Storage loops under the station/baseboard - is it practical

[TomJ]

I’m day dreaming how I might fit a more Mainline layout into my box room that is train room/office. Thinking of going right round the walls (thin shelf over the desk and main station opposite). To get more storage space I was wondering about putting some loops underneath the station. 
 

How practical is this? How much clearance might I need? I’m modelling in N gauge. There wouldn’t be any stock marshalling in there - just storage of rakes of trains. 
Perhaps I could use a mirror or some kind of camera to view the loops better?

 

Anyone done this? Any tips? Thanks 

[Zomboid]

The gradients and haulage power of your trains is probably the limiting factor. This sounds like it's an attempt to get longer trains (amongst other things) so you'll have quite a lot of rolling resistance to deal with.

 

You might not need to change consists, but you will need access to retrieve derailments, so you'll need some headroom, and once you've added that to the baseboard construction depth it'll be quite a change in height. You might also want to think about what kind of access you want to the underside of the top baseboard before having to dismantle the whole thing.

[peach james]

Practical minimums are about 4" for access to stock only...or about 15" if you need to get yourself in...

Make it removeable- at least the upper level.  Figure that you need 4x100=400" or 33 feet of track to get to that level (+/-).   If it was I, I would consider having 2 runs around the room to gain/loose enough height.  I don't think your plan will make sense, but that's me.

 

[AndrueC]

I looked into this several months ago when planning my next layout. I also model in N and was assuming that the room I'd be using was 4m x 3m with the layout going round the walls. I came up with two plans that would work:

 

* Staging level 200mm below the baseboard and two ramps split such that they occupied a full length and a width with a flat 90 degree bend 'mezzanine'.

* Staging level 100mm below the baseboard where the yards were on pull out shelves with four ramps connecting to the main board.

 

The latter option worked better for the main layout because I wanted to quarter the layout with hills between creating the impression of four separate scenes. My idea was to have trains moving between the scenes via the staging area so that it was less obvious that trains were going round and round. One train would go into a tunnel and on the other side of the mountain a different train emerges.

 

Ultimately the tray system sounded like a lot of work and the two ramp system didn't seem to offer much beyond a greater choice of trains and I can have 14 sidings without it so I decided I had enough variety

Edited December 7, 2021 by AndrueC

[xveitch]

The gradient (in percent), a = 100 x (height gained)/(distance to gain this height). 

That means the required distance = 100 x h/a (in percent). 

 

10cm is a typical minimum height between baseboards, and you wouldn't want to go above 2% grade (if you want long steam-hauled trains, go for 1%)

 

l = 100 x 10cm/2% = 500cm = 5m. 

For steam hauled trains you'd need at least 10m of running to get down far enough. 

 

If you want to extend your running length then it'd probably be better to go for a figure of 8.

Given that the height required is now a lot smaller (as you only have to clear a train height, rather than train + hand), the length required for the graded section is a lot smaller. Say 4cm between the rail tops: 

l = 100 x 4cm/2% = 200cm = 2m 

Xander 

 

[ITG]

I model in 00, but the hands needed for access are full size no matter what the scale. After a few problems with access on a previous layout, my current upper board is 150mm (6”) above the surface of the lower board. But to minimise the space taken up by under board bracing, I used 25mm (1”) square section aluminium framing, meaning there was 5” clear space. Of course, there are also under board point motors etc, but they do not protrude much more than the 25mm.

I personally wouldn’t go with less than that, because there’s no doubt there will be occasions of failure or derailment. The very nature of storage yards is lots of points - hence risk of wrong setting, electrical contact issues etc.

To see or detect what is on the storage roads, I have two systems. A dead end siding has a Heathcote IRDOT (infra red) sensor, which shows occupancy, but not what it is. Storage loops have 2 automotive reversing cameras, inclusive of LEDs for illumination, with the small screen’s visible so I can see both ends of the loops (and trains on them) simultaneously. Excellent easy to fit and cheap (eBay approx £20 each when I bought).

 

Gradient needs to be considered. To get the height, and at an incline of 2% (1 in 50) my track has to go around 3 of the 4 walls of the room (3.5 m x 2m), which means it virtually follows the route of the twin track mainline, a compromise on reality but essential to make it work how I wanted. In fact, the incline starts under the upper board, which it can because the 5” clearance allows that to happen in 00, even to the point it exits on its way to the large station on the upper board. Remember of course, if you’re thinking of the upper station being a through station, you will need twice the length of circuit to go both up and down. As mine is a terminus, the line only needs to climb one way.

