New room,new ideas please.

[ITG]

I’m at a stage where I can start to firm up a layout plan for a brand new space, in fact an (almost) dedicated room in part of a new build extension. This means this project will inevitably be a slow burn, as firstly, the usable room is still a few months away, and secondly, I’m sure I’ll have plenty of other tasks found for me, as the new overall extension needs furnishing etc!

The room is 5.25m x 2.4m, with a single entrance door on one of the long sides. There are windows on each short side, with radiators below. The attached photo diagram shows the basic room, with corners ABCD, and the doorway. This opens inwards, mainly because the other side of that door is the lounge, and I can’t get away with a door opening into there. However, I’ll explain later (see 4 below), I don’t see this door opening as a major issue.

Some background to what I’d like to achieve.

1.       I already have a (smaller) 00 layout in a different room, which I plan to dismantle to source track and rolling stock for the new space. The modelling era is loosely 50s-70s, running a mix of DCC locos (both steam and diesel), in no specific geographical location. I’m happy to settle for 4 or 5 coach trains, and (hidden) minimum 2nd radius curves. (using both Streamline and SetTrack)

2.       I’m what I’d call a ‘general impression’ modeller, rather than defined era- or location-specific, and I’m more drawn to the layout building, and the electronics and technical aspects, rather than scratch-building or detail.

3.       The technical aspirations now extend to using iTrain software to (at least partially) automate the layout. I foresee trains circulating and inter-changing, and pulling in/out of station(s) whilst I shunt and assemble departures and arrivals. The use of automation leads me to aim for a double-track mainline circuit, and a degree of complexity in the track plan, with station(s) and hidden storage loops yard (NB. Not Fiddle yard, shunting by hand is not my preference). Having a storage yard of this nature also suggests to me that a reversing loop would be useful. Inevitably, the whole lot will need two levels, with associated inclines, for whcih I hope to get away with 2% (easily managed by locos/trains on existing layout).

4.       My already existing layout (in a smaller space of 3.4m x 2m) does include (a squeeze!) many of the above requirements (without iTrain), and thus I accept I fall into the ‘modelling inside the railway fence’ category of modeller, with a lot of tracks at the expense of rolling countryside.  The existing layout room has caused me to realise two “I wish I had” factors; firstly, I wish I had space for a small workbench and secondly, ducking under even a reasonably high baseboard gets annoying, especially if other household stuff is stored in that room. So, I’d like to address these two points in the new room. And that’s why I say the door opening into the room may not be a problem, because I’m minded to try to keep the whole corner of C-F-E free for both access and workbench.

5.       A couple of layout threads on RMWeb which ring bells for me are Dongits and Crewlisle, both of which incorporate many of my aspirations.

6.       A couple of approaches I’ve been doodling on Anyrail are:

a.       A dogbone type, with the ends in corners B & D, and probably with at least one helix to gain the clearance for the lower storage yard.

b.       A circular layout stretching to ABED, which may then require a lift-up section somewhere between B & E. A helix may be needed for clearance here as well.

So, I’m now hoping that the combined wisdom of RM Web can help me plan – and deliver – my new layout, likely to be the biggest space I’ll ever have.

Please feel free to challenge my thinking, ask questions or suggest alternatives. I see this as like a jigsaw, with many small input components to assemble, but without a lid picture at present.

TIA,

Ian

Edited January 3, 2023 by ITG
spelling

[Stubby47]

As layout building & electronics is your preferred aspect, why not make a series of shorter sections ( stations, yards, industrial complexes), connected by your double track Mainline. This way you can get something moving quite quickly ( double track loop + storage), then intersperse the main with new sections as required.

[AndyB]

Coincidentally the space and configuration you describe is very similar to my own. 

Over the years it's hosted a large OO layout that filled the BADEB with a duck under between B and E. That layout was a Minories on the BA side linked to an out and back / continuous run. TBH it was quite like Scalectrix.

Then I tried a dogbone ABCF single track branchkine in OO.

A move to N gauge most recently has allowed me to have a U-shaped layout EDAB branch line terminus with a workbench at FCB. This doesn't have a duck under.

 

The reason for mentioning each of these is that over the years I've iterated to a simpler layout which uses less space but is far more practicable overall. 

 

In your circumstances I'd consider an out and back with a decent sized station along the BA wall, some storage sidings on the DE wall and a turnaround loop out into the room at E. You could use your interest in automation and electronics to get a busy service going whilst operating the station yourself? Workbench on the CB wall.

