Roundy roundy or end to end?

[meatloaf]

So after doing some remedial work on my baseboard  my mind turn s to track plans.

 

My baseboard is 9Ft x 38". 

 

Previously i had a single 2nd radius loop with sidings for shunting / storage. Whilst i got to run stuff and watch it go round and round i get bored quite quickly. 

 

Thinking about doing an end to end splitting the board into 6ft scenic 3ft fiddle yard. 

 

Passenger trains would be 2 coach trains and a CLASS 105 dmu.

 

Goods traffic handled by small diesels such as class 20 and 24s shunted by an 08.

 

Id like to run 37s and 47s but feel at 9ft the layouts not big enough.

 

This is what i had in mind 

[Pete the Elaner]

And end to end is certainly more involving because you cannot just leave trains running round in circles, but it does not give you a chance to let locos get properly warmed up.

It all depends on what you like doing. Some like settings trains off & watching them run round & round. That is not wrong but it is not for me.

Some prefer shunting.

Some prefer to build the layout then lose interest when it becomes time to run trains.

 

It depends on what you prefer & how much space you have available.

[john new]

Why not split the levels, tail chaser lower level with a shunting area at a higher level? Then you get the best of both worlds as your mood takes you on any specific day.

Edited September 29, 2022 by john new

[Harlequin]

9ft by 38” is an awkward size for either a roundy round or a terminus to FY. The width is a bit too far to reach across but not wide enough to comfortably fit the end curves.

 

[Chris M]

26 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

9ft by 38” is an awkward size for either a roundy round or a terminus to FY. The width is a bit too far to reach across but not wide enough to comfortably fit the end curves.

 

In N gauge that is quite a decent space and you could do a lot.

[Harlequin]

1 minute ago, Chris M said:

In N gauge that is quite a decent space and you could do a lot.

Ah yes, we don’t know the scale yet…

 

[Izzy]

Due to lack of space I have always built BLT type layouts. In the last decade for a change I have tried my hand at a small roundly. Struggling to get what I wanted there have been five attempts. All up and working but getting no further. The big stumbling block I found, was fiddle/storage space. Now I’m back to a BLT type. Far better for running to say a sequence, but having as many tracks in the fiddle as you can get - I use a rotating (360degree) sector plate with five which isn’t really enough - is I find key.

 

Bob

Edited September 30, 2022 by Izzy

[TheQ]

You could do a wonderful layout on that baseboard in T gauge ....

 

That size board I'd assume N, I'd build a roundy layout as I actually prefer the modelling..  for your  purposes, I'd build a half circle  , with two sections of sidings for shunting .

[meatloaf]

yes its going to be 00, shouldve said that to start with.

 

N is a bit to small, i did try it before but my eyesight isnt what it was.

 

 

 

[Oldddudders]

At least your proposed passenger stock isn't too long. The end-throw on tight curves looks much worse on Mk 3 etc vehicles. Ditto those larger diesels. 

[phil-b259]

A suitably designed roundy-roundy can always be operated as an end to end if you wish.

 

At stations such as Palace Gates in North London for example the track was laid out as a through station but all passenger workings terminated / started there - the double track heading northwards only being used for the odd freight bound for the Hertford loop.

 

Torrington in Devon is another example of a station where most stuff terminated despite being laid out as a through station one the extension southwards was built.

Edited September 30, 2022 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

28 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

At least your proposed passenger stock isn't too long. The end-throw on tight curves looks much worse on Mk 3 etc vehicles. Ditto those larger diesels. 

 

Agreed - but a lot depends on whether the curves are 'scenic or not. If they are just there to get to the fiddle yard rather than being part of the model proper as it were then its not going to matter how bad stock looks when traversing them.

Edited September 30, 2022 by phil-b259

[GeoffAlan]

3 hours ago, Chris M said:

In N gauge that is quite a decent space and you could do a lot.

 

Yes I have a twin track roundy roundy with an end to end on that size base board, although I ran an L ar one end for a terminus, that's 44"x 15" stuck on one end..

