Update on my Layout Journey - My 90s ECML Layout

[Delorean1984]

Still a work in progress, open to any tips or suggestions to improve it. I've just used set track at moment but would like to use flexitrack more in places if possible to make it look more realistic. I want to use the larger streamline points but find the spacing between the parallel track is different say if I use set track points compared to the streamline points, how do you guys tackle that? Seems narrower with streamline. The gap in middle I want to go for a ECML style station layout, any ideas? The top line is an incline but not sure what max incline I can do or even if it's possible here?

 

The size board is 10x5ft.

[DCB]

The track plan does not work with the gradient, you can get up but not back down! at least not without reversing. The pair of points by the start of the gradient should be the other way round and further down.  There is room for a simple terminus station having left you have to reverse to get back in.  If you reverse a couple of pairs of points and change the up grade for a loop, goods loop? it can work reasonably well but you will be effectively limited to a loco and 3 or 4 coaches representing a 10 to 16 coach train or a 3 car HST representing a 8 car HST.    That is really branch line train lengths, a simple through station is probably the practical  limit for an ECML layout in this space.  Harlequin might have some ideas.

Streamline spacing is 2" or 52 ish mm and set track much wider, around 65mm, this is so trains on 1st radius don't hit trains on 2nd radius as they pass.  In practice if you use 22" and 24" radius 50mm spacing is quite adequate for 99% of trains, GWR Kings on the inside and 75ft Mk3 coaches on the outside is about the worst case scenario.   You can get sharper curves with set track but get more tracks in side by side with streamline. I would always try to use streamline, the smallest points are streamline small Y''s at around 4.5 inches long, about 75% of the length of set track points.   To get any decent track layout you need to cut down some sections of set track as the geometry does not work with any slightly adventurous track plans.

 

 

Edited March 13, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[Delorean1984]

5 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

The track plan does not work with the gradient, you can get up but not back down! at least not without reversing. The pair of points by the start of the gradient should be the other way round and further down.  There is room for a simple terminus station having left you have to reverse to get back in.  If you reverse a couple of pairs of points and change the up grade for a loop, goods loop? it can work reasonably well but you will be effectively limited to a loco and 3 or 4 coaches representing a 10 to 16 coach train or a 3 car HST representing a 8 car HST.    That is really branch line train lengths, a simple through station is probably the practical  limit for an ECML layout in this space.  Harlequin might have some ideas.

Streamline spacing is 2" or 52 ish mm and set track much wider, around 65mm, this is so trains on 1st radius don't hit trains on 2nd radius as they pass.  In practice if you use 22" and 24" radius 50mm spacing is quite adequate for 99% of trains, GWR Kings on the inside and 75ft Mk3 coaches on the outside is about the worst case scenario.   You can get sharper curves with set track but get more tracks in side by side with streamline. I would always try to use streamline, the smallest points are streamline small Y''s at around 4.5 inches long, about 75% of the length of set track points.   To get any decent track layout you need to cut down some sections of set track as the geometry does not work with any slightly adventurous track plans.

 

 

 

Many thanks for the feedback, much appreciated and ideas too. Is it just not worth doing a gradient anywhere on this layout?

 

I wanted to fit a couple of bridges/viaduct on a dropped board on right hand side, the goods loop sound like a good idea, also wanted to have few through platforms, do you still think thats achievable with a bit of fettling? Wanted a tunnel possibly somewhere. I look at replacing the points with small streamline ones, is it also worth trying to get some sweeping curves with flexitrack in places? I want to try and keep it reasonably simple for my first layout, yeah also thought I'd only get short formed trains, not sure I can get a larger size board in the space I've got.

 

Would be interested to see what ideas @harlequin and others also think? I'll work on it a bit this weekend. Planning it on computer gives me a rough idea before buying track but I'm sure it will change as I start laying it.

[TonyMay]

The ECML is 393 miles long from King's Cross to Edinburgh.  By the 1990s it had been electrified, albeit on the cheap.  Much of that is four-tracked, and a lot of it is straight.  Like really straight.  It doesn't look very much like what you've drawn.

 

Longer trains would be possible, but would also involve switching to N gauge.

