the Dapol HST in N gauge, of which I am going to need several for the N gauge layout). The Collett carriages are likely to be the most important of the long-distance carriages on this layout, and so quite a few of them will be needed. The non-brake thirds are particularly difficult to get hold of: only two online retailers have any left, albeit both of those currently have quite a few - for now. On the one hand, I am considering stockpiling as many as I am likely to need (which I could least run around my floor, on such test track as I may build in the shed, or, assuming that I do join the MRC as I plan, on their test oval in the interim, I suppose); but on the other hand, this seems inefficient, and I might alter my plans once I get the other layout underway (if this is indeed what I do first). Any thoughts on this issue would also be welcome.

 

Edit 2: One advantage of waiting before working on this layout (and working on the N gauge layout first) would be that the Peco Bullhead crossings and slips should be available in due course, which would then enable the entire scenic area of this layout to be built with Peco Bullead rail.

Edited March 4, 2018 by jamespetts

[DCB]

I do wonder how many lifetimes of retirement this project will consume.   I don't see why the generality of the upper and lower levels cannot be done,  It probably does need a bit od simplification in places  but If Bow Locks blog is an example it took 2 months to lay track and get it running and another 46 months to finish. Laying standard Peco Streamline or Set Track track on a flat baseboard is very quick and easy.  There are breeds of Crap Trax around which are a total nightmare so stick to PECO.  However the N gauge does look like the telegraph pole which broke the Camel's back.

Our shed is a similar size, the vertical spacing is fairly similar, it has taken 30 years to get to its present state but 90% was done in the first 18 months and for a lot of that time work has been limited to 3 hours per week .  For a reasonable portion of the time trains have run on the continuous run as work has progressed, a 30 wagon freight trundling past makes working more interesting. 

 

Our concept allows most traffic movements, 1957 ish WR passenger goods, main line and branch, Milk, Coal etc. A Terminus, a Junction, A branch and a continuous run 2 loco depots. and with the terminus over the hidden sidings 100% of the surface is scenic though virtually nothing outside the railway fence is modelled.   

 

I think the lack of freight facilities and the tedium of having to shunt a train to reverse it every time you run on the upper level is a bigger issue than whether you can build it, because apart from that nagging doubt about tracks being too close together it looks entirely do able to me.

[Junctionmad]

Jamespetts , my mistype was cellotape

 

Note I just finished 6 initial boards for the O Gauge layout , the board with is 825mm , about 2’6”, with one diagonal board peaking at 4’, the layout is designed to be exhibited so there is access to both sides ( it’s a roundy roundy, 32’ by 15’) ( I’ve posted the track diagram here before )

 

I initially set the baseboards at 1.3m high , note I’m 6’4”. On the trial trestles I found reaching across the boards very awkward and tiring ,O gauge stick is heavy , so you need two hands at times , at 1.3m it’s difficult to get vertically over a point etc. now this layout is demountable , so technically a baseboard can be transferred to a conventional height workbench. But during operations , while a high baseboard presents a nice viewing angle , it’s awkward

 

I’ve now reduce baseboard the height to 1.1m which I think is a good compromise

 

Note , unless you have a desire for an N gauge layout , I would build a trial or test layout in the gauge of choice

 

In relation to CAD , I have used any business drawing software for geographical schematics ,nowadays typically OpenOffice. I have used Inkscape in the past. for the O gauge layout , I’m going to try autocad electrical as this can automatically build connection ( net ) lists.

 

If you are considering extensive automation , you need to determine DCC power districts wiring requirements, occupancy detection etc up front as rewiring or modifying a big layout is a PITA

 

You’ll also need to consider a layout bus for a layout this size to reduce point to point wiring , I use MERGs CBUS , but there are others like Lenz etc. this means I have 8 wires traversing the layout only ( DCC main bus , 12V power , 12 computer , can bus )

 

Don’t underestimate the time to lay basic track , underlay , DCC droppers , DCC Bus , DCC power districts, reversing loop wiring , frog wiring , frog switching , point motor wiring , etc take up a lot of time , it’s not the actual placing of track itself that consumes time . Good track needs to laid without kinks , incorporating transistion curves and eliminating abrupt reverse curves

[Junctionmad]

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_03_2018/post-21665-0-81196200-1520053533.jpg

This type of two layer arrangement is exactly what you don’t want , quite frankly, unless the upper layer is fully removable which this one is, I gather

 

A view of the fiddle yard of any decent exhibition layout will show you derailments occur in fiddle yards all the time

 

DC is best avoided for a layout of this complexity , far too much wiring and section switching , there are ways to indentify locos on tracks in DCC , railcom is one of them and modules are available that integrate into ECoS for example

Edited March 4, 2018 by Junctionmad

[jamespetts]

Thank you both very much: that is very helpful.