[Oldddudders]

12 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

A suitably designed roundy-roundy can always be operated as an end to end if you wish.

 

At stations such as Palace Gates in North London for example the track was laid out as a through station but all passenger workings terminated / started there - the double track heading northwards only being used for the odd freight bound for the Hertford loop.

 

Torrington in Devon is another example of a station where most stuff terminated despite being laid out as a through station one the extension southwards was built.

Then there was Beddgelert on the original WHR. 

[RobinofLoxley]

Eyesight has been quoted a few times in relation to N gauge which I don't get at all. I need reading glasses for close work but if something's in focus that's it. Many of the things to do building layouts aren't different between scales such as mounting point motors. 

 

If I had a small baseboard N would be a mo- brainer. There are examples of very ingenious layouts on N that tick all the boxes and don't force a bad choice of operating syyle

[DCB]

It's actually a good idea to plan the layout first and build the baseboads to suit, unless its for the kids and you build a baseboard and let them loose with a pile of set track.

However with a 9ft by 3ft 2" board built for a semi serious layout, that for me is one with Peco Streamline or similar points, not Set Track points, I would go U shape with a BLT  terminus, at the front, a 180m degree 2nd radius curve, largest the board will take, and  a Fiddle yard behind the terminus, behind a back scene.

As the 2nd radius is the largest you can squeeze in and takes the track very close to the edge I would swing the tracks across away from the edge of the baseboard.  I would have the platform at the baseboard edge side as otherwise trains would have to approach the platform round the curved road of a point and  a reverse curve and that would be a potential recipe for derailments.    I would put the 180 into a deep cutting rather than a tunnel.  The diamond on the kick back means you can shunt the goods shed without clearing one of the sidings to use as a head shunt first, something I wish I had done on our BLT

 

Incidentally Our "Haddenhoe" garden branch terminus is 7 feet from first point to buffers and is long enough for 12  wagons or 4 X 57 foot coaches to be run round, though it usually operates a 2 X 63ft B set coaches.   and 18 wagon goods trains!   Anyway that's what I would do.   

[Chris M]

DCB's plan is a classic BLT and that sort of thing would make for a good layout. For me the only problem with DCB's plan would be if the storage sidings were against a wall - it would be a long stretch over the scenic section to put the locos onto the other end of the train. To be fair this is almost certainly going to be a problem for any layout design; with a 3'2" width access to the back is going to be quite a stretch. This will be made worse by having a backscene just in front of storage sidings. The problem can be overcome with careful planning and thought about the location of the layout but it certainly needs careful consideration.

[Ray H]

CJ Freezer's track plans books had various shapes and sizes of boards/layout including at least one where there was a complete oval with hidden sidings on the outside of the oval and separated from the rest of the layout by a "backscene".

 

Is that am arrangement worth considering?

[AndyB]

Another thread on here is discussing Ian Futers' many contributions. 

 

Could you maybe combine DCB's wrap around design with Ian's Victoria Park?

 

So, more of an urban theme but one that would mop up your dmu and allow a variety of diesel traction too.

 

Hope this helps. Andy

[Flying Pig]

 

2 hours ago, Ray H said:

CJ Freezer's track plans books had various shapes and sizes of boards/layout including at least one where there was a complete oval with hidden sidings on the outside of the oval and separated from the rest of the layout by a "backscene".

 

Is that am arrangement worth considering?

 

That's the "Dean fiddleyard".  I don't think it would work in it's classic form as it needs sufficient width for the branch to curve round within the outer circuit (as well as access to the fiddle yard at the rear).  Here we have only just enough width for a 2nd radius circuit.