 

Taking all the above into account, my only regret is I didn’t put more storage loops in!

PS. I also incorporated a reverse loop on the lower level, so that trains leaving from the terminus can go down to join the main line circuit, into the reverse loop when needed (either before or after a pause in the storage loops), and then return back to the terminus when I’m ready.

Edited December 7, 2021 by ITG
Addition

[Barry Ten]

1 hour ago, TomJ said:

I’m day dreaming how I might fit a more Mainline layout into my box room that is train room/office. Thinking of going right round the walls (thin shelf over the desk and main station opposite). To get more storage space I was wondering about putting some loops underneath the station. 
 

How practical is this? How much clearance might I need? I’m modelling in N gauge. There wouldn’t be any stock marshalling in there - just storage of rakes of trains. 
Perhaps I could use a mirror or some kind of camera to view the loops better?

 

Anyone done this? Any tips? Thanks 

 

Hello Tom. Although my storage loops are on the same level as the rest of the layout, they're hidden under removable scenery. I used about 2 inches of clearance if I remember correctly, which was sufficient to allow for double-stack American stock as well as  a layer of cork underlay, in N. As with you, I envisaged no actually marshalling of stock (in fact, I'd already proved to myself that this is difficult enough in N, unless you've got excessively wide gaps between the tracks). 

 

To monitor the loops, I used two wireless video cameras, one at each end, covering the throats, and I also added LED lighting to throw a bit more illumination into the gloom. This arrangement has been in place for more than a decade and it's worked very well, in my experience. You do have to access the loops from time to time but not all that frequently - I would say user error is a far more common cause of derailments than the trains and track themselves.

 

Here's one of the cameras as I was installing it back in 2010:

 

 

and here's the monitor screen:

 

 

I set it to cycle between the two cameras every few seconds, which is disconcerting to begin with, but you soon get

used to it when driving trains in and out of storage.

 

This is a much later shot which shows the scenic area above the storage loops:

 

 

All those buildings and streets are on foamcore panels which can be lifted out to access the loops if required. Some further redevelopment took place before the shot below:

 

[TomJ]

Thanks everyone. Looks like a rethink is on the cards!

[Harlequin]

Train cassettes opposite the station?

[AndrueC]

For a slightly more optimistic view as regards inclines here's my experience. I have four inclines all ~2%. My rolling stock is all diesel and new this year with two exceptions:

 

* A 4-6-2 Queen Elizabeth.

* 0-6-0 Class 5700.

 

All of the above can pull a metre long train up without any evidence of struggling and none have traction tyres. Indeed the QE positive romps up(*) and since there's a 90 degree bend at the top I'd be wary of running her at top speed. So if using modern locos I think that 3% is a safe limit and you can probably get away with 4% for access to a staging yard which isn't going to be climbed as frequently. My planned next layout actually has a 2.5% incline on the main line and I don't foresee any issues.

 

(*)It's a constant source of small amusement to me that my QE is far and away the fastest runner despite me also having a class 43 on my layout. At least one of those locos is not running at scale speed

Edited December 7, 2021 by AndrueC

[DCB]

3 hours ago, AndrueC said:

(*)It's a constant source of small amusement to me that my QE is far and away the fastest runner despite me also having a class 43 on my layout. At least one of those locos is not running at scale speed

See my speed calculator . It works for all scales from Z to 12" / ft.  Just time the train past a fixed point. not 100% accurate but better than 90%

Storage loops under the station baseboard worked well for OO in the 1960s when Steam outline locos were much better hill climbers, I have a video of a Triang Britannia hauling 12 coaches on the same 1 in 36 ish grade Tornado stalled on with 4 coaches.  Our layout has a long 1 in 36 ish from lower to upper level and its a struggle to weight modern 4-6-0s enough to get 7 coaches up, where the real thing managed 12... (Dainton)    If you have DCC.  N gauge needs almost as much length as OO as your hand doesn't get smaller with scale.   The bigger issue to me is the boring length of time it takes for trains to climb hidden ramps and spirals between levels,  I get round it by banking trains up a visible gradient, but I model Devon where big hairy chested locos made in Wiltshire driv by big hairy chested West Country blokes  pulled big trains up  grades around 1 in 37, not the 1 in 60 gradients like Shap and Beattock what they northeners thought were steep.    If you do go for gradients build them, then test if you can get trains up them, don't wire it all up ballast it and paint it, I have abandoned two layouts because the gradients proved too steep, mainly due to poor workmanship leaving gradients much steeper than planned.   There are some great US layouts where the tracks climb round the room, but they are big, 35ft long, 20 wide sort of region in HO and you can't scale them down without steepening the grades but if I had the space I reckon that's the approach I would use.

