Inspiration Required

[Drew-1986]

I’m in dire need of some inspiration. Progress with an 00 gauge end to end layout has very much stalled, as I no longer have the space required to finish it (also partly being over ambitious), and I have neither the motivation or interest to try and progress it further.

 

I want to start a new project in 2022 in N gauge. My intention was always to transition into N gauge so I’ve decided to move earlier than I expected. It has become apparent during my 00 gauge build, that at this moment, end to end doesn’t interest me quite as much as a continuous run would. I want to see trains run, and I really like the idea of looking into computer automation. I have a small selection of N gauge stock, mostly of stock that would’ve ran in Scotland during the mid 1980s to early 1990s.

 

So the plan is to remove the 00, and start afresh. The boards I currently have are 2400mm x 600mm, so currently here are a few of my thoughts:

 

Continuous run with a 6 or 8 lane fiddle yard

 

A fictitious Highland mainline location, maybe the railways never suffered and the Highland line became double track

 

A small siding for operational interest, maybe a ballast/PW or timber siding

 

A more rural plan, could be persuaded to be otherwise, but plan would need to be very interesting

 

Ability to have computer automation 

 

I am currently working abroad and will return in mid to late January, so between now and then I would like to try and formulate a layout plan that I am excited about. Unfortunately, I only have an iPad with me, so any access to track planning software is unlikely, and I simply don’t have the talent to draw 1 either. Very keen to discuss this further with many of the unique voices on this forum. I look forward to further questions

Edited December 23, 2021 by Drew-1986

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi @Drew-1986.  Your question caught my eye as I was looking at the same space a couple of months back: 2.4m x 0.6m (8’ x 2’).  I was also using 9mm gauge track, though H0e Narrow Gauge not Standard Gauge N.  Frustratingly, I’m afraid I deleted the planning photos I took, sorry, as it may have helped to share them (I had some with just track).  I’ll share what I learned:

 

There are two parts - ‘process’ and ‘outcome’?  For reasons I hope will explain themselves, I’ll cover ‘outcome’ first:

 

1.  The length offered a decent run, and the 228mm / 9” Rad. end curves could be hidden without using up too much length.

 

2.  But when I laid it out to look at it, lack of width was an issue - if you’re thinking of a 6 - 8 road fiddle yard (along one side behind a backscene?), the front part of the layout will be narrow.  That may be fine - but I couldn’t convince myself.

 

Eventually I rearranged my boards to give me a shorter, deeper arrangement (1.8m x 0.8m).  I kept the same end radius but now had room for a gentle curve along the front.  The ‘design cost’ of this was a 1/3rd loss in straight length along the sides.

 

Hopefully the sketch illustrates this (curves not to scale - tracks were nearer the edges).  I’m not making a recommendation, but laying it out (which unfortunately it sounds like you can’t do at present) showed me I couldn’t settle on the option that did look best on paper: that of having the longest straight run.

 

This set me thinking, which is where I move into ‘process’:  at this point the thing I found most helpful was……I took a break.  

 

I stepped back for a bit, and began asking if there weren’t other things I wasn’t happy with?

 

I’d spent a good few months having a fascinating time finding out about a prototype I was interested in.  I’d learned a lot, I’d enjoyed the research, and had done some modelling on the side, but I realised I was feeling satisfied, not inspired.  I was no longer excited enough about the track plans I’d come up with to commit to the layout project.

 

I allowed myself the luxury of wondering what I’d want to do if I laid it to one side - keeping the same space (and budget), and using the baseboards I’ve got, what would I change and what would I keep?  Maybe that’s something to think about?  If a project, an idea, or a prototype really catches the imagination, I’ve found the rest is then much easier - and the compromises that have to be made easier to live with.  It’s just a thought, but maybe the Christmas break is the time to dream?

 

Sorry it’s not a very practical response - the idea you outline does sound good to me - but I hope this is useful in some way.  

