How big is to big

[Pandora]

3 hours ago, Kallaroonian said:

I have to admit I only skip-read this thread.

 

Much of what leapt off the pages I can relate to, possibly all of it. Let me first of all congratulate The Johnster for the use of the word cromulent which I have never heard of but will certainly be using in the future.

 

See my old threads about Hatfield - I forget the exact title of the first one but the current is Hatfield : Part the Second.

 

This things is ridiculously huge.  It was all designed with Xtrkcad ages ago and is intended to be a scale size slightly romanticised model of Hatfield Herts. One photo shows the whole thing including under board storage yards, the other just the top sections.

 

I started the idea of this when my son was probably say 4 or 6 or something like that. He is now virtually 17. Finding the time and the money - what with various periods of unemployment - and doing all the work myself means it has just taken ages. And its in a loft space, access won't get easier as I get older, there is much much much left to do and I have currently unresolved problems with keeping the track clean (but there will be a solution.....)

 

Plus of course while it is theoretically removable - there are separate boards either supporting themselves or laid across huge spars - the practical reality of points on joints, wiring, size etc etc all means that if we move it would possibly be finis. Aside from anything else any move would be a downsize so that would really be a problem.

 

Why did I embark on this? I wanted to get back into model railways. I had the space. I wanted to run full size trains and build essentially a real model (its the extra engine shed that is a romanticism).

 

So would I do it again. For sure. I've enjoyed building it, and that's really the point I think

 

And where I'm at right now I'm fairly optimistic that all the wiring will be done before too long. With that and the clean track solution I can run some trains and get into some scenery. Whether the viaduct ever gets a scale brick coating or stays as extruded polystyrene blue is a question though.............. 

 

 

 

To operate this layout I think you would need 6+ people,  3 controllers, 2 drivers and a gofer to deal with derailments / sticky locomotives / put the kettle on.

[Kallaroonian]

Well maybe 6+ people.

 

I'm more imagining trains going North and South on the fast line "by themselves" and then me stuffing around with slow trains and shunting. Perhaps I'm over optimistic.

 

Control is DCC using ECoS. A critical issue is totally avoiding the gofer aspect.  Some experiments are underway

 

cheers 

[Andymsa]

4 hours ago, SamThomas said:

You can if it is done properly, but no point in going into details now.

im interested in how you can cover a swimming pool once the pool is drained. All the research I have done it seems risky to leave it empty.

[RJS1977]

6 hours ago, Andymsa said:

that particular property has been dropped now, but as to filling in a swimming pool you can’t just board over it, as the ground factors can push an empty pool out of the ground as there be no water to counter act ground pressure.

 

Interesting, as the original swimming pool at my old school was later boarded over and used as a gym, and then as a classroom when the new gym was built in the 1960s. Some of my classmates were given a guided tour of that part of the building by the Headmaster (I must have been off school that day) and were shown the cavity under the floor which had once been a swimming pool.

 

The 'old gym' (i.e. the one that was built over the pool) had a bend in it, sufficient that if a teacher lined all the pupils up along the centre line and stood at one end of it, she couldn't see the other end of the line! Presumably the pool had a bend in it as well, but I've never seen this confirmed.

[WIMorrison]

Andy

 

I think the key is in how the pool has been built. If it is a modern PVC liner (or Butyl) then it will rely on the water being in the pool to hold the sides and the earth back - unless it has a block built frame under the PVC/Butyl.  Even then though the block frame will still rely on the water pressure and will not be built as sturdily as the next case.

 

If it is a fully tiled structure (like an Olympic style pool, but perhaps not as large), then it should have the integrity to stand up without water in it and could therefore be boarded over if the pool is watertight and will not allow any groundwater in through cracks.

 

However, as you are not buying the house now, this is all academic 🤣

 

 

 

 

[RJS1977]

On 11/05/2022 at 11:41, ianathompson said:

Returning to the OP's question, "How big is too big?" CJF attempted to cover this in a Plan of the Month in Railway Modeller, back in the seventies(?)

The title was something like the "The Practical Maximum" (more than likely this is the wrong title!).

From memory he advocated a large terminus fed by a return loop that housed various stations and (possibly a fiddleyard).

I am sure that the concept would still be valid today if you can find a copy of the plan.

 

Ian T

 

 

"The Desirable Maximum" - which CJF postulated at 20' x 12' on the grounds that he felt that it was the largest size of layout that one person could build, operate and maintain. He conceded that larger one-man layouts could be possible, but only if the space was used to increase curve radii, train lengths, distances between stations etc, rather than increasing complexity, and since in all likelihood most people building a layout larger than that would need to build a room specially, he felt there wasn't really a lot of point if the layout was no more interesting to operate than one that could be fitted in a smaller space.

 

Later on, I believe CJF reduced his 'ideal size' down to 16' x 8' (i.e. the size of a standard garage) primarily because even 20' x 12' spaces aren't easy to find, but I suspect also increasing age/experience suggested that the larger size layout was too complex.

 

Certainly my father's 30' x 8' L-shape layout is really the most we can maintain.