[DCB]

@Delorean1984  Giive some thought to how much space you have.   One of my layouts was a wall hugger a nominal 60" above floor level. I could rest my chin on the track.  Didn't have to duck much to get under layout. Had to use a step ladder for building most of it but it left almost all the room available for other stuff.   Most fun layout fitted the Dining room table and was a double track oval with a loop.  Spent hours running trains round it, 

You could have a gradient with a station at the top, but it would cover some of the other tracks and or make the station look cramped.  I would probably have the grade going down all the way round the room to hidden sidings on a lower level but my bed layout has never worked properly owing to excessively steep gradients

There are double track bits of the ECML. Welwyn Viaduct?   York station North approach, selby diversion  and north of Newcastle.  It's probably best to imagine the overhead lines on a first layout .  Keep doodling.  Dreaming costs nothing. Track is expensive especially if you buy the wrong bits.

[Harlequin]

How about Berwick-upon-tweed as inspiration?

• It is on the ECML where it is double-tracked.
• There is one island platform between the up and down lines and there are a fairly simple set of loops and sidings on the down side.
• The station is built in the grounds of a castle, of which the west wall survives.
• One end of the passenger station immediately abuts the river Tweed, which is crossed by an impressive viaduct. (One of the station crossovers is actually on the viaduct.)

The modelling possibilities are mouth-watering and the station is not too big or complicated - so it should be able to be compressed. Station (with castle ramparts!) on the long side, bridge over river on the right. Some station pointwork on the left, skinny duck-under section at the bottom, as you have shown it.

 

[Harlequin]

Something like this maybe:

 

• ECML station, bridge, tunnel. I made the bridge straight for easier construction.
• Track all on one level but the scenery rises and falls all around. This is simpler and more reliable than trying to create gradients in the track.
• R2 and R3 radius curves are used but are hidden. Elsewhere min radius is approx 610mm.
• The only turnouts that have to be Setrack are the optional facing crossover under the hill within the R2/R3 curves. Everything else is Streamline and If that crossover is omitted you can use Code 75 if required.
• Streamline: 5 curved right, 5 curved left, 1 large Y, 2 medium left, 1 medium right.
• The only place where the twin track has the normal Streamline spacing is over the bridge and in the fiddle yard.
• Basic fiddle yard in the form of two passing loops where you can manually set up one train while another is running on either circuit.
• There is a facing crossover on the left hand side. That is as per the prototype.

It's still a bit rough and some details would need to be worked out to turn it into a working layout.

The track gets close to the backscene in places so the scenic edges could be difficult to disguise but that's pretty much unavoidable in such a small space.

The operation would have to be checked. I know that some wrong-road running is needed to exit the inner FY loops in the clockwise direction (and enter the outer loops anti-clockwise) but that might not matter if the layout is more about play value?

 

Edited March 15, 2020 by Harlequin

[Delorean1984]

16 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Something like this maybe:

 

• ECML station, bridge, tunnel. I made the bridge straight for easier construction.
• Track all on one level but the scenery rises and falls all around. This is simpler and more reliable than trying to create gradients in the track.
• R2 and R3 radius curves are used but are hidden. Elsewhere min radius is approx 610mm.
• The only turnouts that have to be Setrack are the optional facing crossover under the hill within the R2/R3 curves. Everything else is Streamline and If that crossover is omitted you can use Code 75 if required.
• Streamline: 5 curved right, 5 curved left, 1 large Y, 2 medium left, 1 medium right.
• The only place where the twin track has the normal Streamline spacing is over the bridge and in the fiddle yard.
• Basic fiddle yard in the form of two passing loops where you can manually set up one train while another is running on either circuit.
• There is a facing crossover on the left hand side. That is as per the prototype.

It's still a bit rough and some details would need to be worked out to turn it into a working layout.

The track gets close to the backscene in places so the scenic edges could be difficult to disguise but that's pretty much unavoidable in such a small space.

The operation would have to be checked. I know that some wrong-road running is needed to exit the inner FY loops in the clockwise direction (and enter the outer loops anti-clockwise) but that might not matter if the layout is more about play value?

 

 

Wow, many thanks for taking the time to do this, its very much appreciated. I initially thought of doing a lower part ECML layout but never thought of doing one from up in the North and like the say Berwick is got a lot of character.

 

Is it worth still transferring this to my layout computer program or just print this out and go with this as a starting point? This is exactly what I am looking for and you have managed to get it to look more realistic then I could so far.