 

May I wish you, and all on the Forum, a peaceful and a safe Christmas, Keith.

 

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

[Drew-1986]

Keith,

 

Thank you very much for your reply. It has certainly thrown up some thoughts for me going forward. I certainly hadn’t thought about the impact the space taken up the fiddle yard would have an adverse effect on the size of the viewing area. The only other way I can setup my boards would result in a 1.2m x 1.2m square.

 

I think the fact I have a good amount of time to discuss with others, who have more experience in layout design, may lead me to a design that I eventually I’m content with. I see this layout as a chance to further my skills over many different aspects of the hobby, and hopefully gives me some enjoyment too.

 

Merry Christmas too you also Keith

Edited December 23, 2021 by Drew-1986

[ITG]

3 hours ago, Drew-1986 said:

and I really like the idea of looking into computer automation

I’m in 00 myself, and cannot speak for anything N. But I am considering computer automation. I have very quickly found that my current layout will not convert easily to automation, at least not how I interpret it. I use DCC and have droppers on every piece of track on a double track roundy-roundy, with a few storage loops and a branch line leading to an (over big if I’m honest) terminus station/goods yard/loco facilities. As I have learnt, effective automation for most layouts will require (isolated) blocks and sensors, and to try to rewire my layout under (not very accessible) boards is just too tricky to contemplate.

The other consideration around automation is that I’m now thinking what I want from, and what I can do with, a layout are different to if I was a solo operator, so the layout plan itself would ideally be different.

So, bottom line of what I’m saying is that if you really fancy automation, you need to plan it in right from the start, both on paper and when track laying and wiring gets underway. Even if you don’t actually automate from day one.

 

I’m now planning on building a small (half a dozen points) 6’x4’ non scenic layout, purely to gain knowledge and experience of automation before I actually get to do a larger layout at some obscure point in the future.

Good luck.

Ian

[Drew-1986]

I will add to my plans more research info on automation and be very wary of making sure I add what’s required in the build phase even if it’s planned for a latter date

Edited December 23, 2021 by Drew-1986

[RobinofLoxley]

51 minutes ago, Drew-1986 said:

I will add to my plans more research info on automation and be very wary of making sure I add what’s required in the build phase even if it’s planned for a latter date

Plan for a dropper on every piece of track.

 

My impression of N gauge (I have OO) is that apart from the obvious feature that the height of all the kit is half OO, that getting gradients into relatively compact board areas is something that seems to happen. I have seen a layout smaller than 8 x 2 with 3 levels, if I ever find a reference to it Ill post it.

 

The reason is that if you are intent on a fiddle yard you may be able to place it at a lower level having due regard to access.

 

Without track planning software you wont get far beyond the concept Im sorry to say.

 

BTW, how many boards do you have?

Edited December 23, 2021 by RobinofLoxley

[Drew-1986]

I would also say it sounds like also planning for many isolation blocks too

 

The boards I purchased initially for my 00 gauge layout are 2 x 1.2mx0.6m. I am not against adding some width if required. Just trying to work out an rough idea at the moment, based on what I have

Edited December 23, 2021 by Drew-1986

[Magstheviking]

I'm also in OO but this seems like a really interesting brief. I looked myself at potentially building something from the 60s based at Kincraig, just south of Aviemore. it was simply too big to be achievable however. 

In N however, this seems much more feasible, the old station at Kincraig is still double track I believe, operational as a passing loop. Furthermore, it grants superb scenic prospects with the cairngorms and Loch Inch as the backdrop. 

For operational interest, I'm sure a few sidings could be easily incorporated for the lumber trade or as storage for maintenance stock. (network Rail often does this at Dunkeld).

 

Dunkeld itself would also prove interesting, but maybe rather more ambitious, there are still a few sidings in operation there. 

 

I look forward to seeing how things pan out. I use track planning software intermittently, but think nothing compares to grabbing some track and messing around on the board until things look right. Something in your head can end up being all wrong when replicated in reality. 