Edited December 8, 2021 by DCB

[Michael Hodgson]

Access to lower level is essential, for two main reasons

• dealing with derailments
• track cleaning

 

You can minimise the first problem by laying the track on the lower level and making sure that all works perfectly BEFORE even starting on the upper level.

Once the upper level is in place, you still need to be able to get your hands in, so minimise the obstructions on the underside of the upper board.  In particular,

• no loose wiring dangling from it
• consider supporting the baseboard from above, that is the board is screwed and glued underneath its framing, the framing being disguised by landscape 

You can't mount such framing above the board where tracks will be of course - so to provide adequate support to stop it sagging in the middle, you might need a few blocks of wood standing on the lower board as pillars.

[Barry Ten]

I agree with the above, although, because it's covered, my hidden track rarely if ever needs cleaning. However, it is essential to be able to get at it for maintenance and derailments, even if it's only very occasional. I've only got one small area about a foot long where track crosses over track with a 2 inch separation, and I made sure I could get my fingers in far enough from either end if needed.

 

I would not go above 2% grades with steam locos, even with traction tyres. Diesels are somewhat more forgiving. My mainline climbs and ascends on a 2% grade just to get some visual interest and if I could ease the grade here and there I would.

[Barry Ten]

Going back to the initial question, could the loops (either with our without the throat pointwork) be made to slide out on cabinet drawer rails for access? In N, the movable bit wouldn't necessarily need to be that long.

[DCB]

You could pull it out,, like a traverser but against a wall.  Big snag is the track alignment, you can't get at the fishplates to slide them in and out, so you need precise alignment of 2/4/6/24 rails without fishplates. Best of luck with that one,

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Re: clearance required.  
 

The observation has been made that our hands and reach don’t change size when we model in different scales.  But if I might complicate things a little as part of the general conversation, using the following photo from my Narrow Gauge thread as an illustration:

 

 

Both these locos are post-war HO scale passenger express locos.  
 

But if I need to lift one off the tracks for some reason and bring it into the open, how much space I need varies - and not just because the Standard gauge and Narrow Gauge locomotives are different sizes:

 

lt also depends on whether the pantographs on the electric are raised or lowered (they are manual, sprung loaded and very fiddly).  Swiss metre gauge pantographs also rise a long way - they may need to match the Standard Gauge height above rails, so require a big rise, which is replicated on the model.

 

And, if I need to remove a locomotive (or other piece of rolling stock) that’s got tangled up with those either side, how easy it is to uncouple at a distance can be a factor too (not well illustrated in this particular photo).  Some types of couplings can just be lifted vertically (Kadees or regular ‘Arnold’ N-Gauge, I think) while others - tension locks and narrow gauge ‘Bemo’ couplers, sometimes appear designed to defy any attempt at separating them.

 

Just a couple of extra points to bear in mind, Keith.

Edited April 8, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[number6]

I’ve a pet hate of long sections of hidden track leading to storage yards. Trains can spend so long traversing these sections only to pop out for a short scenic dash!
 

Like the idea of the drawer so you can pull the trains out from under. I’d have thought that would work nicely for short trains not so good for long. 
 

Gradients. As it’s a storage yard and off scene you could drag trains up a short incline by hand to save space - why not?!
 

Alternative idea. Can you run storage loops around the entire room behind the back scene? Same level as the rest of the layout. Trains can stack in long loops or weave in and out of a sequence of loops. This also gives you more opportunities for junctions and other routes off the layout. US modellers are good at this type of staging. Easy to access, don’t take up much space, flexible. 
 

