Please critique my plan

[Gary Hodge]

On the basis that it's better to learn from others' mistakes than your own, I would appreciate any comments on my planned layout. I have the basic competencies to create a working layout but I am neither an artistic nor precision modeller. This plan is an exercise in compromise and accepting the limitations of my skillset. Although the it will stretch my abilities I believe it is not beyond my limits. I already have a simple branch line loft layout but desire a main line layout in the basement for my collection of rolling stock. This consists of around 80 diesel locomotives, 20 multiple units (including 6 HSTs), 150 coaches and 300 wagons (of which around 200 are clay related). I have around 50% of the required track and most of the structures in either kit form or resin models.

The main aims of the layout:

• To be able to hold and run most of my collection.
• Continuous running with some automation.
• Mostly analogue (to save cost), but with some DCC ability.
• Mainly green fields and trees with explosions of railway industry - a railway in a landscape.

This is the lower section:

 

I aim to automate the main storage yard using Heathcote, or similar, products. This will be a learning experience. I am comfortable with the baseboard construction and track laying, its not new to me but is significantly larger than anything previously constructed. The 2 scenic dioramas satisfy a desire for a large viaduct and a snow scene, with the reverse loops allowing continuous running whilst the rest of layout is under construction or for those special trains that will only run occasionally. I estimate it will take me a full year to create this level with more time to complete the scenic sections.

This is the upper section:

This is rather more ambitious and will take several years to construct. It is loosely based on Par and St Blazey. There is a track height variation of 13cm on this level to add visual interest. The main line will be analogue, mostly running automatically from the fiddle yard below. If I can achieve it, I would like an analogue automatic shuttle between St Blaise Junction and St Blaise Docks. The remaining branch circuit, including the TMD and sidings will be DCC. This is mostly independent to the analogue section with an interchange at St Blaise Junction - the crossover at St Blaise Docks is not intended to be functional. The area below St Blaise Docks is not finalised but will represent a dock/riverside scene. There is scope to extend the other branch to the china clay works, via a second helix and additional level, to include a stone processing/quarry scene, another desired feature.

[Harlequin]

Hi Gary,

 

How much separation is there between the two levels? Will the view of the viaduct on the lower level be compromised by the upper level above it?

 

@St Enodoc might be interested in this plan...

 

BTW: I assume this is OO - you didn't say.

 

P.S. The Mods kindly moved your post into the "Layout & Track Design" area.

 

Edited December 17, 2021 by Harlequin

[Gary Hodge]

Thank you for the reply.

 

The layout is OO with an overall size of approximately 4.5m x 8.5m. The lower level is 75cm with the upper mainline at 120cm. I needed a 5cm rise between the storage yard and the viaduct to reduce the gradient on the helix.

The track level on the viaduct is 80cm from the floor, with the viaduct being 50/60cm tall and 2-2.5m long. The track level of the dock/riverside scene above is 110cm. Allowing 10cm baseboard depth the viaduct scene will be around 80cm tall, with 20cm above track level. There will seating opposite this and I envisage the upper scene will be at eye level when seated with the viaduct scene slightly below.

I've kept the viaduct to the foreground and think this will be acceptable, although everything has an element of compromise.

[The Stationmaster]

How do trains get to the fertiliser depot and china clay facility?

[Gary Hodge]

13 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

How do trains get to the fertiliser depot and china clay facility?

There is a junction (point) on the goods line at St Blaise Depot dropping down to the facilities. There is a height difference of 6cm, with a gradient of around 1 in 30.

The DCC branch is also an oval, continuing behind the helix to the TMD/sidings, allowing access from the right hand side.

[Kris]

Have you left enough room to move about in the aisles? 

 

Snow in Cornwall, don't go overboard, we don't see it often and when we do it is rarely more than a dusting. 

[sjp23480]

Hi Gary,

Whats the minimum radius on your plan?  More specifically whats the radius and gradient on the two Helix?

Steve

Edited December 17, 2021 by sjp23480
Added text

[Gary Hodge]

16 minutes ago, Kris said:

Have you left enough room to move about in the aisles? 

 

Snow in Cornwall, don't go overboard, we don't see it often and when we do it is rarely more than a dusting. 

The narrow aisle is 80cm wide, the same as my loft layout. This seems to be adequate. The entrance, beside the viaduct, is around 1.4m, allowing for some seating along the opposite wall. The access to the rear of the china clay works is tight at 50cm to fit around a brick support, opening to 1.2m for access to the utility meters.