 

Good luck and I'll watch this design either interest as others pitch ideas in. 

[RobinofLoxley]

Interestingly my loft space is similar to yours and my modelling approach too. I knew there must be somebody out there....

 

Would be better if the door opened out.

 

Things like helixes are possible in this space

[Harlequin]

A helix eats up space and creates a big no-go zone, especially if the gradient is within reasonable limits.

 

Simple helices can also limit operations in terms of running direction: Imagine a double-track main line with "up" and "down" sides connected to a double-track helix; only trains running on the "Down" line can get down to the FY and trains coming up from the FY always end up running on the "Up" line unless you design in a reversing loop and/or a triangle junction. It can all get very tricky.

 

Instead, you could build a "helix" of sorts into a "folded figure of eight" type layout. One fold would run round on the level and the other fold would run gradients down to a lower level fiddle yard and back up again. That should leave the centre of the room clear and give you a good distance to ensure that the gradients are sensible. Trains can run in either direction out of the FY by means of a simple crossover at the exit (and running around and turning the loco if needed). The geometry would need to be checked to know whether that's actually feasible!

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Harlequin

[RobinofLoxley]

Is a sliding door possible as an alternative? You are conceding a lot of space there. It just makes planning more tricky, while a rectangular space does encourage thinking about roundy types I just think its handy to have full access to the perimeter, even if you dont use all of it. Phils outline will clearly work, it fits in my space 😀

[ITG]

1 hour ago, Stubby47 said:

As layout building & electronics is your preferred aspect, why not make a series of shorter sections ( stations, yards, industrial complexes), connected by your double track Mainline. This way you can get something moving quite quickly ( double track loop + storage), then intersperse the main with new sections as required.

Thanks Stubby. That may very well be what happens in practice, but I will need to develop plans in advance as to what goes where, so I can plan baseboard requirements, and what supports them. In some places, that may be surplus kitchen units, with no worktop. Thinking I can then access via open cupboard doors if I need to get under the baseboard.

ian

[ITG]

34 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

A helix eats up space and creates a big no-go zone, especially if the gradient is within reasonable limits.

 

Simple helices can also limit operations in terms of running direction: Imagine a double-track main line with "up" and "down" sides connected to a double-track helix; only trains running on the "Down" line can get down to the FY and trains coming up from the FY always end up running on the "Up" line unless you design in a reversing loop and/or a triangle junction. It can all get very tricky.

 

Instead, you could build a "helix" of sorts into a "folded figure of eight" type layout. One fold would run round on the level and the other fold would run gradients down to a lower level fiddle yard and back up again. That should leave the centre of the room clear and give you a good distance to ensure that the gradients are sensible. Trains can run in either direction out of the FY by means of a simple crossover at the exit (and running around and turning the loco if needed). The geometry would need to be checked to know whether that's actually feasible!

 

Some good points Phil.

my current layout’s upper board is 150mm above the lower board, which allowing for 10mm board thickness and 25mm aluminium tubing framework, nets down to 115mm clearance. Plenty for 00 gauge stock, but tight for an arm and hand when needed. My thoughts about a helix were aimed at making a gross height 200 mm above the lower board, which, at 2% needs 10 metres length of incline. Ignoring track curves in corners for a moment, that eats up one long side at 5.25m and both short widths of 2.4m each. And that would only be one way. Hence the idea of a helix to get the track down the other side.

 

I’m open to the idea of the station being either through, terminus or a bit of both. I see the advantage of a terminus being that the incline only needs to be one way, and probably also the reversing loop only needs to be one way, as all traffic will initiate either from the terminus or the storage yard.

 

But I will juggle around in Anyrail to see what some outlines look like.

ian

[ITG]

32 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Is a sliding door possible as an alternative? You are conceding a lot of space there. It just makes planning more tricky, while a rectangular space does encourage thinking about roundy types I just think its handy to have full access to the perimeter, even if you dont use all of it. Phils outline will clearly work, it fits in my space 😀

Technically, yes, I could consider a sliding door. It would have to be on this train room side, and would need to slide into the room towards B as opposed into the corner C (the wall that side is too short). The wall with the door on was previously an outside wall, so not really practical to have a ‘pocket’ slider (slides into the wall), which means the door itself will bring some impediment to a metre of wall, and the baseboard location.

I was also thinking that the corner C, if not used for baseboards, would allow an open area of some 1.5m x 1.5m (at least) for a little domestic storage and workbench. Another factor is that OH is not keen for baseboard edge (ie reverse of backscene) to be visible from outside at a higher level than the window sill. (Which it will be). So keeping that end at least partly free fulfills another planning permission restriction!