 

As to the N gauge layout, I do want to build such a layout in its own right (because it would represent the period that I remember as a boy; I have no special connexion to N gauge per se, but the smaller gauge enables me to fit more of what I want into the available space more easily), but would abandon it in favour of this OO gauge layout if both could not sensibly fit into the space. Does anyone have any views on the issue of a demountable N gauge layout that could be stored underneath the OO gauge layout when not in use?

 

As to the heights, that is an interesting observation, Junctionmad, especially from someone so tall. Is it just the weight of the O gauge stock that persuaded you to reduce the height to 1.3m, or do you think that you would have done so even with lighter, OO gauge stock? 1.1m would give a separation of 350mm with the lower level, which may well not be enough. 1.2m would give 450mm, which is probably closer to a sensible distance. That would allow a demountable N gauge layout to be at 1,450mm, or a permanent N gauge layout with the same 450mm separation at 1,650mm. That would be quite high: acceptable for viewing for a tall person (I am 6'1), but would probably need a stool for handling anything. A stool would probably be fine for handling stock, but would not be acceptable for working on the layout, so a layout at such height would have to be demountable in any event, I should imagine.

 

Incidentally, in relation to the height, I am told that the windows (on the lower wall on the diagram) are 1.0m off the ground. I presume that they open outwards. Without knowing the exact design of them, it is difficult to know exactly how this might impact on the design of the upper level fiddle yards. Looking at the website of the shed people, there does not appear to be any windowsill or protrusion on the windows, and I presume that they open outwards, so it might not be too much of a problem (and, as for UV issues from sunlight, these windows will face north).

 

I do wonder whether the idea of building the N gauge layout first may well not be workable after all, as discussed on the thread relating to that layout; I wonder whether it may be better instead to build a very simple test track (three tracks, two connected to one another by a crossover, all about 1.5m long, the third track being connected to an analogue controller) to practise track-laying skills rather than trying to build an entire practice layout, and then looking into the N gauge layout at a later time if that seems to be practical. I should very much like to have the N gauge layout one day (in this shed) if at all possible.

 

Thank you for the DCC related tips: that is most helpful. I was indeed planning to use DCC rather than analogue control (and not to use very limited level separations as in the picture shown: I do not think that that would work for this layout very well): I imagine that wiring a layout of this size in analogue would be insane (imagine all those unreliable relays!). I had also researched and was planning to use RailCom and to divide the layout into power districts, and had planned to wire this for RailCom based block detection at the outset (incidentally, does anyone have any views on the resister-on-axle method of block occupancy detection for unpowered stock?). The bus suggestion is most helpful; I was thinking of using either Lenz or ECoS controllers (as they are both compatible with RailCom). The idea of not having to take more than 8 wires from each area to the central control point is definitely appealing. I am imagining that quite a few different isolated sections for block detection would be necessary (each of the station platforms split into two sections, quite a few discrete and small areas in the station throat to allow multiple non-conflicting movements, multiple isolated sections on the long roads in the fiddle yards, multiple isolated sections on each of the engine shed sidings, etc., to allow multiple locomotives to stand in the sidings, and so forth). Have you any recommendations as to a sensible number of power districts for a layout of this size? Perhaps one for the platforms and station throat, one for the engine shed, one for the carriage sidings, one for the approaches and upper reversing loops, one for the relief fiddle yards, one for the main fiddle yards, one for the City Widened Lines, one for the Inner Circle, one for the City Widened Lines (east) storage and lower reversing loop, and one for the Inner Circle (east) storage and Inner Circle and City Widened Lines (west) storage? Or is that too many; would one for the upper station/engine sheds, one for the carriage sidings, one for the upper fiddle yards, one for the lower main area and one for the lower fiddle yards suffice?