I remember digging sheep out of snow drifts on Bodmin Moor as a child, on more than 1 occasion. It didn't happen often, but it was spectacular when it did. A little modeller's licence could recreate that memory a few hundred feet lower.

[Gary Hodge]

23 minutes ago, sjp23480 said:

Hi Gary,

Whats the minimum radius on your plan?  More specifically whats the radius and gradient on the two Helix?

Steve

There are several. The sidings have Peco small radius points at 60cm, crossovers and mainline points are medium at 90cm. The lower section, including the helices, has 65/70cm minimum radius, resulting in a helix incline of 2.4% inner/2.3% outer (around 1 in 42 I believe). The branch line minimum is 60cm and slightly steeper inclines at 2.8% (1 in 36). The mainline is 90cm on the scenic area.

[RobinofLoxley]

This is an extremely complex and ambitious layout, so good luck with that. When I read your first post, about the layout being mainly analogue with some DCC I smiled somewhat. Then I realised you were talking about the cost of converting locos to DCC not buying the kit (I assume??). However, operating the layout as it stands in DC mainly will be extremely challenging; for example when you have reversing loops it is possible to automate the flip-over of power I understand but all the time you are messing around with analogue paraphernalia there was an off the shelf solution available for DCC. Then the cost equations start to get more complicated. For me, a layout like this has to be DCC, otherwise you will find yourself restricted to operating one train at a time and your massive stock collection will be irrelevant. I say this from experience - when you have a large layout its hard to keep your eye on moving stock while changing points etc.

 

I hesitate to say its too ambitious - only you know your capabilities Gary, but this looks like a project you might never finish. Design a single layer version with the capability to be extended.

[Michael Hodgson]

Looks like a design that would benefit from DCC worked by software using a control package such as iTrain or TrainController.

I fully appreciate the cost implications especially with a large fleet,  as I am doing a similar conversion myself.

 

Otherwise it's relatively difficult to get more than one train moving in each direction at the same time.  It can be done using DC, and if I were trying that I would be using MERG superbloc controllers, but that does mean building and testing a fair number of electronic kits.  That doesn't mean I recommend such an approach, so if you have never heard of Superbloc and don't know what I'm talking about or you don't want to get into building electronic circuits given all the other work required I would suggest DCC is the way to go.

 

As an operational note, I would comment that you should avoid filling every available loop and siding with rolling stock.  In my experience this tends to happen with very large layouts, and it has the effect that you can't run train A until you've run some other train B to create space at A's destination, and you can't run B until you move train C ........   The combined effect is that you quickly find that there is only one train you can move, and this traffic jam causes everything to grind to a halt.  just a case of ensuring you don't overstock and stifle capacity to run.

 

Access to the lower level Main Storage Yard (and to a lesser extent the Additional Yard) doesn't look easy, especially the roads furthest from the operating well when the nearer roads are occupied by stock.   Also, do you have access around the outside edges, or is it against walls?  I am thinking of access in particular to the two helices - if it's against a wall, I think you need to be able to get into the middle of those.

 

Are the orange squares support pillars for the upper level?  Scenic break backscene on both sides of the two smaller squares?

And I'm not sure you got a clear scenic break between the lower level snow scene and the upper (presumably non snow scene) above/behind it.  Are you sure the china clay/fertiliser depot doesn't clash visually with the viaduct below it?

 

 

[5BarVT]

3 hours ago, Gary Hodge said:

The lower section, including the helices, has 65/70cm minimum radius,

Just to point out that 65/70cm double track doesn't work in 00.  My minimum radius is 76cm (3') and 76/81cm in 00 was too tight for me to be happy that I wouldn't remove door handles etc .  St Enodoc (Mid Cornwall Lines) uses 60mm track spacing at 76cm radius, you might need slightly more at 65cm radius.

Paul.

[Gary Hodge]

2 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

This is an extremely complex and ambitious layout, so good luck with that. When I read your first post, about the layout being mainly analogue with some DCC I smiled somewhat. Then I realised you were talking about the cost of converting locos to DCC not buying the kit (I assume??). However, operating the layout as it stands in DC mainly will be extremely challenging; for example when you have reversing loops it is possible to automate the flip-over of power I understand but all the time you are messing around with analogue paraphernalia there was an off the shelf solution available for DCC. Then the cost equations start to get more complicated. For me, a layout like this has to be DCC, otherwise you will find yourself restricted to operating one train at a time and your massive stock collection will be irrelevant. I say this from experience - when you have a large layout its hard to keep your eye on moving stock while changing points etc.