 

Robin, I’d be interested to see your layout plan if possible.

Ian

Edited January 3, 2023 by ITG
Addition

[ITG]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Instead, you could build a "helix" of sorts into a "folded figure of eight" type layout. One fold would run round on the level and the other fold would run gradients down to a lower level fiddle yard and back up again. That should leave the centre of the room clear and give you a good distance to ensure that the gradients are sensible. Trains can run in either direction out of the FY by means of a simple crossover at the exit (and running around and turning the loco if needed). The geometry would need to be checked to know whether that's actually feasible!

Phil.

I've had a play in Anyrail. See attachment. I've drawn a simple single track folded-8, with coloured track to respectively show the potential extent of both the station and the storage yards. Unless you can see a different way of juggling it, looks to me that the gradients are steeper than I'd hoped for. Hence why I thought tucking a hlelix into corner B would work to lessen the slopes. The plan as drawn uses the corner B to full extent, which then leaves corner C (yellow area) as a clear workbench area.  

Any thoughts?

Ian

[AndyB]

1 hour ago, ITG said:

.. , so I can plan baseboard requirements, and what supports them. In some places, that may be surplus kitchen units, with no worktop. Thinking I can then access via open cupboard doors if I need to get under the baseboard.

ian

 

Ian,

Just a word of warning based on my own experience. My current layout sits on kitchen cupboards topped with chipboard and these have sagged. I suspect due to the weight of stuff rammed into them. Or possibly damp.

I'm currently stripping these out with the intention of constructing a purpose-built open frame. The detritus will be in plastic storage boxes that slide in between the frame.

Andy

[ITG]

39 minutes ago, AndyB said:

 

Ian,

Just a word of warning based on my own experience. My current layout sits on kitchen cupboards topped with chipboard and these have sagged. I suspect due to the weight of stuff rammed into them. Or possibly damp.

I'm currently stripping these out with the intention of constructing a purpose-built open frame. The detritus will be in plastic storage boxes that slide in between the frame.

Andy

Thanks for the info. I’m not sure yet how I might mount the baseboard above the cupboards. It may be they will be on legs, with the cupboard units freestanding below. Or cross members on the cupboards supporting the boards. And as the room is heated, I shouldn’t have damp problems.

[Harlequin]

Fixed cupboards underneath fixed layouts are usually a bad idea because they are very difficult to get inside when you need to do something to the underside of the layout. (Actually, more than difficult: painful!)

 

It's OK if the cupboards can be slid out (e.g. on castors perhaps) or if the layout boards can be lifted out or hinged up above fixed cupboards.

 

Thinking about the general plan, it seems to me that the area under the right hand window is the ideal space for the workbench with a bit of free space behind it that the door opens into. (It would be better if the door was hung the other way.) The layout could extend into that space above the workbench level along the AB side and that implies a terminus with buffer stops at B. Then the remainder of the space ADE and up to the top wall is available for circuits, helices, whatever. Not sure how that might be arranged but if the door opened the other way, then to the left of E and tight against the wall would be the ideal place for a helix/reversing loop if you want one. That would leave enough space to get past into the main operating well. And from the loop-behind-the-door across to the top wall would be the ideal place for a simple double track lifting flap, if required.

 

Sketch:

 

Red: high level to terminus

Blue: mid level roundy with small terminus

Yellow: helix to low level storage

 

Don't take that too literally!

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Harlequin

[ITG]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Fixed cupboards underneath fixed layouts are usually a bad idea because they are very difficult to get inside when you need to do something to the underside of the layout. (Actually, more than difficult: painful!)

 

It's OK if the cupboards can be slid out (e.g. on castors perhaps) or if the layout boards can be lifted out or hinged up above fixed cupboards.

 

Thinking about the general plan, it seems to me that the area under the right hand window is the ideal space for the workbench with a bit of free space behind it that the door opens into. (It would be better if the door was hung the other way.) The layout could extend into that space above the workbench level along the AB side and that implies a terminus with buffer stops at B. Then the remainder of the space ADE and up to the top wall is available for circuits, helices, whatever. Not sure how that might be arranged but if the door opened the other way, then to the left of E and tight against the wall would be the ideal place for a helix/reversing loop if you want one. That would leave enough space to get past into the main operating well. And from the loop-behind-the-door across to the top wall would be the ideal place for a simple double track lifting flap, if required.

