Newbie 6x5-ish Starter Layout - I have idea but advice sought/welcome.

[FoolInjection]

Looking for a bit of advice, I'm pretty new to all this so please bear with me. Be gentle.

 

I've recently been given, by my parents, all my old Hornby railways items from when I was younger and have made a baseboard in my loft using two old, plywood skinned, interior doors.  This gives me about 6x5 feet to play with (196cm x 163cm to be exact) to build a layout on.  I saw a picture on Google of a 6x4 double track oval layout someone on another forum had made which had a turntable (my friend has just given me a Peco Turntable kit as a gift) so I adapted that to fit my wider baseboard.  Plus my old "Flying Scotsman train set" layout as a kid was a double track oval so I have track from that.

 

Currently I have 2 similar ideas, one a bit more involved scenery wise than the other.  I'm kind of guess-timating what size the buildings might be and where they could go but it gives you an idea of what I was thinking.  I should also say, this will all be old school DC powered.

 

The first idea uses R1 and R2 radius curves, which as I said I currently have the track for, and has a road meandering through the empty space down the middle of the baseboard.  I realise that R1 curves are kind of shunned now as things have progressed since the old days when I used to mess around with model trains and the newer locomotives can't take R1 curves.  I do kind of plan on running locomotives which might have been seen by my Dad on the Airdrie - Bathgate line back in the late 50's - early 60's though so I think the biggest engine you saw there regularly would have been a Gresley V3 or a J37.

 

The layout is completely flat, one side is an engine yard, the other side is a station with a goods shed and a carriage shed.  I like the idea of being able to maybe do messing about with shunting.  The bottom 3 sidings of the 6 at the station being kind of like one of those Inglenook's Puzzles I've seen.  I also liked the idea of having a carriage siding which could potentially take 3 coaches, which I think would just about fit in the top siding.  I thought the 2 sidings off the Y point at the top end could be a Diesel Fuel Point as I've got a BR green Class 47 and a BR green Class 06 0-4-0 which, at least in the case of the Class 47, probably don't fit but this is my first proper attempt at a layout and I'm never going to be prototypical anyway at this stage.

 

 

My second idea was to ditch the R1 curves and shorten the straights to allow for R2 and R3 curves, then due to the reduced interior space run a single track line raised on an embankment down the middle as the road couldn't make it around the outside of the sidings.  In my head this could be the old LMS line which cut through Airdrie/Coatbridge, some of it up on an embankment, and would let me put a girder bridge / brick arch bridge at either corner.  The track on top would be totally non-functional but would split the layout up a little.  The only thing I haven't quite figured out yet is if I could fit a level crossing in at the station (perhaps make my own on the corner section at the end of the platforms, as I know there are a lot of stations with a level crossing right at the end of the platforms) which would allow lorries to get to the goods shed.  Everything else is pretty much the same, just adjusted to fit.

 

 

In both ideas there is still a little bit of space around the outside of the track for some grass or a little raised hill or something.  I know I could use my original idea and use R2 and R3 curves on it but then the straights would be right on the edge of the board.

 

So that's where I'm up to just now.  I bought a magazine recently which came with an "Ideas for Layouts" book with it which gave me the impetus to come up with the embankment on the second idea I had; try and use a little elevation so it's not just track on a board but does anyone have any advice, ideas?  Like I said I'm just starting out really and for all I know this might not even work as I'm maybe underestimating how big the buildings are going to be.  But essentially I wanted to be able to run 2 trains, a passenger and a goods, do some shunting, and have a place to store a few loco's and the coaches/wagons.

[simmo009]

Peco do curved level crossings to fit SetTrack radii,  will fit Hornby no problem.

[DCB]

Usual problem its backwards for UK practice, we run on the left.   Trains should back in to sidings so you can leave the brake van on the line and shunt the siding.  Otherwise the engine gets trapped at the buffers.  Likewise you should reverse over the crossovers. If you flip the second plan and change two cross overs from facing to trailing, so you back across them, you have a decent layout. You can start and stop trains in either direction, run round the coaches or wagons to change ends, Its pretty good. I put a raised edge on the baseboard and run the tracks close to the edge, the edge of the baseboard is the railway fence and I don't model beyond it on small layouts.   See flipped layout plan Jpeg attached

[Zomboid]

Is any part of the board going to be against a wall? You need to think about access - even if you use hands free couplings, sometimes they don't engage properly, and you will have derailments in the places you can't reach. Plus you've also got to build it.

 

I'd go with the R2/3 basis, but don't be afraid of curved crossovers - they'll use the space a bit more efficiently.

