Layout design help needed please

[Mikg]

thanks for looking , first post so please be gentle!!

 

I’m looking for you design pros to help me design a track layout based with the following things in mind :

 

 

Dc controlled power 

oo scale streamline spacing where possible 

Round the wall , roundy to watch them go 

Hst mainlines with through station and storage/exchange 

Freight & branch lines with storage somewhere to go

 

Possible bus scrap yard ? as have huge collection and would like to use up some 

Other industry? Glass works ? again have lots wagons with sand /glass loads

 

Don’t have any steam locos it’s all   class 43 hst’s , mixed diesels 25s,33s,37s,47s,56s,60s with mixed wagon rakes

 

Apart from running stock & power control all above could be dismissed for a fantastic idea….

 

Right ,the area we are working with is 3.9m x 4.7m layout area , attic space ,access is within middle of room and already build frame & boards around room as follows 

 

 

I have also done 30 cm fillets for corners but not fitted as I may extend boards where dotted line is at the lower level 

 

Here’s a couple of pictures, one is off board down and other is the framework  , may give you an idea.

 

 

Next jobs on list are to insulate roof with kinsman or similar boards  when I can get them at a reasonable price then put lighting in around the running area and a ply upstand.
 

At present Im happy having 2 runs of flexi track and r3 corners around boards giving locos a run while I’m up there dreaming …… 

 

Any more questions , info just ask 

 

thanks 

mike

 

 

 

 

[Mikg]

 

 

[Mikg]

[RobinofLoxley]

Welcome to the madhouse.

 

Looks very well built but some rounding at the corners may have been helpful but could be done if required. Is that what you mean by fillets.

The power supply spec (DC or DCC) isn't that relevant for layout design.

 

It's a pity that you put the boards in before the layout design but hey ho.

 

Rather than plan on paper have you played with Anyrail? You can get 50 pieces of track with the trial version to play around with. 

[Harlequin]

You have a good space and I would have suggested sacrificing some of it to pull the baseboards in, away from the slope of the roof - at least on one side. And maybe doing the same to raise the level a bit.

 

How committed are you to what you've already built?

 

[Mikg]

Hi and thanks for reply robinofloxley

 

the fillits I was referring to are pieces that will round the corners off 

 

the boards I’m willing to change about , I do enjoy the building side ,so don’t be hooked on the space laid out.

 

I have also downloaded anyrail and scarms free versions been getting to those , may purchase the anyrail as I seem to get along better with it.

 

mike

 

 

[Mikg]

Hello harlequin 

 

I am more than willing to remove / rebuild all boards for the right design , take on board what you say about reducing size to gain height as it stands 55cm from floor 

sorry quick reply, work commitments at present 
Mike

 

 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

Going into corners or roof angles causes problems if you would like to have a backscene. Standard ones for 00 gauge tend to be 300mm high so you can work out how far in you would need to bring the boards to obtain that height at the back. You are going to lose something on the possible length of your loop but unless you want very long trains this shouldn't be a problem. 

[RJS1977]

32 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

You have a good space and I would have suggested sacrificing some of it to pull the baseboards in, away from the slope of the roof - at least on one side. And maybe doing the same to raise the level a bit.

 

How committed are you to what you've already built?

 

 

TBH I think in terms of clearance between baseboard and roof, there's not too much of an issue. At least one baseboard has enough clearance for the builder to stand his drill on the board, and another has enough space to get a crate in. So scenically, there's enough of a gap to get a decent backscene in (and the sky could of course carry on up the slope. What the OP would have to be wary of though is leaning forwards and banging his head on the roof!

 

More of an issue though is the space under the baseboards - there isn't really enough room underneath to work wiring the layout up, fitting point motors etc, so any point motors would likely have to be on the surface - not insurmountable (especially in non-scenic sections) but it would need some imagination to hide them, rather than a forest of conveniently placed PW huts!

[RobinofLoxley]

1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

 

TBH I think in terms of clearance between baseboard and roof, there's not too much of an issue. At least one baseboard has enough clearance for the builder to stand his drill on the board, and another has enough space to get a crate in. So scenically, there's enough of a gap to get a decent backscene in (and the sky could of course carry on up the slope. What the OP would have to be wary of though is leaning forwards and banging his head on the roof!

 

More of an issue though is the space under the baseboards - there isn't really enough room underneath to work wiring the layout up, fitting point motors etc, so any point motors would likely have to be on the surface - not insurmountable (especially in non-scenic sections) but it would need some imagination to hide them, rather than a forest of conveniently placed PW huts!

Unless you have definite experience to call on relating to this, I think carrying a sky scene at a 45 degree angle towards a spectator who is already well above track level would create massive problems of perspective. Apologies to the OP I think we are getting away from the original questions already...