 

Sketch:

 

Red: high level to terminus

Blue: mid level roundy with small terminus

Yellow: helix to low level storage

 

Don't take that too literally!

 

Interesting Phil, as that sketch is pretty close in outline to one of many scribbles I’ve been doodling. The door can be reversed as it’s not there yet (in fact, earlier this week, the hole for the door hadn’t yet been knocked in the existing wall!) Agree about the right hand area being good for a workbench, which also ticks the “domestic planning permission” box of avoiding a baseboard back scene across the window.

 

As for kitchen cupboards, that’s a good point. In my existing room, I do have one large sideboard under, and supporting, a board, and it is a pain for maintenance. I do have other smaller shelf units, which I can slide out, but none are on casters. I think I may explore using the kitchen cabinets on castors, and spacing them apart so that I can move them in various directions if needed. In any case, as there potentially some 15 linear metres of baseboard, I don’t have that length of cupboards, so underboard space will occur naturally.

Ian

[Chimer]

I think this is not too dissimilar to Phil's thinking ...... not fully developed, obviously.  

 

 

Brown - dumbbell with storage loops on lower level

Blue - terminus (one I made earlier) at higher level.  Probably with loco stabling in the bottom left corner rather than the goods yard I had in the original.

Green incline joining the two (something around 20 feet total length, so 4'5" (ish) at 2% grade.

Dotted green - helix if required for greater separation.

 

The brown line that goes nowhere is hinting at a flying double junction, though the point that actually leads to the lower level dumbbell  is the one immediately after the storage yard throat.

 

You would need a couple of emergency access manholes bottom left and top right (and maybe top left).  Big enough to get a head and one arm through!

 

Third radius minimum.

 

Food for thought?

 

Cheers, Chris

[RobinofLoxley]

Very much food for thought. I have seen that terminus somwhere before, you might have tried to disguise it at least......

 

One trouble here is the yard level in the top left corner is below the main running lines and behind them. I would think that would look a bit odd, with acres of space behind the running lines to be scenic. I appreciate that the plan is drawn for clarity and the blue lines can somehow move to the left, over the top of the yard tracks. Both dumbells are good solutions, provided that to the right is below window level; I was looking at descending lines there for the same reason.

 

Workspace remains an issue as does cabinet storage.

[Chimer]

2 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

One trouble here is the yard level in the top left corner is below the main running lines and behind them. I would think that would look a bit odd, with acres of space behind the running lines to be scenic. I appreciate that the plan is drawn for clarity and the blue lines can somehow move to the left, over the top of the yard tracks. Both dumbells are good solutions, provided that to the right is below window level; I was looking at descending lines there for the same reason.

 

Yes.  I can't (now) see any reason not to put the terminus approach on a viaduct behind the storage yards and bring the yard forward a bit.  Would help with emergency access bottom right too.  Whether I'll remember a reason for doing what I did when I try to change it around, who knows?

[RobinofLoxley]

Just a very vague outline concept.

 

From upper level station around the perimeter, using the distance to descend and pass behind another station one level lower. The line then goes to the helix, with one line going round again to the second station and another decends down the helix to a yard along the long side, with a reverse loop in the lower corner. Wasnt sure about the amount of structure near the rhs window, but that whole area is a bit of a puzzle with the constraints.

 

[ITG]

Thanks you all for the ideas. There are some common threads beginning to emerge, which is heartening if only to reassure me that the aspirations I initially stated are not impossible.

 

4 hours ago, Chimer said:

The brown line that goes nowhere is hinting at a flying double junction, though the point that actually leads to the lower level dumbbell  is the one immediately after the storage yard throat.

@Chimer not sure I quite understand this? Are you referring to the brown line between the two double track green lines on the upper half of the plan? And where did you mean it was potenially going?

 

I note the overall plan gives a strong impression of being double track mainline, but ultimately hidden in that is the fact that its ostensibly a single track out-and-back (as far I can see).

 

@RobinofLoxley Thanks for the suggestion re Chimers yard. I prefer it in front of the higher main lines as you suggest. On your outline plan, I like the idea of squeezing (if thats the right word) two stations, but I need to explore how to expand your suggestion. I've had a few of my own attempts that initially seem to work, but then when you work out radii and gradients, the geometry doesn't.