[FoolInjection]

2 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Is any part of the board going to be against a wall? You need to think about access - even if you use hands free couplings, sometimes they don't engage properly, and you will have derailments in the places you can't reach. Plus you've also got to build it.

 

I'd go with the R2/3 basis, but don't be afraid of curved crossovers - they'll use the space a bit more efficiently.

 

No part of the board will be against a wall.  I'm very lucky in that the loft I'm putting this in is 22ft x 15ft.  The dream further down the line is to have a layout which goes along one or more sides of the loft but that probably won't be till my kids are up a bit and I have a bit more time.

 

6 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

Usual problem its backwards for UK practice, we run on the left.   Trains should back in to sidings so you can leave the brake van on the line and shunt the siding.  Otherwise the engine gets trapped at the buffers.  Likewise you should reverse over the crossovers. If you flip the second plan and change two cross overs from facing to trailing, so you back across them, you have a decent layout. You can start and stop trains in either direction, run round the coaches or wagons to change ends, Its pretty good. I put a raised edge on the baseboard and run the tracks close to the edge, the edge of the baseboard is the railway fence and I don't model beyond it on small layouts.

 

I knew we ran on that side; not actually sure why I didn't pick up on that.  Took your advice and re-engineered the plan.  I tried to get the crossing at the right hand end of the station to come off the curve.  I think if I use one of the regular PECO Code-100 points down there with the longer (and probably more realistic) radius on it I could get it to match up with the set-track curved point with a little straight in-between.  It does mean that the curved point would be in a tunnel but I couldn't think of any other way of doing it but retaining the length of the sidings.

 

I might play about with taking the track right up to the edge of the board and just running a lip around it to stop derailments from taking a 3 foot nose-dive but this is how it would look with the proposed changes.

 

[south_tyne]

19 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Is any part of the board going to be against a wall? You need to think about access - even if you use hands free couplings, sometimes they don't engage properly, and you will have derailments in the places you can't reach. Plus you've also got to build it.

 

I'd go with the R2/3 basis, but don't be afraid of curved crossovers - they'll use the space a bit more efficiently.

 

I would agree with the need to carefully consider access. Remember that a 6' by 5' baseboard will be extremely unwieldy if and when you have to manoeuvre it...... Is portability something you need to think about will it be very much a permanent layout with no prospect of being moved?

 

Given you have such a fantastic space, have you considered future expansion. Personally I would be more tempted to utilise the space in a different way - still very much starting modestly but maybe with a small linear layout. Then again my interest is primarily in shunting and shuffling wagons around. We are all different and if you would rather a roundy roundy plan then your arrangement is fully understood! 

[FoolInjection]

17 hours ago, south_tyne said:

 

I would agree with the need to carefully consider access. Remember that a 6' by 5' baseboard will be extremely unwieldy if and when you have to manoeuvre it...... Is portability something you need to think about will it be very much a permanent layout with no prospect of being moved?

 

Given you have such a fantastic space, have you considered future expansion. Personally I would be more tempted to utilise the space in a different way - still very much starting modestly but maybe with a small linear layout. Then again my interest is primarily in shunting and shuffling wagons around. We are all different and if you would rather a roundy roundy plan then your arrangement is fully understood! 

 

The baseboard will be on a set of wooden trestle legs (which I'm in the process of building just now) and probably won't ever be moved once it's on the legs in the middle of the room.  Access shouldn't be an issue as the loft is 15 feet wide; this gives me 5 feet either side of it.  Plus, if it ever needs to come out the loft it'll need to be broken down anyway as the loft hatch can take a max across the diagonal of 3 feet.  This is partly the reason I'm reluctant to stick this embankment in as I'd need to split it at the door join if I ever did want to take them apart. 

 

I have thought about putting a linear layout in (something like David Hyde's Dearsley on YouTube perhaps but based on Airdrie Cally Station?) or sending something around the outside of the entire loft but this 6x5 idea was primarily because I had these two doors, I got some cheap lumber for the legs, and I had 2 ovals of track, albeit R1 and R2 radius curves from 1989, at my disposal.  Plus I like the idea of just having trains running.  You can't really do that with a linear layout.

 

I'm kind of time constrained with the kids as well.  I don't have a lot of time to work on a layout at the moment, so I thought using what I had would be a good way to get up and running quicker.

 

Does anyone have any advice on getting the curved points to hook up to straights though?   I realise that although I've managed it with some flexable track in the SCARM software, I'm not sure it lines up 100% and looks a bit crooked when you view it in the 3D mode.  The throw of the points and the radius of the 2 curves isn't quite bang on and it looks a bit of an s-bend.