 

Years ago I built a layout for a small board in N gauge that owes a little to the Deane layout and the general plan might work here:

 

 

I haven't drawn the details of the station, because it can be imagineered in several ways.  The one I built was a former junction station, heavily rationalised, including singling of one or both lines (which simplifies the pointwork considerably).  I actually planned the platform on the terminal spur (it never got as far as being built), with loop and sidings adjacent like a classic BLT, but I'm not sure how convincing that would be.  If I were to do it again I think I'd want to sketch it in it's former gloy then go through the rationalising process. Empty trackbed and derelict platforms would probably feature heavily - I was going for a sort of 1970s South Yorkshire feel.

 

I also have plans (also for N) where the station is inspired by something like Grimsby Town with the platforms under the train shed terminating and the outer circuit representing a through platform outside the shed.  Not sure this would work here as you would need to single the line at the end opposite the station for the 2nd radius end curve.  I'd prefer to hide that to maintain the fiction of a double track route, but that might chew up too much visible space and you might struggle to fit in any goods sidings..  The alignment of the station tracks would also need a lot of care to look believable.  On the plus side it would provide credible habitat for an 08 to lurk.

[DCB]

On 30/09/2022 at 07:05, Harlequin said:

9ft by 38” is an awkward size for either a roundy round or a terminus to FY. The width is a bit too far to reach across but not wide enough to comfortably fit the end curves.

 

Absolutely right.  The way I look at it with small continuous run layouts L~W =S    Length (L) Minus width (W) equals Station (S) and S~P=T  Station (S) minus Points (P) equals Train Length (T)   This one 108 ~ 38 = 70" just under 6ft.  2ft Points are 7" so that's 14"  and you really need another 7" per end, 14" to get clearance for trains entering the loop, so that's 28" from your 70" leaving 42" or 3ft 6" Maximum for your train, that's a 4-6-0 (10") and 3 Mk1 coaches (3X 10.5" or 31.5")  for 41.5"or in CJ Freezer's day a 4-6-0 (10") and Four Triang Clerestories (4 X 8" = 32")    MAXIMUM   Lose a foot length for an 8 X 3ft 2" and you are down to a Tank loco and 2 Mk1s, a GWR Prairie and a B set, and another for 7ft X 3ft 2" and you are down to 1ft 6" MAXIMUM which means a tank loco and one coach.  A couple of illustrative doodles below, based on 2nd radius and Peco 2ft radius points.

 

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by DCB

[RobinofLoxley]

A roundy roundy concept with a rectangular baseboard where the short axis is 32 inches is constrained by the second radius being more or less a dead fit, and therefore trying to introduce some softening curves is a bit of a mission. Fitting in trains of even modest length requires that points are sited at the end of each half circle give or take. A full fiddle yard isnt really possible, all clearly shown by @DCB above.

 

However this isn't the only possible configuration. My drawing is more about principle, since the possibility of a station inside the loop hasnt been mentioned. This type of plan isn't favoured because it can look odd when the station is inside the running loop, but by placing the back of the station against the divide of the hidden yard, the perpective is improved. The other objection to a station located as it is, is that its very one-directional - however this isnt really about large mainline locos. My idea was that as a variation a formation could run from the station through the yard and back out to the siding at front. Then a loco from the yard could pick the formation up and return it to the station, the right way round.

 

I did use curved turnouts - they arent essential, I was checking if the space utilisation could be improved at all and just left them in.

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, RobinofLoxley said:

However this isn't the only possible configuration. My drawing is more about principle, since the possibility of a station inside the loop hasnt been mentioned.

 

Ahem...

[roythebus1]

I built a Thomas-themed layout in 1985 in 2 weeks. It was on about a 9x3 board, had a double track main line, branch line for Thomas, double track main line terminus, loco shed with turntable and a goods yard. And 3 hidden loops. Even the mighty CJF said he wished he'd have invented that layout. It could be run as a roundy roundy and shunted in a prototype way with terminating trains needing to be shunt-ad release to get the loco out. there was just enough room t the double junction to do that with a 3-car train with a class 03 as pilot engine. i'll have to try and dig out the plans for it. It was featured in the RM of that era and appeared at many exhibitions until about 1990.

 

[bigdaveadams1]

Roy can I ask what the layout was called please?