 

Some newbie questions coming up, is the view blocker just that, blocks the view of the fiddle yard? Basically this will be in my garage and the top of the layout where castle would be is up against the wall, I would have access to the sides for building the layout and operation etc. I have two doors on the garage, one either side so the fiddle yard basically will be the front of the layout with the odd person doing stuff in the garage walking past, should be plenty of room. I am glad you have been able to fit a fiddle yard in. I'm building it more for my daughter who likes trains at the moment so she can stand in the operating well with me when operating it.

 

Thank you again for doing this, very much appreciated.

[Harlequin]

3 hours ago, Delorean1984 said:

 

Wow, many thanks for taking the time to do this, its very much appreciated. I initially thought of doing a lower part ECML layout but never thought of doing one from up in the North and like the say Berwick is got a lot of character.

 

Is it worth still transferring this to my layout computer program or just print this out and go with this as a starting point? This is exactly what I am looking for and you have managed to get it to look more realistic then I could so far.

 

Some newbie questions coming up, is the view blocker just that, blocks the view of the fiddle yard? Basically this will be in my garage and the top of the layout where castle would be is up against the wall, I would have access to the sides for building the layout and operation etc. I have two doors on the garage, one either side so the fiddle yard basically will be the front of the layout with the odd person doing stuff in the garage walking past, should be plenty of room. I am glad you have been able to fit a fiddle yard in. I'm building it more for my daughter who likes trains at the moment so she can stand in the operating well with me when operating it.

 

Thank you again for doing this, very much appreciated.

 

Hi, Thanks - I'm glad you like it! (Hope I haven't trod on any toes.)

 

I suggest you have a really critical look at the design before you jump in. Make sure it really will do what you want and that it offers enough interest. (It's quite simple but it's a reasonable contraction of Berwick-Upon-Tweed and it's hard to see how much more could be added to it.) If there's anything you don't like please let me know.

 

You could take the design as-is and either print it out at real size or take measurements from the drawing to position everything. I can send you a PDF file. Or you could try to replicate it in your software if you want to change things.

 

The location in the garage sounds fine. The view blocker is a bit woolly at the moment but it would do two jobs: 1. Hiding the exit of the track from the scene and 2. Disguising the tight R2 and R3 curves. It could be another tunnel mouth or overbridge but we already have both of those so it would be great to find an alternative method. Maybe just some tall(ish) buildings? Perhaps someone has a suggestion?

 

Edit: I forgot to ask whether you'd thought about point control yet. Are you thinking of motorising the points or keeping it simple and doing it by hand? If you're going for point motors then the medium left on the bridge needs to be thought about.

Edited March 15, 2020 by Harlequin
Point motors

[Delorean1984]

On 15/03/2020 at 14:58, Harlequin said:

 

Hi, Thanks - I'm glad you like it! (Hope I haven't trod on any toes.)

 

I suggest you have a really critical look at the design before you jump in. Make sure it really will do what you want and that it offers enough interest. (It's quite simple but it's a reasonable contraction of Berwick-Upon-Tweed and it's hard to see how much more could be added to it.) If there's anything you don't like please let me know.

 

You could take the design as-is and either print it out at real size or take measurements from the drawing to position everything. I can send you a PDF file. Or you could try to replicate it in your software if you want to change things.

 

The location in the garage sounds fine. The view blocker is a bit woolly at the moment but it would do two jobs: 1. Hiding the exit of the track from the scene and 2. Disguising the tight R2 and R3 curves. It could be another tunnel mouth or overbridge but we already have both of those so it would be great to find an alternative method. Maybe just some tall(ish) buildings? Perhaps someone has a suggestion?

 

Edit: I forgot to ask whether you'd thought about point control yet. Are you thinking of motorising the points or keeping it simple and doing it by hand? If you're going for point motors then the medium left on the bridge needs to be thought about.

 

No definitely not stepping on any toes, my daughter will like it. Good thing is we have a castle here in Scarborough too so the layout is quite related to scarbados too.

 

Yeah I'll have a think about the tall buildings to disguise that area but I think that would work. Do you think I should have a fiddle yard? I think I should have one as without it I don't think I would have enough storage areas without one on this size layout? Out of interest how many trains at one time can I have running on this layout, about 2 or 3?

 

With regards to the points, I would like to motorise them at some point, I might not be able to straight away but will plan ahead and drill the holes, are they easy to fit?