 

[simmo009]

Go to www.freetrackplans.com, click the geometry tab at the top, it shows all of the arrangements. I believe the two curved point crossover works on 2nd to 3rd radius.

 

How about building the embankment as a separate lift off piece?

Edited March 2, 2019 by simmo009
Extra thought.

[FoolInjection]

7 minutes ago, simmo009 said:

Go to www.freetrackplans.com, click the geometry tab at the top, it shows all of the arrangements. I believe the two curved point crossover works on 2nd to 3rd radius.

 

Thanks for the link, but I've been on that site and it doesn't have geometry listed for what I'm trying to achieve.  All the geometry diagrams I've seen put the crossover in the middle of the corner.  I'm trying to get it on the end right as it joins the straights.

[simmo009]

Settrack curved points are a bit weird, all I can say is play with the real bits. I think SCARM is brilliant, but sometimes a bit too exact, there is a bit of play in the rail joiners that gives you a bit of wiggle room.

[JDW]

I like the plan, and the embankment across the middle gives it more of a sense of "going somewhere" by dividing it into two scenes, especially with a train posed on top, it would be quite a high visual block between the two halves.  Plus it gives you the opportunity for some nice scenic details - as well as the obvious bridges, the turntable pen encroaching into the embankment, presumably using up-ended old sleepers as a timber retaining wall, would be quite a nice detail.  

 

I think I'd try and use the curved points as much as possible on the main line, as you have done at the bottom, as otherwise the train will end up snaking through a tight right-left-right S-bend which can cause problems with buffer locking or derailing.  The curved points give a much smoother transition from one track to the other, and also will look much better when the train runs over them, a flowing continuous curve rather than a sudden toy like sharp turn.  It'll probably give a better sense of space too by making the straights look less cluttered and more open.

[The Johnster]

My main concern is the lack of headshunts at the exits from the goods/carriage sidings and the loco shed.  This means that any shunting movements will block the ‘inner’ main line.  I can see why you’ve done this, as space inside the continuous circuit is at a premium and the goods and loco facilities would be much smaller, and you’d possibly lose the carriage shed and the diesel fuelling point. 

 

But being able to shunt clear of the running lines increases the operating potential; you’ll be able to run up and down trains and have two separate shunting operations on the go simultaneously.  And there will be more room for scenery/buildings etc.; the layout will look better IMHO for being less crowded. 

[mdvle]

Possibly of interest, Chris Nevard just made a blog posting about doing a "trainset" layout measuring 5'x4' and he has pictures of the completed layout which demonstrate what can be achieved as well as a YouTube video.

 

http://nevardmedia.blogspot.com/2019/03/trainset.html

[FoolInjection]

On 23/03/2019 at 15:54, JDW said:

I think I'd try and use the curved points as much as possible on the main line, as you have done at the bottom, as otherwise the train will end up snaking through a tight right-left-right S-bend which can cause problems with buffer locking or derailing.  The curved points give a much smoother transition from one track to the other, and also will look much better when the train runs over them, a flowing continuous curve rather than a sudden toy like sharp turn.  It'll probably give a better sense of space too by making the straights look less cluttered and more open.

 

I do like the idea of having the crossover come off the curve rather than just being a straight crossover in the middle of the straight sections.  I did mess around with the curved points in the SCARM program and using some of the Code-100 points to mate up with it but ended up finding that I can use regular set-track points to achieve what I was trying to do.  The turnouts are R2 radius so I use the turnout to finish the curve and join the straight section up with turnout coming the other way.  All I need is a tiny bridging piece to join them together.

 

 

On 27/03/2019 at 05:32, The Johnster said:

My main concern is the lack of headshunts at the exits from the goods/carriage sidings and the loco shed.  This means that any shunting movements will block the ‘inner’ main line.  I can see why you’ve done this, as space inside the continuous circuit is at a premium and the goods and loco facilities would be much smaller, and you’d possibly lose the carriage shed and the diesel fuelling point. 

 

But being able to shunt clear of the running lines increases the operating potential; you’ll be able to run up and down trains and have two separate shunting operations on the go simultaneously.  And there will be more room for scenery/buildings etc.; the layout will look better IMHO for being less crowded. 

 

A headshunt would be nice to have I'll admit but... I'll only be able to run 2 loco's at any one time as this will all be old-school DC using an HM-200 controller I picked up recently to replace my rather aged looking housebrick R912 controllers.  So anything on the inner line would have to stop to allow me to do that.  Unless I were to put in a 3rd controller just for the sidings.