 

Do I get the impression that the wiring takes considerably longer than the track laying itself? I should imagine finding the electronics aspect of this rather enjoyable: as I have mentioned before, one of my other (transport related) hobbies involves computer programming. As to AutoCAD Electrical, this appears to be an expensive piece of software aimed at professionals. (Indeed, it appears to be available only for rent rather than for sale - a model of software distribution that I find fundamentally objectionable). Is this really necessary for model railway design?

 

David - as to "breeds of Crap Trax", may I ask what you include in that category? One alternative to Peco that I was considering was SMP/Marcway, although the difficulty is that SCARM does not have the geometary for this, so it is hard to plan for it. Have you any views on this particular sort of track? The advantage of it might be that it is available now, whereas there is currently an unknown time before the Peco Bullhead slips and crossings become available (which was one of the attractions of attempting the N gauge layout first; and this remains a possible reason to do it in that sequence).

 

Also, the nagging doubt about tracks being too close together - may I ask to what part(s) of the layout that this relates? Is this the platforms, the fiddle yards, the station throat, the reversing loops or the curves at the left hand edge?

 

In relation to operations, my own taste/interest is not satisfied merely by seeing trains go past in scenery (although that can be interesting to look at for a minute or two): what interests me is the intricacy of operations, and terminus operations in particular I find most interesting, which is why I designed a terminus in the first place (and why, when designing the N gauge layout, even though that is a through station, it is designed with terminating locomotive hauled trains in mind as in Oxford in the 1980s). I deliberately omitted freight facilities on both layout plans as freight interests me less, but there is opportunity on both for freight to pass through (here, on the City Widened Lines; on the N gauge layout, on the main line). Having to shunt arriving terminating trains is the whole point (or, at least, most of the point) of this layout (and why I planned a degree of automation from the outset, as doing this by having to change every set of points manually and drive all the locomotives manually would obviously be too much for one operator, although I can imagine that having a realistic lever frame setup for the station throat and realistic signal communications with a fiddle yard operator, etc., would be most fun for perhaps 3-5 operators; but that is not what I am planning). The joy will be in selecting the appropriate locomotive and rolling stock for the next timetabled outbound journey from multiple potentially suitable locomotives/sets of carriages (or writing an algorithm to do this), setting that all up for each train, and then watching it all play out with beautiful real scale models. That is the main design purpose of this layout. (Incidentally, are my carriage sidings flexible enough for these purposes?).

[woodenhead]

James my one and only post in this thread isn't going to be helpful but wading through both threads:

1. You have nowhere for this or the N gauge layout 

2. You're trying to squeeze too much into too small a space (that doesn't actually physically exist)

3. You have no stock and want to begin what will be a massive collection from scratch as prices for an OO coach pass £40, let alone the motive power to pull them

4. With no recent layout building experience you want not one but two layouts both with demanding volumes of track, points, electrics and stock

5. You've asked for advice with some modellers laying bare their own issues when attempting large complex layouts and you've chosen to ignore that advice and cherry pick other advice to alter your layout.

6. You want to use track that isn't simple to use and isn't even available yet in the form of Peco Bullhead - only the straight track and long points exist.

 

Lets think numbers:

1. A 12 coach train of Colletts (if you can find enough) £480

2. A 7 coach N gauge HST is going to be circa £260-280 each

3. Each locomotive be it N or OO will be at least £100 if you get them in sales

4. A simple pre-formed standard layout baseboard in ply in kit form will set you back £70-80 per module, you want your boards made for you, custom boards cost more especially as they get more complex.

5. On the N gauge thread it was mentioned you had 70 points on the scarm plan plus point motors  @£11 per point plus motors that is £1000 and you have no track in that figure.

6. How much will your shed be to house all this. £4000+

 

The monetary cost of your grand plans are something you either build over many years - people begin with smaller layouts and build their skills and stock towards a grand plan or are built by a model railway club - for one individual to buy all this will require an obscene amount of money especially if you are going after discontinued stock.

 

I am sorry to say this and as harsh as it sounds, I think you are deluded and need to rethink this whole thing before you commit cash.

 

Sorry, sorry, sorry because I don't like being this way about someone else's dream

[The Stationmaster]

The station throat looks thoroughly improbable to me.

