Loft layout in 4mm

[EasternO]

5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

What features do you want in your layout? Single track, double track? Stations, landscape, any particular infrastructure elements?

I'm planning on buying 3 or 4 DMUs (already bought one) and the same number of locos (already bought two) and sticking with that for a while. A station would be good, either through or terminus, I'd like to keep all the trains on the layout. I don't need freight infrastructure but I'd like a couple short crawling trains trying their best to interrupt the passenger traffic. Shunting is not my thing so these will be semi-permanent trains.

 

I'd like to try as best as possible to have a continuous loop, but I am very aware of the tight area around the hatch. I think 2nd rad could be OK, but I've not tested it as I don't yet have any track.

[Harlequin]

7 hours ago, EasternO said:

Ah, very good questions and a reminder that I haven't included all the details.

 

I can comfortably stand up in there. This space is a sort of 'room' in the loft. Outside these walls are storage eves and there are two doors to access these. One is pretty much at the 178 measurement and the other is to the right of the 244 measurement. The tops of the doors are approx half the height of the loft and at this height the slope of the roof breaks into the room.

 

Therefore, the usable space would be inside these measurements to allow for the slope of the roof, and I can't lower the baseboard height without somehow accounting for the storage doors which both open into the room.

 

Like this?

[EasternO]

Wow! Yes. That's great!

[Harlequin]

You could chop the tops off the doors, perhaps?

That might seem drastic but they would be hidden behind/under the railway so they wouldn't have to look pretty. So long as the openings were still big enough to get into the storage spaces it would work.

That would really help with the space for the railway.

 

The position of the hatch makes a roundy-round configuration more difficult but probably not impossible.

 

Given that you don't want to remove trains from the layout that implies a set of fiddle yard loops or sidings, where you can park trains out of the way. Are you happy with something like that being visible or would you prefer to try to hide it to some degree?

 

Edit: P.S. If you go to the first post in this topic and edit it you could change the topic title to remove the 7mm reference.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Harlequin

[EasternO]

I will have to have word with the better half.

 

As you've drawn it, the door in front of me is a narrow space where we keep Christmas decorations and the tree. It's quite confined, being approx 40cm deep but the width of the house. The door behind me has much more space and currently stores my daughter's old dance trophies - she has hundreds! It is possible to move the decorations to the larger storage space, so that can avoid the use of one door. Cutting the usable door down could be possible, but not without consultation with the Works Forewoman...

 

Thanks very much for your input, it's very constructive.

 

Sorry, forgot to answer your question. No, I don't mind at all being able to see the parked trains. This sort of thing doesn't bother me in the slightest. We'll almost certainly move in 10-15 years and I'll have more space available I imagine.

Edited March 15, 2023 by EasternO

[EasternO]

I've just come down from the loft and have semi-good news. The front door, as your plan, has a top frame 120cm from the floor, but the rear door has a top frame of only 92cm from the floor. The slope of the roof is only on the long sides, the short sides are straight up - this probably doesn't make much of a difference.

 

I have more space on the right side, as I've drawn, than the left because there's no chimney tower on that side. At least 30cm, likely 40cm+ of free space. I'm also fairly free at the top end with the same or slightly more space to play with. I'm wondering if a U shape would be easier to achieve in the short term, with a single track loop extension later?

[Harlequin]

Thanks for the new info. It's really useful for understanding the space and how it can be used. The vertical end walls will make things easier.

 

So, more like this?

 

What's the vertical distance from the floor to the point where the ceiling slope starts? (Critically, is it below the top of the end storage door, as shown here, or above?)

 

I hope SWMBO can be persuaded about the doors...! 😃

 

[EasternO]

That's brilliant! Well done.

 

I'm just off to a pub quiz and dinner but I'll measure them tomorrow. I've bought a few lengths of Code 100 flexi track in preparation. I've also had a delivery of a small fleet of locos. I'm starting to get a little excited!

[EasternO]

I've measured the waist of the room, where the slant of the roof and wall join. It's exactly 1 metre from the floor.