 

I hesitate to say its too ambitious - only you know your capabilities Gary, but this looks like a project you might never finish. Design a single layer version with the capability to be extended.

Thank you for the very comprehensive reply. My initial reaction is to disagree that operation will be challenging, hence my opening comment regarding learning from others' mistakes.

I believe, but am very happy to be corrected, that the lower section will operate simply with 3 controllers.

During normal operation, where the trains run to the upper level, there will be one controller for the up line and one controller for the down line. I understand the Heathcote sensors are off the shelf modules that will add automation to the main storage yard at a little added expense and complexity. The 2 outer tracks of the yard will not be automated.

When operating the lower level as a self contained unit it becomes a single track oval. Both of the reverse curves link up line to down line. By switching off the main controller and using a third controller connected to the loops it is now possible to move trains around the lower level. The additional storage yard will not be automated but allows me to swap a few trains around, much like the old cd cartridge autochangers. I'm assuming the Heathcote detectors can be switched off and the relevant points operated manually although I may be incorrect in this assumption.

I have, at best, average modelling skills, but I am confident and competent with baseboard construction and tracklaying. I estimate that it will take me a year to complete the lower level and have some trains running. This will then slowly be extended onto the upper level during year 2 with the branch line being completed in year 3. It will then take as long as it takes to create the scenery. I'm approaching 54 and would like to have something presentable before I reach 60. I've spent the last 3 years renovating the property above this basement (which could have been done in 1 year) and believe I can use the same approach to the model railway.

 

[Harlequin]

50mm track spacing should be fine at any inner radius above 610mm. (Actually 51mm.) That’s exactly what I’ve got and I’ve never had a problem. (Kings, castles, cities, centenaries, auto-trailers, etc.)

[sjp23480]

3 hours ago, Gary Hodge said:

There are several. The sidings have Peco small radius points at 60cm, crossovers and mainline points are medium at 90cm. The lower section, including the helices, has 65/70cm minimum radius, resulting in a helix incline of 2.4% inner/2.3% outer (around 1 in 42 I believe). The branch line minimum is 60cm and slightly steeper inclines at 2.8% (1 in 36). The mainline is 90cm on the scenic area.

Hi Gary,

 

I have never built a helix, but that radius combined with the gradient sounds very ambitious based on others' experience of building them.   Given the size of your collection and scale of this project I suspect you aspire to run prototypical length trains, which would struggle with a 1 in 42 gradient in straight line, let alone on a curve.   Some years ago I bought a couple of Woodland Scenics 1% gradients (1 in 50) for my planned layout - very few of my RTR locos could manage more than 5 or 6 coaches up the incline.  There is a wealth of information on helix on RMWeb - just try a free text search and have a browse.  

 

As a minimum, mock up the planned gradient based on your specification and see how you get on before you invest in the plan as it stands.

Steve

 

 

 

[Gary Hodge]

50 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Looks like a design that would benefit from DCC worked by software using a control package such as iTrain or TrainController.

I fully appreciate the cost implications especially with a large fleet,  as I am doing a similar conversion myself.

 

Otherwise it's relatively difficult to get more than one train moving in each direction at the same time.  It can be done using DC, and if I were trying that I would be using MERG superbloc controllers, but that does mean building and testing a fair number of electronic kits.  That doesn't mean I recommend such an approach, so if you have never heard of Superbloc and don't know what I'm talking about or you don't want to get into building electronic circuits given all the other work required I would suggest DCC is the way to go.

 

As an operational note, I would comment that you should avoid filling every available loop and siding with rolling stock.  In my experience this tends to happen with very large layouts, and it has the effect that you can't run train A until you've run some other train B to create space at A's destination, and you can't run B until you move train C ........   The combined effect is that you quickly find that there is only one train you can move, and this traffic jam causes everything to grind to a halt.  just a case of ensuring you don't overstock and stifle capacity to run.

 

Access to the lower level Main Storage Yard (and to a lesser extent the Additional Yard) doesn't look easy, especially the roads furthest from the operating well when the nearer roads are occupied by stock.   Also, do you have access around the outside edges, or is it against walls?  I am thinking of access in particular to the two helices - if it's against a wall, I think you need to be able to get into the middle of those.

 

Are the orange squares support pillars for the upper level?  Scenic break backscene on both sides of the two smaller squares?

And I'm not sure you got a clear scenic break between the lower level snow scene and the upper (presumably non snow scene) above/behind it.  Are you sure the china clay/fertiliser depot doesn't clash visually with the viaduct below it?