 

I suppose 'yes and no' is the best answer to that.  The ladder of double slips has a strong hint of the 1930s Paddington about it so isn't improbable in that respect.  However what does to me seem to be somewhat less probable is the ability to actually and usefully work it on a model railway.  Assuming only one way out of the loco yard and counting both exits from the carriage line I make a total of 55 inbound routes.  Add to that the numerous permutations available for parallel (inbound) routes and you have got a very complex control system to set up before you even think about the outbound routes, their parallel opportunities plus their conflict or otherwise with the inbound routes. One could then perhaps draw a parallel with the situation on the 1990s version of Paddington where some very signalling application specific software simply could not accommodate the complexity of what would otherwise have been all the available opportunities for parallel routes which the operations folk specified and which the track layout permitted.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible but it would certainly be a very considerable task, on its own, to draw up the route table and identify parallels and conflicts which are needed in order to tell the control system - of any sort - what its design needs to achieve.  Easy of course to simplify the requirements for parallel routes but if that is the case why provide the pointwork for them in the first place?  And then it has to be built and subsequently maintained to a sufficient extent to make sure it works correctly; it doesn't really matter if bits of it are solid state devices or computer logic because what will count is the stuff that actually works on the layout itself - and that's around 50 point motors of whatever make for the running and carriage lines alone at the terminus.  Of necessity most, if not all, those point motors will be underneath and will require access for maintenance and replacement etc.

 

There is a further feature when it comes to improbability and that is the capacity of the hidden sidings to match the capacity of a station that size with a layout that lavish and there is quite a mismatch - only 5 long loops and 6 short ones to serve a station that size.  I suspect that ratio of storage loop capacity to station size might lead to frustration.  Many years ago on an out & back layout I used 4 double length loops to serve a terminus with two platforms plus freight marshalling sidings and to be honest the loop capacity was insufficient to the extent I was looking at a major rearrangement in order to provide storage sidings off-scene at the opposite end which then 'matured' into a plan for a far simpler double line through station because that was what the storage was more able to realistically serve.  Obviously you also have your carriage sidings but they don't use that quadruple track approach although they do provide trains to/from the station, and quite an operator workload in consequence.

[shady]

Things that would put me off doing the large N gauge as well as the large OO guage , you might give each a totaly different weight ie from zero to infinite

 

01) the cost, a) financial

                     b) Time

02) The practicality  a) Whilst I can visulise the N in the shed on trestles before any work starts on the OO , I cant visualise how you can set the N up on trestles whilst the OO is in place

                                b) whilst the N could be supported from the walls and set up above the OO , unless designed into the shed , there might be conflict between where the N needs support and

                                     where it can be supported.

                                c) Whilst b can be done , the danger of damage to both the N and the OO if you slip whilst setting up/putting in place the N Boards.

                                d) Because of C don't even think about any form of lifting mechanise (I can visulaise the scene of distruction and almost hear the scream of dismay)

                                e) Whilst you can have boards that can be set up/dismantled quickly , dont underestimate the time to pack/unpack all the stock , set the trains up on the track  connect all the wiring together , run tests etc,

                                    on any layout of the size you propose in N this will be counted in hours rather than minutes , if that means you are unlikely to use it very often is it worth the extra complexity.

 

 

03) Experiance       a) it is true that some skills will be transferable betwwen N and OO , an argument can be made that if you can do the wiring for N , then OO should be easy (especialy inside Loco's and stock)

                                   I would say practice on OO first.

                               b) With an OO test setup you can add point motors/servo's detection methods that you will actually use in the large layout.

                               c) As you plan to have your baseboards built for you , how can you plan where the braces/support structures will/can go

                                  before you know the actual size and location of these in relation to the track.(especially for complex junctions)

                                   (if you are planning on having someone else design the boards rather than built to your plan , the cost will be astronomical and due to the complexity the outcome uncertain)

                                 

04) Compatability  a) any stock purchased for testing can be run on the "final" layout.

 

As you live in/near London I would sugest that you go to the exhibition at Ally Pally on 24/25th of this month , look at the layouts, as you want automation visit the MERG stand

(consider joining MERG, even if you dont plan to use any of their modules, the back catalogue of advice would be useful and the cost inconsequential) (caveat I am a member of MERG )

next bit of advice is dont take your credit card with you !!!!!