[Mikg]

Evening all, just checked a few measurements that have been mentioned,

baseboard height to roof slope once boarded is 25cm

if I bring the backscene forward 15cm the height increases to 35cm 

 

headroom is comfortable on stool I move around on right up to baseboard edge 

 

mike

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi @Mikg, an interesting proposition and some good advice being shared already.  If I’m reading your opening post correctly, have you already been running trains using Setrack circuits?
 

Reason I ask is this - as you have some baseboards, it can help to set aside a couple of hours to get out some trains (esp. the longest one, which might be your HST) and use that time as part of the design process.  Set things out and take some photos:

• what catches my eye?  Are there some good “trainspotting viewing / vantage points”?
• is there a scene or arrangement I keep coming back to - just because I like it?
• what do I envisage for the corners?  How far along the sides does my longest train extend when on a corner?  What is the optimum radius for each of the corners?
• when did I bump my head / bash my knee / drop things down the stairs? (delete as appropriate)
• what feels right, are there things that may not be obvious on paper or to the rest of us?

An example on that last point is that I’m left handed, so some things are naturally more comfortable for me in a different position to where they might be for a right-hander.  
 

It may give you a feel for how much you want to fit into your space and give you the chance to play around with some gentle curves to see how they improve the look of a layout.  Transition curves that gently lead into the corners can make a big difference visually when compared with the rigid Setrack alternative.  Crossing the ‘valley’ section at a slight angle rather than  going straight across can make quite a difference too.
 

I’d then transfer these ideas onto a computer program to check they actually work geometrically before proceeding.

 

Just some thoughts which I hope might help, Keith.

[AndrueC]

It'll be interesting to see how this develops. I'm in the planning stage for my 'around the walls' layout and have settled on two designs, lol. One would be reliant on automation to create a hands-off but not actually roundy-roundy layout. It appeals because it tries to look somewhat realistic with trains disappearing 'off-scene' via hidden staging yards rather than just looping back round to where they came from. The other design is unashamedly roundy-roundy. It allows for four trains to just go around and around albeit with the option to stop at one of two stations occasionally.

 

My current layout is round-roundy but only the size of a double bed (though I model in N so I can run long trains, lol). What stops it being boring is having embankments, tunnels and elevation changes. I don't think many people really just want to watch a train going round but if the train can disappear from view now and again and travel over bridges and the like it becomes more interesting.

Edited February 3, 2022 by AndrueC

[RobinofLoxley]

I’m not surprised that no-one has volunteered anything so far, although Harlequin might well do so. Larger spaces are more challenging than small ones, where there is the trusty CJ Freezer to fall back on and the options are more limited. I know this well having a big space myself but with a number of restrictions.

 

I got started from looking at the floor plan and thinking that an interesting possibility would be to close off the space between the access and the left hand side of the plan (assuming that there is some physical barrier associated with the access which might not be the case) using a hill as a scenery block and to create a quarry on the other side of it, as shown. So although it’s a roundy layout, that would restrict spectators (and operators). Although I haven’t drawn it that way, the tunnel could just about be long enough that a 6-coach HST, around which the whole plan is based, would be totally inside the tunnel, albeit briefly.

 

The size of the HST determines the length of station platforms, and while I first thought that a 4-platform layout would be nice, allowing trains to pass in both directions, the main priority was to ensure that storage long enough to cope with the same HST rake could be incorporated, and this meant that the longer sides were needed and there might be implications in shortening them. Either trains access storage sidings direct from points at the station throat or they are reached via a shunt, and both situations exist in the real world. There is a lot of room (Lol) to improve the station but I settled for a 3 platform look and a shunt access to storage.

 

I had got as far as this when I remembered the low baseboard; its OK but the upper and lower sides of the plan would have to be transposed, more or less.

 

The layout is based on a rectangular space and this dictates 4 sections connected by 90 degree curves, more or less. In the plan I used mainly Setrack curves  as they provide a ‘Degree’ of certainty where it’s actually quite difficult to get flexible track to conform on such tight (R2 and R3) curves. If I was planning this for myself I know that I would subject the plan to hundreds of small tweaks and at the end might finish with no Setrack at all. But this is to set up a discussion item.

 

The lower section as shown is intended to be the open scenic section where trains can move through a landscape. I thought such a long section with not a siding in sight looked wrong , maybe just park some decrepit wagons in it.

 

Then there’s the fourth side and here I have put an MPD for all the diesels but this could be anything, depends how many points you want on the layout, and some further freight sidings. I’m not very satisfied with this area but again it’s to start a discussion as much as anything.

 

[Mikg]

Keith and robin both thanks for your in-depth reply’s at this early stage, time has been took up with work commitments ,I will have more time next week we’ll tomorrow actually to share more of my own thoughts and ideas ,

thanks mike

 

[RJS1977]

If I get some time, I may play around with a few ideas as well.

[Mikg]

That’s the problem for me at moment all work and no time spare , 

mike