 

I really appreciate you putting this together. It's a great resource being able to visualise something in this detail before committing.

[Harlequin]

Hi again,

 

There are some decisions to be made then: Do you sacrifice layout area by moving the baseboard level up to clear the access door? Or do you maximise the layout area and do something clever about the doors?

 

If you chose the latter, and had the layout at normal kitchen worksurface level (900mm) for instance, it would interfere with both the access doors but you could do a roundy-round something like this:

 

That's just an indication of one possibility and the baseboards would need to be adjusted to fit the actual railway design. The red part is suggested to be a lifting section and the blue part is a vague idea of a semi-permanent baseboard that can be removed when access to the end storage area is needed. (The other access door needs to be cut down to be able to open under the baseboards in this mockup.)

 

I notice that further back in this topic you mentioned that the space is partitioned and that there's another room at the top of your plan drawings. That's not shown on my 3D mockup but if that room is there, and full-height access is needed to it, then that will have a big effect on what's possible.

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Harlequin

[EasternO]

That's a great view.

 

I've been told that if I build the long-planned shed/summerhouse I can then remodel the loft by taking down the partition walls. There will then be more space. The shed/summerhouse is quite substantial - around 5m x 3m so it will take me a while to design, prepare and put together. I'm thinking a couple years.

 

This will give me plenty of time to get more of an idea about a permanent layout and what gauge to plump for, but in the meantime creating something temporary in the space I have available so I can play while I'm working up there.

 

So, to avoid having multiple projects on the go at once (I'm buying the foundation framing for the shed/summerhouse on Tuesday) let's go with using exactly the space as described without cutting doors or creating moveable sections. At this stage I'm not worried about the baseboard height.

 

If I get time over the weekend I'll see if I can come up with a track plan to last me a couple of years or so.

[woodenhead]

You're doing this all wrong, offer SWMBO the loft, and build the railway in the summerhouse.

 

Couple of Velux Windows in the loft, she wouldn't notice the difference and it would be great to get her interested in star gazing too so you can get even more time on the railway whilst she is distracted by the big dipper, the crab and the general cosmos.

[EasternO]

I've managed to cobble together a rough plan and a variant for later. I'm not sure if this will work with available track parts, but I've drawn it anyway. This will get me up and running fairly quickly. It will be wired to experiment in block detection and signalling at a future date when expanded.

 

 

A mid-way evolution to better test electronic train detection and operation. Trains will be 2-4 unit DMUs and one or two short freights.

 

 

When we finally move house and I get a bigger space I can use all that I've learnt here to make a P4 Minories-style layout with automation. I'm hoping that this automated part will be in a cutting while above it and across it I can trundle freight trains and express passenger services.

 

The above plans are not set in stone, they are just the simplest layouts I can come up with in my space. I'm very keen to see alternatives. I have move space to the top and right than I do to the left and bottom. The left bottom corner is very restricted.

[EasternO]

Having dwelled on it for a while I realise that this plan is both boring and underachieving. There's no layout in my layout and I'm still in test track mode. What I want is a station with a roundy attached. Plus I wanted to use that dead space in the alcove.

 

I had another go.

 

 

The bit at the top is meant to be a Minories-inspired station, but I fell short with my limited experience. I'm pretty sure I can't get all trains onto all platforms. As I'll be using DMUs I don't need runarounds or a pilot for loco releases, which makes the Minories plan a bit simpler in my version. I'll also not include freight.

 

Does this work?

[EasternO]

While laying in bed thinking about this last night I realised this layout will not actually work as intended. The problem is I only have one terminus, and for a shuttle service I need two. I don't want to stop trains on the track and then reverse them back into the station. I'll need to rethink this design to add another terminus. Perhaps the alcove area will come in handy after all.

 

I don't really know what I'm doing, but I think I'm making some progress. I'm still stuck on how I get trains on the middle and lower platforms onto the correct track when leaving the station. Any help would be appreciated.