 

 

Thank you for your very comprehensive reply. Please see my reply to Robert Of Loxley for my beliefs regarding DCC - they may be misguided.

I agree, access to the rear of the yards will not be easy. I've limited them to 60cm deep rather than the full depth available because of this. There will be around 35cm clearance above them to assist with access.

St Blaise Junction is against a wall and also the track to the right where I have included a 50cm x 75cm access hole. The helices start 80cm from floor level and access will be from underneath. 

The orange pillars are holding the building up, 2 steel supports and 1 brick support.

I'm not sure if there will be a visual clash between the upper and lower scenic areas. I have seen several US layouts that seem to achieve this successfully. In both areas the baseboard edge will be a maximum of 10cm. I could live without the snow scene but the viaduct diorama is one of my main desires from the layout.

[Gary Hodge]

Thank you for the comments regarding the helices. I've found this thread which is very informative.

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/155349-does-a-helix-ever-really-work/

 

I've calculated mine at 65/70cm radii with a total rise of 40cm with 10cm per revolution giving a gradient of 2.4/2.3%. I do have the option to reduce the rise to 8cm per revolution giving a gradient of 2.0/1.9%.

 

I've seen several successful helices on YouTube using 3rd/4th radius curves with a 10cm rise with full length HSTs climbing successfully but until I build one and test it I won't know what works. I expect a little less from my older Hornby and Lima locomotives but anticipate they should cope with a slightly shorter train.

 

EDIT: I unpacked a DCC ready Hornby HST and tried it on my loft layout where there is a 2nd radius single revolution helix rising 10cm, around 3.3% or 1 in 30. It just managed 8 Lima Mk1 coaches, my older Lima diesels are limited to 4. This crude test bodes well for most of my modern Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan, and ViTrains diesels on a larger helix. Many of these don't seem to like set track points and/or 2nd radius gradients which precludes them from testing on the rather windy and steep branch line. 

Edited December 17, 2021 by Gary Hodge

[Michael Hodgson]

5 minutes ago, Gary Hodge said:

I'm not sure if there will be a visual clash between the upper and lower scenic areas. I have seen several US layouts that seem to achieve this successfully. In both areas the baseboard edge will be a maximum of 10cm. I could live without the snow scene but the viaduct diorama is one of my main desires from the layout.

If you want to keep the snow scene I think that might work better in one of the other scenic pockets.  

I like the viaduct idea, which would be ok with something else behind it but at a higher level, joined be sloping terrain, but that doesn't really work given the constraints the baseboard impose on position of curves.

 

Bear in mind we are all getting older - I have trouble getting to some bits of layout that were fine when I built them.  Getting through duckunders isn't the greatest fun when you're 54, but I'm 70 and a lot less flexible than I used to be what with arthritis and a knee replacement (with a scan next week to see whether I need the other one or a hip doing too). 

32 minutes ago, Gary Hodge said:

 

I believe, but am very happy to be corrected, that the lower section will operate simply with 3 controllers.

During normal operation, where the trains run to the upper level, there will be one controller for the up line and one controller for the down line. I understand the Heathcote sensors are off the shelf modules that will add automation to the main storage yard at a little added expense and complexity. The 2 outer tracks of the yard will not be automated.

 

That bit seems OK to me, though I've no experience of the Heathcote products.

 

34 minutes ago, Gary Hodge said:

 

When operating the lower level as a self contained unit it becomes a single track oval. Both of the reverse curves link up line to down line. By switching off the main controller and using a third controller connected to the loops it is now possible to move trains around the lower level. The additional storage yard will not be automated but allows me to swap a few trains around, much like the old cd cartridge autochangers. I'm assuming the Heathcote detectors can be switched off and the relevant points operated manually although I may be incorrect in this assumption.

 

 

I'm sure it will prove possible to design a means of switching off those detectors and over-riding manually, just a case of where you put additional switches into your circuitry.    

 

Advice given by others on helix threads is that you can improve the chances of trains making it up the hill are improved if you fit the metal strips made by DCC Concepts and fit magnets under locos that need it.  That would apply whether DC or DCC, but has to be done before you lay the track and discover you need it!    Others' experience is that steam locos have more difficulty than modern diesels which are all wheels driven through cardan shafts, and typically also heavier - I don't know how well older Hornby diesels fare with pancake motors in one bogie.  The helices do seem too tight in OO. 

 

The larger the radius, the gentler the gradient can be, and there is a lot of drag when going round a tight curve.  I am having to redesign my layout because one curve (not a helix) is too steep, though trains have no trouble approaching it on a long straight at exactly the same gradient.