 

On 31/03/2019 at 20:33, mdvle said:

Possibly of interest, Chris Nevard just made a blog posting about doing a "trainset" layout measuring 5'x4' and he has pictures of the completed layout which demonstrate what can be achieved as well as a YouTube video.

 

http://nevardmedia.blogspot.com/2019/03/trainset.html

 

Thanks for linking that.  It's a pretty good looking little layout.

 

I've been continually mucking about with the interior of the layout.  Sat tonight to see if I could get something akin to "Bredon" on the board with a headshunt added over at the station end..  Been messing about with the depot side of the board as well.  I kind of like the idea of having the fancier switches like the double slip and the 3-way.  Bit more interesting than the norm.

 

[Flying Pig]

I preferred the sidings on your earler plan, which were of a more practical length.  Length is less of an issue in the loco shed, but I still think it's starting to look a little cramped.  

[JDW]

Just a thought looking at your track laying picture.  From personal experience, some locos don't like those older style Hornby points you're using.  I don't know what stock you have or will be buying, the worst ones I found were Lima which would not run over the curved arm from the "single" end without derailing, I don't know about some of the later releases though.  I still have a couple right at the back of my fiddle yard but they are rarely used, and then only by DMUs.  For everything else I use Peco.  Obviously you're re-using your stuff from years ago, but might be worth checking or upgrading to Peco before you stick everything down!

[FoolInjection]

3 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

I preferred the sidings on your earler plan, which were of a more practical length.  Length is less of an issue in the loco shed, but I still think it's starting to look a little cramped.  

 

To be honest I keep scrapping the interior of the layout and starting over... I'm not 100% happy with any of it yet.

 

2 hours ago, JDW said:

Just a thought looking at your track laying picture.  From personal experience, some locos don't like those older style Hornby points you're using.  I don't know what stock you have or will be buying, the worst ones I found were Lima which would not run over the curved arm from the "single" end without derailing, I don't know about some of the later releases though.  I still have a couple right at the back of my fiddle yard but they are rarely used, and then only by DMUs.  For everything else I use Peco.  Obviously you're re-using your stuff from years ago, but might be worth checking or upgrading to Peco before you stick everything down!

 

Don't worry about that, they will all be replaced over time with the equivalent Peco Set-track points.  This was just "proof of concept".  

[JDW]

Also looking at your latest plan, I'd get rid of the bottom siding off the double slip, as a) this will get in the way of where you had the station on your earlier plan and b) it will make for more reliable shunting if you just use a normal point leading to the headhunt (fewer dead spots etc).  It will also make the yard less cluttered.  

 

I would get rid of one of the three kick back roads off the turntable, to leave more room for a 2-road shed with detailing around it, plus the embankment to the left.  I'd also get rid of the short siding top right, the ST-200, as it's too short to hold much apart from a shunter or tank wagon deivering fuel, but in the case of the latter there's no room for a tank there to store the delivered fuel anyway.

 

Instead of the short stub off the turntable, why not connect it to the point that leads to the long straight siding to create through siding, and get rid of that R603, leaving you room for some atmosphere - things like a small staff building, or a coaling point and water tower on the new through siding, allowing locos arriving to be coaled and others still to depart.  

[FoolInjection]

I've been back and forth with what to do with my layout; I've not had a lot of time to work on it again until recently due to work, ill health and other things.

 

This was my most recent plan.

 

 

Station in the bottom left with some goods sidings and maybe a goods shed as well.  A steam depot off of the first siding down to the turntable; some storage sidings, a spur off of those tracks to the coaling sidings and then back from those into a double track engine shed.  The second of the two sets of sidings (using the "Y" points) I thought could be the "newer" diesel fuel and stabling point. Thinking I could get a pump in there and fuel storage tank.

 

I think it seems less jam packed (I might be wrong but I think there is more room to put scenery in with this layout)... But that's where I am with it now.

[JDW]

Welcome back! I'd remove the middle of the 5 sidings lower left, as a goods yard needs space for road access to trans-ship the goods. I'd also get rid of the bit with the Y points, and instead have the two roads for a diesel shed coming from the point immediately below the Y point on your plan (the one which leads to the dead end siding above the turntable). Again, realistically there needs to be some form of access to and around the shed, plus having it going directly onto the running line looks odd.

I would also turn the plan slightly clockwise on the baseboard if there is room, to give a little more space bottom left for your station and so that the tracks aren't all parallel to the edge. It will leave a bit more room for scenic items in places, the trade off being ballast up to the edge of the board in others, but I'd say that is better than just an inch or two all round that you can't really do anything with.

[DCB]

I would try to swing the sidings as near the centre of the layout as possible by putting the right hand point before any lefts.  I would also reinstate the station platforms