[EasternO]

I know this layout is not everybody's cup of tea, and I fully appreciate that. To reiterate, this is a layout to test block control, signalling and operations/schedules on an automated system that I plan to build in the future when we move. I've only a vague idea of what I'm doing but I know what I want and this is my way of achieving that. Advice and suggestions are always appreciated.

 

With that said, I've been thinking and planning, and I think I'm fairly close to a final scheme. If I've done something wrong, please let me know.

 

 

Here are two Minories stations linked by a loop. A train will leave one station, travel around the loop and arrive at the destination station. Meanwhile, a small freight train will continuously circle to loop to make scheduling and signalling a little more complicated. Added to that complication, a portion of the track is single line - perhaps over a bridge or viaduct.

 

My questions are

Does this work - have I made a mistake I haven't thought about?

Can this be achieved using off the shelf Peco track (I'm not fussed about Code at this stage)?

 

Thanks very much.

[ITG]

I’ve tried the approach you’re describing, of building a small test layout solely for the purpose of learning automation, in my case iTrain. I learnt a lot, so in that case it helps.

I had a simple oval, with a passing loop and 4 sidings, of which 2 were facing and 2 trailing.

Depends what you plan to run, I guess, but I wonder if you should have a run round loop in one of your stations, to specifically cater for arrival, uncouple , reverse, etc manoeuvres. Although length looks limited, as a crossover will eat space.

The station throats look complicated - I assume the use of double slips is to allow certain platform roads to be accessible for both arrivals and departures, and then to/from each running line in the oval.

 

An aspect which is difficult to judge on your plan is if you are planning to automate using blocks and feedback sensors, is how long are the blocks? In iTrain, it’s recommended the blocks are longer than the longest train stopping in them. And blocks shouldn’t include turnouts. The length of single track at the bottom doesn’t look very long, and I assume that in itself may be a block?

 

Might be worth marking your proposed blocks out.

Ian

[EasternO]

Hello Ian, thank you very much for your input. Apart from the freight, all trains are 2, 3 and 4-car DMUs. The double-slips are for space saving reasons for the Minories station scheme, and will allow simultaneous arriving and departing trains from certain platforms.

 

Yes, all trackwork between any diverging or crossing track is blocked with sensors, with the lower single track is a little over one 4-car DMU in length.

 

When I have some time free I'll have a look at some design software with actual track pieces to see if I can produce this design in off the shelf pieces - turnouts, slips and crossovers specifically. I'm not sure when I'll get to do this as I work shifts and from tomorrow and on a solid block for several days.

 

Cheers.

[ITG]

The only other comment I’d add - but not necessarily what you may want to hear - is that the way you describe what you’re after seems to vary between specifically ‘test’ and a more normal approach to layout building. For example, a bridges or cuttings. I suspect that whatever you design for learning/testing purposes will not meet your needs for an ongoing layout. Probably best to accept that, and separate the two stages of your progress. After all, much of your track, wiring, etc will be perfectly reusable a second time.

 

re DMUs, that does simplify the need for any run rounds or shunting, but be careful that your needs don’t evolve if everything is based on DMUs with track and automation designs not suited to loco-pulled trains.

Ian

[5BarVT]

Hello EasternO,

Some questions about your layout space and some observations from my experience with automation.  You’ll see this with photos on my layout thread, but here is my previous layout in a room about 10’6” x 8’.

This short side is 2100mm so a coach and a bit shorter than your alcove, the three curves onto the bottom tracks are peco radius 4 so about 22” (hacksawed up to get the required angles).  The bottom road took 4 Mk1 plus one loco (class 4) with just enough space to get the bogie on the second loco straight enough to couple.  So using that design I think you could top and tail 3 Mk1 with 2 class 2/3 locos (class 25, 33, Hymek) and probably with a slightly longer class 31 (for the Eastern feel) should you want LH later.

I never did get round to adding the tail chaser before we moved, and in some respects, with automation you don’t need it because the automation can produce a continuous sequence of trains.  That said, my new layout will eventually have a continuous run option when complete.