[St Enodoc]

6 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Just to point out that 65/70cm double track doesn't work in 00.  My minimum radius is 76cm (3') and 76/81cm in 00 was too tight for me to be happy that I wouldn't remove door handles etc .  St Enodoc (Mid Cornwall Lines) uses 60mm track spacing at 76cm radius, you might need slightly more at 65cm radius.

Paul.

Paul, to correct your slip of the keyboard, 760mm is of course 2'6" not 3'.

 

Yes, I use 60mm spacing between double tracks with an inner radius of 760mm and an outer of 820mm. This is mostly because the tracks in question lead off sections of track at each end where the spacing is already 60mm representing the 10ft way, not 6ft way, between a running line and a goods loop.

 

5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

50mm track spacing should be fine at any inner radius above 610mm. (Actually 51mm.) That’s exactly what I’ve got and I’ve never had a problem. (Kings, castles, cities, centenaries, auto-trailers, etc.)

Agreed - that is of course the Peco Streamline standard and hundreds, if not thousands, of layouts have been built that way.

[RobinofLoxley]

Just one small point I have noticed looking at the plans again - from personal experience, placing objects into anyrail with a high degree of accuracy is hard. So where you have structural steelwork - I am looking at the large item on the left, beware of clearance problems - if you have a long carriage on a reverse curve in needs a couple of cm beyond the track line to cover overhang. I mention it as it looks very tight on the drawing and you dont have many alternatives if it wont fit. On paper there are a few areas like that.

 

Also, if you are going to build this, start construction of one of the helixes early on, dont wait until you have one level finished. The helixes are central to the project and you absolutely need to know that what you build will run with your rolling stock at an early stage. Even if some of the support work is temporary, just a plank with some track on it at the top to receive the train.

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, Gary Hodge said:

There is a junction (point) on the goods line at St Blaise Depot dropping down to the facilities. There is a height difference of 6cm, with a gradient of around 1 in 30.

The DCC branch is also an oval, continuing behind the helix to the TMD/sidings, allowing access from the right hand side.

I can see that point - which is in the right place for trains FROM those two industrial sites.  But how do trains get to them because as far as I can see they can only do that from the helix?

[Gary Hodge]

Thank you to all that have responded. It has been invaluable 

Having woken several times during the night thinking 'what if?', I've spent the morning adapting the track plan to fit around the basement. This removes the need for helices and gives a main line run on one level, that can then be extended. Its still ambitious but I believe within my abilities.

I've reduced the main storage yard to 3m, sufficient for a 7 coach HST or a class 37 with 23 CDAs. I'm satisfied that this will be adequate. I've lost the snow scene and reverse loops which is also acceptable.

The only real concession with this plan is that it requires either a duck under or removable section in the doorway (bottom right). There is also a duck under to access the utilities on the odd occasion that that is required.

Although not yet drawn there is sufficient length to model the china clay works and stone quarry at 30 cm above the storage sidings continuing the branch from St Blaise Docks.

Thank you again for all your input.  

[Harlequin]

That arrangement looks much more rational! Avoiding the helices will save you huge amounts of time, money and hassle. And you don't have the visual distractions of parts of the layout sailing over other parts with supports getting in the way.

 

I realise the storage loops are probably just rough sketches but as they stand there's no way for traffic to crossover and run in the opposite direction. It's worth thinking about crossovers because in their optimum positions outside the loops they can affect loop length and thus storage capacity.

 

[Gary Hodge]

2 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I realise the storage loops are probably just rough sketches but as they stand there's no way for traffic to crossover and run in the opposite direction.

Thank you for the reminder but at the risk of sounding pedantic they are intended as storage loops, not fiddle yards. I just want to park the trains there.

There is the opportunity to continue the refuge siding to the left of St Blaise Junction around to St Blaise Docks to create a reverse loop as below. It would also add some visual and operational interest around both stations with a little more tweaking.

[Harlequin]

5 minutes ago, Gary Hodge said:

Thank you for the reminder but at the risk of sounding pedantic they are intended as storage loops, not fiddle yards. I just want to park the trains there.

There is the opportunity to continue the refuge siding to the left of St Blaise Junction around to St Blaise Docks to create a reverse loop as below. It would also add some visual and operational interest around both stations with a little more tweaking.

 

It depends how you intend to run the layout, of course, but if you want to simulate trains going somewhere and then later coming back again, they need to be able cross over (unless you have duplicate trains for each direction).