 

I was hoping that some of the simple tests that myself and others had suggested would have enabled you to reach your own conclusions re the width of base boards etc ,

(I take my hat off to Dagworth as his photo's are a prime example of how a picture is worth a thousand words).

 

Shady

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your thoughts. In terms of the storage yards, I can see that having only 5 roads for fast trains might be a difficulty. I have now revised the design to allow for 7 roads on the main lines without reducing the number of roads for the relief lines:

 

.

 

(I have not reproduced the lower plan as this has not changed). This has increased the width of the base boards over the storage yards to 900mm from ~800mm previously, but should at least allow for a more useful number of fast trains to be stored. The new fiddle yard roads are shorter than the others, but the shortest can still take a 7 carriage train, and there were quite a few shorter express trains on the Great Western (and indeed the Midland).

 

Apropos the carriage sidings, from my understanding, all long distance trains in Paddington around this time and for many years afterwards had the stock taken to the carriage sidings for servicing between arriving and departing, albeit the suburban trains were serviced in the platforms. Note that the relief lines have double loops as well as three roads of auxilliary storage for shorter trains used infrequently (e.g. the locomotive coal train).

 

As to the N gauge layout, I can see that this is fraught with difficulty: a layout that is not at least semi-permanent I can see is not likely to be workable. I will have to re-assess whether a semi-permanent layout (albeit demountable for working on it, as it would be too high for working) after the shed is built. This is a great pity, as I should like to have had such a layout and it might have been sensible to have had something to work on pending the availability of Peco Bullhead slips and crossings.

 

In relation to the test track, what might be sensible is to have two pairs of parallel lines each with crossovers, one set with the Peco bullhead and one set with SMP/Marcway, the former wired for analogue and the latter for DCC. This would give me a useful comparison for testing the different types of track, as well as giving a good analogue test track.

 

I have also just taken some of my old stock/controllers/Hornby track down from the attic so that I can begin to test things on the floor until such time as the shed has been constructed.

 

In relation to setting up routes, I can see that setting up 55 inbound routes and a similar number of outbound routes might take a fair while, but this does not seem to be an insurmountable task. I have downloaded the free version of iTrain, and I will have a go when I have a spare moment at configuring things to see what setting up routes is like. Compared to some of the year-long projects on Simutrans-Extended (and fantastically difficult things such as adding multi-threading to software that was not designed for it from the outset and which has to keep in exact synchronisation over the network - this took many months of intensive work to get right), setting up a few hundred routes seems comparatively straightforward.

 

Shady - I am definitely planning on going to that exhibition. I will have a look out for the MERG stand! That seems as if it might be most useful.

 

Woodenhead - brandishing insults is utterly inappropriate, and it is positively reprehensible to repeat the falsehood that I have ignored advice. You have (it seems to me quite deliberately) ignored the point that I have repeated many times over, which is that I have had conflicting advice, and in many cases, when I have pressed some of those who have given some of that conflicting advice for more detail, that has been met by aggression and a deliberate failure to provide the very detail that the people in question would have had to have known in the first place if their advice were to be credible. I am well aware of what items cost, that the shed is not yet complete and that Peco Bullhead slips and crossings are not yet available. It is a prefabricated design, and will be ready in April. It will probably be the early summer before I can start building things, and the first project will be the test track, and I will have to have baseboards built. By the time that all that is done, there is a good chance that that the Peco Bullhead slips and crossings will be available. If not, I will have to consider alternatives, such as SMP track and Marcway turnouts (which is what I was considering using in any event before I learnt about the new Peco Bullhead track). It is frankly bizarre that you should see the need to call me "deluded" and merely repeat in vague and general terms what others have also stated in vague and general terms and about which I have repeatedly asked for specifics without in many cases any meaningful response (and where I have had a real specific, practical response, I have modified things as necessary).

 

Edit: Incidentally, of course I appreciate the risk that I will run into difficulties with this project, or that it will take too much time to complete, or that various aspects will prove not to be workable; but I am equally aware of the risk that a smaller, simpler project would be perpetually unsatisfying. In order to make a rational, informed decision, I have to weigh the risk of one against another.

Edited March 4, 2018 by jamespetts