 

A lot will also depend on how the layout is wired - the first couple of versions of my Aberystwyth layout were wired simply and a joy to operate. The next two versions were not - I had wired the loco depot, the goods yard, the branch, and the up-and-down lines to separate controllers (with switches to enable trains to cross from one to another) but it was all too complicated and I seemed to spend more time fault tracing in the panel than running trains! The most recent version has reverted to a simpler method of wiring and once again is a pleasure to operate.

 

 

Incidentally, the N gauge layout at Conway Valley Railway Museum was based on CJF's "Desirable Maximum" layout.

[ianathompson]

2 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

The Desirable Maximum" - which CJF postulated at 20' x 12'

 

Thanks. I knew that I had not "nailed "the proper title!

 

Ian T

[RobinofLoxley]

The idea of a size limit based on 1970's understanding of operating practice doesnt do it for me. Automation makes a huge difference. The other important difference is conditioning (and probably air filtering as well) to avoid deterioration. Anecdotally I understand that DCC doesnt spark as much as DC and therefore rail cleaning is reduced, but rail cleaning will be the biggest duty on a large layout. So while 20 x 12 might be right for an analogue operation its not a limit for other methods of operating.

[Andymsa]

Update 2

 

the search for a new home for the layout goes on, no luck so far. But I have been looking at alternatives, although I can’t extend in the way I want there is an couple of alternatives I think, at present I’m trying to balance up what would be achieved compared to the actual building of an extension and any benefit gained. The most obvious benefit I can keep the existing layout.

[RJS1977]

2 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

The idea of a size limit based on 1970's understanding of operating practice doesnt do it for me. Automation makes a huge difference. The other important difference is conditioning (and probably air filtering as well) to avoid deterioration. Anecdotally I understand that DCC doesnt spark as much as DC and therefore rail cleaning is reduced, but rail cleaning will be the biggest duty on a large layout. So while 20 x 12 might be right for an analogue operation its not a limit for other methods of operating.

 

However part of the reason for the 20x12 limit was that in the majority of cases, rooms larger than that would need to be specially built, and would the extra space achieved by doing so actually have any tangible benefit?

 

Automatic running is possible in analogue (often more simply/cheaply than with DCC), and indeed CJF suggested it in some of his plan books.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

However part of the reason for the 20x12 limit was that in the majority of cases, rooms larger than that would need to be specially built, and would the extra space achieved by doing so actually have any tangible benefit?

 

What one needs is an 18th century town house with ballroom.

[SamThomas]

There are many measures available today that will help with maintaining a layout, such as ;

All metal wheels on rolling stock.

Treatments such as Track Magic.

Various Track "cleaning" wagons***.

Those axel hung pads that GM sell.

Frequent running whilst not new helps keep track clean.

Dust/draught free environment & even better a positive filtered air system.

Dust control mats.

Care when creating dust anywhere in the same room as the layout.

Abrasive track "cleaning" rubbers consigned to the bin or left on the shelf.

& of course operators could refrain from wearing clothes that shed fibres.

 

*** very few wagons actually clean dirty track, but they can help to keep clean track clean. LUX make wagons that will clean & vacuum up dirty track (they work similar to the Dapol ones, which are IMHO a poor principle copy of the LUX ones).

[Matt]

2 hours ago, SamThomas said:

There are many measures available today that will help with maintaining a layout, such as ;

All metal wheels on rolling stock.

Treatments such as Track Magic.

Various Track "cleaning" wagons***.

Those axel hung pads that GM sell.

Frequent running whilst not new helps keep track clean.

Dust/draught free environment & even better a positive filtered air system.

Dust control mats.

Care when creating dust anywhere in the same room as the layout.

Abrasive track "cleaning" rubbers consigned to the bin or left on the shelf.

& of course operators could refrain from wearing clothes that shed fibres.

 

*** very few wagons actually clean dirty track, but they can help to keep clean track clean. LUX make wagons that will clean & vacuum up dirty track (they work similar to the Dapol ones, which are IMHO a poor principle copy of the LUX ones).

I had to read that twice as first time through I thought I read “& of course operators not wearing clothes”

[AndrueC]

On 11/05/2022 at 22:08, RobinofLoxley said:

What you could get in a large space is a visual separation of things that in the normal way of modelling never are. At Warley in I guess 2019 there was a layout from the Netherlands in N gauge, modern image dutch railways, fully automatic DCC, at least 10M long if I remember right, in N, so that despite the flat beside the canal look of it, the layout did generate the feeling of trains coming from somewhere and  going somewhere as the yard was so far away you didnt really see it (Behind you!!). Now in a room of those dimensions or similar, you could partition it completely to have a station scene with trains arriving on very long lead-ins with a good sense of proportion - im thinking of using the partition on the longer axis. Then the other side could be the busy side with all the storage roads, TMD, etc.