 

[Kris]

Just ran up a couple of quick simulations for this. To fit in a curve for double track using 2nd and 3rd radius track you are going to need about 65cm of width. If you then want to add a fiddle yard you really need a further 15cm on top of this at the rear. Should you loose the double track aspect then what you are looking for would be achievable in the existing width. You could reduce the width requirements by using 1st radius track but this will also limit the rolling stock that you can use. 

[Drew-1986]

12 minutes ago, Magstheviking said:

I'm also in OO but this seems like a really interesting brief. I looked myself at potentially building something from the 60s based at Kincraig, just south of Aviemore. it was simply too big to be achievable however. 

In N however, this seems much more feasible, the old station at Kincraig is still double track I believe, operational as a passing loop. Furthermore, it grants superb scenic prospects with the cairngorms and Loch Inch as the backdrop. 

For operational interest, I'm sure a few sidings could be easily incorporated for the lumber trade or as storage for maintenance stock. (network Rail often does this at Dunkeld).

 

Dunkeld itself would also prove interesting, but maybe rather more ambitious, there are still a few sidings in operation there. 

 

I look forward to seeing how things pan out. I use track planning software intermittently, but think nothing compares to grabbing some track and messing around on the board until things look right. Something in your head can end up being all wrong when replicated in reality. 

 

Couldn’t agree more about plans in your mind that becoming too difficult to replicate. Fallen into this trap many times

 

I will definitely take a look at Kincraig to see if it something I could work with

[Drew-1986]

Kris, thanks for taking the time to do that. It certainly had crossed my mind that it would be too tight for that, and widening what I have maybe be a requirement. I’d very much like to avoid 1st radius curves

[DCB]

Highland main line.  We have holidayed there every year since 1987. Just missed the semaphores at Inverness and the class 27s but saw the large logo 37260/1/2  and the class 37/4s on the Kyle and far north and 47s on Aberdeen and Perth/ Edinburgh/ Glasgow trains. Blue. large logo blue, Silver Grey Railfeight, Red stripe, Blue stripe every colour 47 imaginable.  Some went out via Perth and back via Aberdeen. One HST per day,  By 91 or so it was 156 sprinters to the Far north and Aberdeen then 158 to Perth and now its wall to wall sprinters and a 800 bi mode and one sleeper per day.  Container train most if not every day.  One train every couple of hours if you're lucky.    Container and Caledonian sleeper Trains are long,    The single line loops, Kincraig, Schlocht,  Tomatin, Moy (Possibly Carr Bridge) are unusual as the main line is straight and the first train takes the curved road, and awaits the next which goes through non stop both roads are bi directional and those trains don't hang about, its 100mph single track south of Kincraig. The sign is right by the road, looks like the road speed limit is 100...   Great Fun....  

Its going to be a lot easier to get a Highland main line feel with single track.  especially if you model Schlocht (?) summit, or somewhere not on an embankment, with a passing loop.  Automation would work great with this scenario, especially if the summit hump was modelled.   It sounds like fun. 

Long trains running fast on single lines

I'm struggling to get my 1987/8 Far north themed OO garden layout working 

[Harlequin]

If you did double track (or something similar, see below) then you could add, say, 100mm extra baseboard width on the scenic side only to fit in the R2/R3 curves and at the same time give the viewing side a nice panoramic inward curve between the end curves. The fiddle yard probably doesn’t need extra baseboard width itself because there’s enough length for it to turn back into the baseboards. I think I need to do a sketch later.

To pick up what @DCB said about single track being more characteristic and your desire for a more interesting track plan, I wonder if a single track, folded figure of eight could be shoehorned into the space?

 

It might be quite difficult, it needs some thought, but if it works the effect would be that you’d have two levels of track and gradients in the scenic area, great for a highland scene. One track would probably cross the other in the scene on a bridge and the landscape around it could be quite dramatic. And of course you’d have the fun of a longer run for your trains and seeing them disappear from one line and reappear on the other.