What I did find frustrating was that the layout as shown above didn’t really allow parallel moves because there was so little distance between the station throat on the two top boards and the crossover to access the bottom roads in the yard.  My new layout has a long run between station and yard for exactly that reason.

Your single track to get past the hatch will be fine with an automation programme as it will happily sort it the conflicts there.

My Station above is an expanded minories with points on the curve using SLE 86/87 and worked very well.

FYI, the track is drawn in XtrackCad.  I like it.  It takes a little getting used to how to make it sing, but has a series of tutorials to help. And it’s free (!) so no limitations on pieces/size without payment.

 

Moving onto your plan.  Is it essential that the stations are where you have shown them?  Had you considered putting one of them on the long wall either inside or outside the continuous run?  Do they both have to be stations, or could one be an “off scene” yard?  (Depending on how much scenery you want that could be a rather semantic question!)

For your alcove station, is the double track entrance essential?  I think there might be a slightly different design that achieved four coaches on each line.  A three way point certainly would and I think there would be room to get the reverse curves to work.

Let me know if any of my suggestions are “no chance” and I’ll see what I can suggest.

 

Paul.

 

 

[Harlequin]

You need to use track planning software to know whether standard Peco parts will work in a given formation or not.

 

Programs such as AnyRail, XtrackCad, RailModeller or many others, have scaled templates for all the Peco turnouts and crossings and will join them together accurately.

 

[EasternO]

Thanks Paul, I appreciate your input, experience and your layout picture. I shall go through your thread over the next few days. I'm back on a block shift for a week so, but I can follow it through in chunks.

 

I've not heard of XtrackCad so I'll take a look next week, thanks for the heads up.

 

To answer your questions in order:

No, there's no rhyme or reason for the plan or position of elements, other than this is my effort to provide a start and stop location and to avoid as much as possible the loft hatch and back wall.

 

They don't need to be stations, but I thought they may as well be. One could be a yard/TMD area. This particular layout will have the barest minimum of scenery. Low relief structures mainly, with suggestions of platforms. Certainly no significant structures.

 

The alcove station is a replica of the other one. This Minories scheme allows a busy station without too much effort on behalf of the operator or scheduling computer. I am open to any suggestions or changes.

 

I really appreciate your offer and interest.

John

[EasternO]

18 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

You need to use track planning software...

 

Exactly. I don't know how to use any but I'll look into it when I finish my next shift block, next week sometime. Thanks.

[EasternO]

On 22/03/2023 at 17:31, 5BarVT said:

Let me know if any of my suggestions are “no chance” and I’ll see what I can suggest.

Paul.

Thanks Paul, not sure if you saw my replies to your questions.

 

I skimmed through your thread of trials and tribulations tonight - an interesting read. You didn't talk much of TrainController, and as this is what I've been looking at using, I'd really appreciate your thoughts on it. I'd probably plump for the bronze version.

 

If you have any design suggestions or alterations I'd be very happy to hear them.

 

Thanks, John

[5BarVT]

Hi John,

Yes, got your reply.  I’ve drawn up your latest plan to scale so you can see how it fits.  I’ll draw up some other options keeping the same basic principles so you can see how they might work too.  Think of them as ‘starters for 10’.

Re Traincontroller, also happy to make comment.  TC Bronze is very limited and won’t do a lot of the stuff I make use of frequently.  TC Gold is the best on the market technically (my opinion, others here disagree and I respect their view) but my fears about long term viability are being compounded rather than reduced by my observations of commentary on the TC Forum.

Others here will be able to help with the technicalities of e.g. iTrain when it comes to that point.

FYI, when I first bought Traincontroller I wasn’t looking for automatic train operation, I wanted a software controlled signalling system that I could make to look similar in style to a GB control panel.  TC was the only system that had that capability as far as I could see.  Automation was an add on that I have found to be something that ticks a lot of my boxes!

Paul.