When considering my current layout I toyed with an idea like that. My layout is N and it runs around the walls of a bedroom, 2.5m x 3m. My idea was to have two hidden staging yards - one on the shortest side, the other on the second longest side with a bridge between them in the doorway. The main layout would have a station and goods yard on the long side connected to each staging yard - one route a long country run, the other shorter semi-industrial with shorter connection. Around the centre of the board would be a branch line and two smaller stations. There was also a small quarry line connecting the goods yard with a quarry.

 

Each staging yard and the station/goods yard would be points on a sequence (so three in total). Using automation I'd have trains moving between each point a bit like a game of baseball albeit some moving in a clock-wise, some anti-. When a train entered a staging yard it would sit there for a random interval while another train left the yard.

 

Meanwhile the branch line just ran, stopping at each station with the quarry line occasionally running.

 

I was hoping the result would appear to be a far larger layout with trains vanishing off-scene and not reappearing for some time. This would also allow for the kind of hands-off operation I was looking for.

 

In the end I decided automation just wasn't at the point where I felt comfortable tackling it so I opted for a simpler roundy-roundy. It has a tunnel section, cutting and a bridge on it so based on my previous layout I think it will avoid the boring nature of a roundy-roundy.

 

Yes it'll be a lot of work but I'm soon to retire and really I love this hobby for the problem solving and creativity more than operation. I'm a computer programmer by profession so I think I'm looking for something to replace that experience and stop me getting bored on those days when I'm not playing golf. I'm also well used to splitting a large task into smaller ones and waiting many months or even years to reach completion. With luck this layout will take me five years to reach completion and if it takes longer then all the better really :)

Edited May 13, 2022 by AndrueC

[Kallaroonian]

10 hours ago, SamThomas said:

There are many measures available today that will help with maintaining a layout, such as ;

All metal wheels on rolling stock.

Treatments such as Track Magic.

Various Track "cleaning" wagons***.

Those axel hung pads that GM sell.

Frequent running whilst not new helps keep track clean.

Dust/draught free environment & even better a positive filtered air system.

Dust control mats.

Care when creating dust anywhere in the same room as the layout.

Abrasive track "cleaning" rubbers consigned to the bin or left on the shelf.

& of course operators could refrain from wearing clothes that shed fibres.

 

*** very few wagons actually clean dirty track, but they can help to keep clean track clean. LUX make wagons that will clean & vacuum up dirty track (they work similar to the Dapol ones, which are IMHO a poor principle copy of the LUX ones).

 

And that, aside from the large amount of work, is my key concern right now. I'm about 500m from the Indian Ocean and Perth is a windy city so while all of the relevant upper parts of the loftspace are lined there is a fair amount  of dirt blowing around plus a slightly salty atmosphere. Great combo

 

I have a Dapol and a CMX. Neither really used in anger yet. My belief - and test results bore this out for quite a while - was that a layer of graphite pencil on the tracks kept everything quite good. Over time - and with no reapplication or any significant running - this has diminished disastrously. Again my theory is not that the graphite concept doesn't work but that over time it is the dust/dirt on top of the graphite that is causing lack of connectivity.  I say dust/dirt and it makes it sound like a coal yard - it's nothing you can see, smell or otherwise sense; but its their as one can see from the years of build up of grey dirt on those household boxes you put in the loft and never touch again :-)

 

The current experiment phase is to cover with a man-made fibre close-weave dust cover sheet and see what the results are. 

 

   

[DCB]

On 12/05/2022 at 18:53, RJS1977 said:

A lot will also depend on how the layout is wired - the first couple of versions of my Aberystwyth layout were wired simply and a joy to operate. The next two versions were not - I had wired the loco depot, the goods yard, the branch, and the up-and-down lines to separate controllers (with switches to enable trains to cross from one to another) but it was all too complicated and I seemed to spend more time fault tracing in the panel than running trains! The most recent version has reverted to a simpler method of wiring and once again is a pleasure to operate.

Good point.  The wiring needs to be simple to operate, user friendly, ideally get ahead of the crowd, join the 21st century and go radio control or DCC from your mobile phone.  If not you can't beat a Morley and cab control, plug the hand held in to an extension lead and operate the whole layout from it. In our case 90% of the layout from a Morley or three or  100% from a Hammant and Morgan, not that you can see what you are doing 30 feet away down the garden when using the H&M.   Those 4 knob monstrosities without hand helds are my idea of a nightmare.  My favourite controller of all time was a Triang Minic reversing slot car controller.  You either follow a train round a big layout or you end up operating your own small module which is part of the big layout, effectively playing either engine driver or signalman Plus very few people even scratch the surface of DCC's capabilities, double heading or banking with two drivers, that's my idea of fun.
The CJF Idea of maximum size would have been a 16 X 8 on maybe two levels, today that would be a 16 X 16 on one level as in his hey day a tank loco would shift 15 or 20 wagons up a 1 in 30, now they struggle with that load on the level.

[Andymsa]

Update 3

 

having looked at various designs for extending the existing setup, I think I found a solution with what I’m happy with. The best part is that the existing layout won’t get disturbed to much as such. I’m hoping to post the various stages of this change to the existing building the only thing I don’t like the new extension will be a flat roof design but if I can design a pitch roof design I will go that route.