 

Below are two views of a plan I've been playing with. The station is not shown, other than being marked by the pink tracks. Platform lines etc would need to be added. Also, goods facilities and loco roads need adding in, although these potenially could be separated from the station area. The green tracks are the storage roads running into, and out of, a level reversing loop below a helix, which is necessary to give enough separation to allow what is in effect three levels along that rear wall; 1. the storage yard and reversing loop; 2. the station level and 3. the lines running to the junction in between the first two levels.

Note the orange line on the left. I learnt of this (or stole shamelessly) from Bloodnoks  Dongits layout. It seems, though I'm still getting my head round this, that this orange line is the real reversing loop, and thus the only one that needs polarity switching. The biggest difference to Dongits is that I've changed his terminus to a through station, really to simplify things in the space I have available.

Comments welcome.

 

[Chimer]

17 minutes ago, ITG said:

 

@Chimer not sure I quite understand this? Are you referring to the brown line between the two double track green lines on the upper half of the plan? And where did you mean it was potenially going?

 

I note the overall plan gives a strong impression of being double track mainline, but ultimately hidden in that is the fact that its ostensibly a single track out-and-back (as far I can see).

 

 

You're right about it being a single track out and back, but with an extra loop (brown dumbbell top right) to provide a continuous run on the lower level (for running-in etc, or just to have something running while you shunt the terminus).  So the green gradient comes down into the middle of the dumbbell on the bottom level.  The line that goes nowhere (which you've correctly identified) is just there to give the impression of a double flying junction in the middle of this area which might be modelled as open country, where there would otherwise just be the single point which would look a bit strange.  Besides, I've always liked the look of flying junctions .....

 

Edit to say by "flying junction" (or "burrowing junction") I mean a double-track junction where one of the branching line tracks crosses under or over the main line on a bridge, instead of on the level using a diamond crossing.   Which takes up a huge amount of space ......

Edited January 4, 2023 by Chimer
Define flying junctiom

[RobinofLoxley]

1 hour ago, Chimer said:

 

You're right about it being a single track out and back, but with an extra loop (brown dumbbell top right) to provide a continuous run on the lower level (for running-in etc, or just to have something running while you shunt the terminus).  So the green gradient comes down into the middle of the dumbbell on the bottom level.  The line that goes nowhere (which you've correctly identified) is just there to give the impression of a double flying junction in the middle of this area which might be modelled as open country, where there would otherwise just be the single point which would look a bit strange.  Besides, I've always liked the look of flying junctions .....

 

Edit to say by "flying junction" (or "burrowing junction") I mean a double-track junction where one of the branching line tracks crosses under or over the main line on a bridge, instead of on the level using a diamond crossing.   Which takes up a huge amount of space ......

I was about to give almost exactly the same answer..........with that length of track, there is almost no difference between a double track and out and back, because there's a lot of capacity in the storage yard and the dumbell itself, and even there is some scope for double track.

[Harlequin]

Notice that I drew my reversing loop and helix in the same place to optimise the use of the space and with a generous radius to ease the gradient. A small helix may save space but of course the gradient is then much steeper.

[Chimer]

5 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Notice that I drew my reversing loop and helix in the same place to optimise the use of the space and with a generous radius to ease the gradient. A small helix may save space but of course the gradient is then much steeper.

 

Yep, I reckoned with mine a helix probably wasn't necessary.  But if one did go in, it would need to be bigger than the 3rd/4th radius shown.  360 degrees @ 24" radius about 150", so a 3" gain would be a 2% grade.  And the tighter the bend, the greater the drag.

[ITG]

55 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Notice that I drew my reversing loop and helix in the same place to optimise the use of the space and with a generous radius to ease the gradient. A small helix may save space but of course the gradient is then much steeper.

 

42 minutes ago, Chimer said:

 

Yep, I reckoned with mine a helix probably wasn't necessary.  But if one did go in, it would need to be bigger than the 3rd/4th radius shown.  360 degrees @ 24" radius about 150", so a 3" gain would be a 2% grade.  And the tighter the bend, the greater the drag.

I’d been looking at some laser cut helices, using 2nd/3rd radius which gave approx 2.8/2.5% gradients respectively. In my evolving plans, I’d always tried to ensure that the tighter radius/steeper incline was always the downward track. Alternatively, the 3rd/4th radius ones give 2.5/2.2% inclines. I’d be hoping that I’d be ok with either, albeit recognising that both would compromise my intention of 2%.  
My existing layout does have a 2% incline with a 120 degree turn using 3rd radius, and all my locos handle it with ease with 4/5 coaches. Hence my optimism.

Ian

[Harlequin]

Have you seen the saga of the helices on Chadwick Model Railway?