 

If you do single track (either simple roundy or folded figure of eight) I suggest you should definitely have a passing loop in the scenic area so that you can have two trains ‘on stage’ at the same time occasionally.

 

In my imagination the folded-8 lower level track could be alongside a rocky, tumbling river at the front with a passenger station, small goods facilities and passing loop. The upper level, mostly behind the lower, except at one side where it crosses over, is on the mountainside above. It might have sidings for a logging operation. Somewhere, there would be a burn that starts at the very back and, passes under the upper level track, falls down the hillside, passes under the front track and joins the river. A few patches of bare rock and lots of conifers.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Harlequin

[Zomboid]

For me, a defining feature of the HML is that it's mostly single track. That's what makes it stand out from the various other main lines around the country.

[Kris]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

The fiddle yard probably doesn’t need extra baseboard width itself because there’s enough length for it to turn back into the baseboards. I think I need to do a sketch later.

 

I did try this but felt that it ate in to the available space too much. It needed 80cm at each end. 

 

Using medium radius points. Each square is 10cm.

 

[Harlequin]

Here's a quick sketch of the basic concept of what I was saying:

 

 

To actually make it work, with a usable level fiddle yard at the back and the tracks better spaced in the scenic area, would need some more effort - but I think it could be done.

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by Harlequin

[Chimer]

1 hour ago, Kris said:

I did try this but felt that it ate in to the available space too much. It needed 80cm at each end. 

 

 

But surely you would save space by putting the first points in each fan where you've shown the ST-16s, using flexi for the reverse curves?

[Kris]

30 minutes ago, Chimer said:

 

But surely you would save space by putting the first points in each fan where you've shown the ST-16s, using flexi for the reverse curves?

You could but this then eats into the scenic area. There will always be a compromise somewhere, either scenic area or extension. 

 

[Drew-1986]

10 hours ago, DCB said:

The single line loops, Kincraig, Schlocht,  Tomatin, Moy (Possibly Carr Bridge) are unusual as the main line is straight and the first train takes the curved road, and awaits the next which goes through no

Its going to be a lot easier to get a Highland main line feel with single track.  especially if you model Schlocht (?) summit, or somewhere not on an embankment, with a passing loop.  Automation would work great with this scenario, especially if the summit hump was modelled.   It sounds like fun. 

Long trains running fast on single lines

I'm struggling to get my 1987/8 Far north themed OO garden layout working 

So I spent a little time last night having a look at some of the locations mentioned. I couldn’t find much about Kincraig unfortunately, Dunkeld, although it had everything I might be looking for, its location and the station would end up being the majority of the layout, didn’t feel like the vibe I was looking for.

 

@DCB so I then started looking at some of the passing loops, even going down as far as Edendon Signal Box and Dalnacardoch. I then took a chance to see if I could find any YouTube material when I found this - 

 When I watched this I couldn’t help but agree about how well this would work with automation. I appreciate that this is very compressed, but isn’t all modelling. So I took a quick look on Google Earth too:

 

That’s roughly 300 meters I’ve drawn on there. Using the rock cutting on the south side to disguise the fiddle yard entrance on 1 side and the gradient and large trees for the other. View point would be from the side of the dual carriage way. I’ve estimated it would give me about 45m of viewing from there, if I increased the width could take it up to 65 meters. Look forward to hearing your thoughts gents

 

I should probably also say that I like the fact the potential this location could be modelled and a many number of time periods could be model, from 80s to right now

Edited December 24, 2021 by Drew-1986

[RobinofLoxley]

I made the following last night - I was interested to understand what would fit into 8x2 in N. Some limitations exist in track options - I used a mix of peco code 80 setrack - almost a given for the curves as Kris has shown - and streamline for turnouts. Couldnt see any slips or crossovers, these exist in British Finescale but I know nothing about the compatibility.