Good luck

[Keith Addenbrooke]

If I might add another consideration - again a general point.  In some situations (and this came up in a planning thread for a compact layout a few months back), increasing the vertical distance between the levels can at the same time decrease the gradient needed:

 

While it may sound counter-intuitive, it can become possible for a gradient to begin underneath the upper baseboard, and finish above the lower baseboard in such circumstances.

 

This can reduce the height of climb in the open space between the levels.

 

Details will vary layout by layout, but if the track plan allows, I think this gives more space beneath the upper level to reach into the darkest recesses of the hidden lower lines.  Keith.

Edited April 8, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
(Photo replaced with text - image had not been kept)

[ITG]

8 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

If I might add another consideration - again a general point.  In some situations (and this came up in a planning thread for a compact layout a few months back), increasing the vertical distance between the levels can at the same time decrease the gradient

Very true. My net of 5” clearance allowed my incline to begin, and climb, for some 11 feet under the upper board, though a tiny miscalculation meant I had to slightly cut into just one batten to allow tallest vehicles to pass.

[drmditch]

My railway (link below) has two levels of storage beneath the top (terminus) level. Gradients are 1 in 45.

Everything is now operational.

One thing I got right was to test for clearances at every stage of construction and assembly.

What I failed to do was to allow for lighting in the resultant complex covered spaces.

 

I have now managed to install some LED lighting strips, but it would have been better to have planned these from the start!

[drmditch]

3 hours ago, ITG said:

Very true. My net of 5” clearance allowed my incline to begin, and climb, for some 11 feet under the upper board, though a tiny miscalculation meant I had to slightly cut into just one batten to allow tallest vehicles to pass.

And don't forget clearance if you run cables and/or point control rodding underneath the higher level!

(I write from experience.)

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, drmditch said:

My railway (link below) has two levels of storage beneath the top (terminus) level. Gradients are 1 in 45.

Everything is now operational.

One thing I got right was to test for clearances at every stage of construction and assembly.

What I failed to do was to allow for lighting in the resultant complex covered spaces.

 

I have now managed to install some LED lighting strips, but it would have been better to have planned these from the start!

Your layout looks wonderful and I'm now following.

 

With reference to this thread, can you confirm how much of the upper level is permanently fixed and how much can be hinged/removed from the lower levels? Obviously removable upper levels make a big difference to the clearance needed to reach into the lower levels and I suspect most readers so far have been imagining fixed upper levels.

 

[drmditch]

9 hours ago, Harlequin said:

With reference to this thread, can you confirm how much of the upper level is permanently fixed and how much can be hinged/removed from the lower levels? Obviously removable upper levels make a big difference to the clearance needed to reach into the lower levels and I suspect most readers so far have been imagining fixed upper levels.

 

 

Thank you for the compliments - I've been very lazy recently and haven't made as much progress as I should.

 

Just at present things are a bit hard to photograph while I install the LED lighting, and rolling stock is all over the place.

 

All of the top level is 'liftable'.

1. The terminal station board is hinged to the wall ...(see here).... This gives access to most of the storage sidings, and is quick and easy to lift. When down it is retained mostly by gravity, but it can be screwed down if required

2. The station approach/coaling stage/locomotive facilities and turntable board also tilts up in restraining brackets. One woodscrew holds this position relative to 1. This is not as easy to lift, partly because:

3. The cross-room viaduct (NE end) locks onto it, although it is itself liftable but quite heavy and lengthy.

 

4. There is also a provision for the mid-level station board in the SW corner to lift, but this has not yet been  fully engineered.

 

Power cables for 1 and 2 are permanently connected, with sufficient slack to allow the boards to swing upwards.

The viaduct has a plug/socket arrangement at each end, designed so that unless it is in place the approach track at each end is not live!

 

1 has  a strong wire cable that hooks onto shelving to hold it in it's raised position.

2 needs a prop to hold it raised.

 

Track joins use my ugly wide strips of PCB, to which track is soldered and cut through. This seems (not wishing to tempt fate) to work reliably.

 

Most regular maintenance can be achieved by lifting 1. The worst problem being removing all the stock!

 

From the lower level cork tiles, the top of the cork on the mid-level is 4 inches high, and the top level is 8 inches.

(although there are some small variations on the mid and top levels of 1/4 inch to improve clearances.)

 

Perhaps I should also have said that my railway is 'built up from the bottom', rather than 'hung down from the top'. 

(If that makes sense!)

 

 

Hope this helps

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by drmditch