 

 

[Flying Pig]

On 16/03/2020 at 17:38, Delorean1984 said:

Do you think I should have a fiddle yard? I think I should have one as without it I don't think I would have enough storage areas without one on this size layout? Out of interest how many trains at one time can I have running on this layout, about 2 or 3?

You will need some sort of storage on the layout if you don't want to keep moving trains on and off the track manually.  As I recall, the original plan you were looking at online had scope for carriage and loco sidings as part of the modelled scene, rather than a fiddle yard.  This would allow a variety of prototypical movements - carriage shunting, light engines and so on with trains starting and terminating at the station - so would be a good choice if you find that sort of thing interesting.

 

However, the storage loops Harlequin has drawn allow you to just pick another train to run at a moments notice which may well suit your daughter better!  Fiddle yards are usually hidden and regarded as offstage, representing the rest of the world, but in this case you could keep everything in view and watch the trains go by if you prefer.

 

While only two trains can actually run at a time, there are three loops - two in the fiddle yard and one in the station - for other trains to wait their turn.  So the maximum is five if you don't mind a crowd and of course the various sidings will hold additional engines and stock.

[DCB]

You could always make the "Hidden" loops scenic if you don't want bare boards.  Beattock summit loops beside the M74  have up and down loops with Three (4?) aspect signals on main and loops.

[Harlequin]

The loops baseboard is not very wide because it's a duck-under (or could be partly lifting) and it needs to leave as much room as possible in the operating well. So I don't think there's room to do anything really scenic - unless you love ballasting...

 

I think it's useful to have a non-scenic area where you can take things on and off without risking damage to scenery and where stock can stand around as required.

 

There's also a small practical issue with the tunnel: If it exits into a scenic area you need a second scenic tunnel mouth but if it exits into a non-scenic area you can make that exit simpler and much bigger so that you can get your hand inside to deal with derailments and clean the track.

 

As Flying Pig said: Up to 5 trains on the layout, 2 running on the main circuits, 3 either standing in loops ready to go or being changed over by hand.

 

I don't know how Berwick operated or operates today but from looking at it's track plan I guess that it might have been a place where carriages were attached and detached from long distance trains??? The sidings would be primarily carriage sidings and the spur at top right would be where a shunter stands?

[Flying Pig]

 

5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I don't know how Berwick operated or operates today but from looking at it's track plan I guess that it might have been a place where carriages were attached and detached from long distance trains??? The sidings would be primarily carriage sidings and the spur at top right would be where a shunter stands?

 

I doubt there was regular shunting of any kind at Berwick in the 1990s and prototypical operation would  be restricted to long distance trains stopping and occasionally freight waiting in the loops.  It's perfectly fine to operate the layout like that and just watch the trains go by, but there scope for a lot more railwaylike activity if the operators feel inclined.

[Delorean1984]

Thank you everyone for the tips.

 

The plan was to build the baseboard this week when I'm annual leave but will leave it until lockdown is over however just planning on what I'll need.

 

In terms of baseboard, is 9mm or 12mm ply best? I'm also going with Harlequins plan with fettling as I go a long. Does anyone know if I could get small incline in here anywhere?

 

Just another thought if I decided not to do the fiddle yard, anyone have any ideas what I could put here instead? In happy with the fiddle yard but I want to think of all different options before I start building.

 

I'm also pricing up points, which point motors are worth going for?

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, Delorean1984 said:

Just another thought if I decided not to do the fiddle yard, anyone have any ideas what I could put here instead? In happy with the fiddle yard but I want to think of all different options before I start building.

 

 

Have another look through the posts above as people have already posted their thoughts on this.  The limiting factor is the narrow fiddle yard board, which means you'd struggle to fit any other worthwhile facilities on it without making the board wider.  In my view ease of access and a decent operating well are too important to sacrifice.

 

I would keep the fiddle yard. As I said before there's potential for some interesting operations when you want something more challenging than watching trains go by.  See if you can work out a sequence where a freight arrives from one direction, shunts to the left hand siding and later departs back to where it came from (it'll need to run round at some point); meanwhile a dmu arrives from the opposite direction and terminates, lays over in the sidings and then goes back where it came.  All interleaved with a couple of expresses circulating.  The DMU and freight end up having swapped lines in the fiddle yard so next time they arrive from the other direction.