 

On the original 'brief' automation was mentioned and on that basis there has to be enough operational stuff to make it worth doing, hence the other features, and the lower deck fiddle yard.

 

A different perspective - who knows what a station is doing in the Cairngorms.

 

On another theme, Drew, you might want to look at Forsinard and the far north, which can be found in layout topics

[Magstheviking]

Slochd would be superb mate! A wonderful piece of railway. Always great to see locos working hard up the hill too!

It gets absolutely battered by the weather up there, so there's real scope for recreating some pretty desolate scenes. You'll have to get the famous sign in the scene too.

 

I think having that much viewing would be more than sufficient, especially if you could get full length trains in the scene. As others have mentioned, the scope of traffic is varied and as you say, modelling a spot like Slochd, which has never really changed, would enable recreation of almost any era. 

 

[Drew-1986]

@RobinofLoxley @Harlequin Thank you for taking the time to come up with your designs. I think now that certain limitations have been brought to my attention, my ‘brief’ requires a certain amount of adjustment.

 

As things are, the limited space I have for scenics, having a station or a siding, potentially feels like they would become the focal point rather than the backdrop or the moving trains. I should mention some of the stock I actually have at present, which may or may not have an effect on they ideas brought forward, off the top of my head I’m sure I have 3 Class 47s, Class 156 and a HST, and a variety of MK2 and MK3 coaching stock, certainly stock that would have been seen on the Highland Mainline

On 23/12/2021 at 20:54, Drew-1986 said:

Continuous run with a 6 or 8 lane fiddle yard

 

A fictitious Highland mainline location, maybe the railways never suffered and the Highland line became double track

 

A small siding for operational interest, maybe a ballast/PW or timber siding

 

A more rural plan, could be persuaded to be otherwise, but plan would need to be very interesting

 

Ability to have computer automation 

Looking at my original brief, if I was to model Slochd Summit, it would meet 4 of the 5 requirements, but replacing the siding for interest instead for a passing loop. Part of me would like to keep this fairly simple for the sake of interest and time. If I can make good progress with this early, it will encourage me to keep at it as my work takes me away for varied amounts of time

 

I think I am very much going to look at definitely increasing the width of my base boards, and potentially the length too

 

@RobinofLoxley having looked at Forsinard, I definitely think that’s more like what I can to achieve where the scenery is almost the most important part of the model. With regards to an amount of operational stuff to justify automation, I see this as almost as much of a chance to learn about automation, and to find out its strengths and weaknesses for future projects

Edited December 24, 2021 by Drew-1986

[Drew-1986]

So having spent a little time mulling things over the choice of Slochd Summit, it has thrown some fresh questions into my mind. The 2 points of the passing loop are roughly 700m apart, based of Google Earth. Now its obvious that this location was going to have to have some compression but how and where is the question

 

First thought I have is that the south rock cutting is the beginning of the scene of the left side of the layout, if it were to have part of the return loop to fiddle yard even better. That choice then has a knock on to the north end. My initial thought is that I don’t model the north point, having 2 lines exiting off scene on the right to return to the fiddle yard. However, to make it seem like the other point exists, I would have the signal just before the scene exit. Hope this makes sense. I definitely think I am gonna to have to increase the length of the boards, probably to about 3m, along with increasing the width. This would hopefully prevent the location being too compressed and losing the feel. Look forward to hearing your thoughts

[RobinofLoxley]

Some scene builders have mastered the tricks of perspective required in these situations.  Its not always about physical distance, its about getting the clues to physical distance in the right place so that the eye is fooled. But you may well need the extra depth anyway.

[Drew-1986]

I had thought that if I needed more depth in the scene, I could build a shelf over the fiddle yard, as looking from left to right on this screen shot, the right is the increasing hillside. Hope that makes sense

On 24/12/2021 at 13:08, Drew-1986 said:

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2021 by Drew-1986