New Year, new home and a new layout - aka going around in circles

[HookedAgain]

Hi everyone,

As the title suggests, I have recently moved home and feel myself being drawn back to the hobby.  

 

I have watched countless hours of video, poked around several forums and viewed literally hundreds of pictures, however, I am really stumped with regard to the design of my layout.......

 

EDITED: When I first started, I had hoped that I would have room for a U-shaped run around design, unfortunately, the dimension of the end wall at (D) is too small to accommodate a double track curved loop.  This means that the return loops will have to be incorporated in at the top right of the plan (C).

 

Currently, the room is a blank canvas and apart from the 125mm square support pillar shown on the plan, clear for use.  The only restriction I have placed on myself is to try to leave the area under the benchwork at D clear to enable me to have a pull out modelling bench.

 

Probably best if I detail some must haves, would like and items to be avoided:

 

Must have:

• OO Gauge
• Steam era, post war - pre nationalisation 
• Scenery rich

 

Would likes:

• Minimum Radius 3 preferred
• Permanent installation - not intended to be modular

• Based on Rural GWR infrastructure - no specific location
• Prefer to have double track main line
• Run around mainline track(s) (either on scenic level or via lower storage yard)
• Storage area/fiddle yard below main layout
• Branch line crossing below (or above) the main line(s) / loop
• Ability to feed branch line trains into loop or helix so that it could access fiddle yard
• Entrances / exits to helix hidden by tunnels

 

To be avoided:

• Duck under or lift out sections to access room.  EDITED:  I don't want visitors, especially elderly relatives to have to crawl below track work or for me to have to remove sections to allow them access) - (lift out access panels in scenic areas would be ok if access from the front is not possible)     

 

The idea of placing the fiddle yard below the main display layout using helices was inspired by Charlie's Chadwick. 

 

With regard to the room layout plan, since (D) is the narrowest part of the layout, I thought of placing a branch line terminus (something like a condensed / simplified Fairford) in this corner.  The sketch I have included was only a scribble to get an idea of how I could fit something in this area and could probably be condensed further by using slips in lieu of some of the points.  

 

One idea I had was to have a twin track loop running around the L shape (Between A, B and C) with the option of allowing the train to run around the loop on the scenic level or to disappear from view via a helix, through the storage yard and then reappear on the scenic layer via the other helix, however, if space is too much of a constraint, I would be prepared to have the loop run under the layout only.

 

Perhaps the branch line could be set as an end to end line feeding a platform also fed by the mainline loop.

 

With regard to the lower level, the storage yard would be confined to A thru C.  The design of the storage yard is irrelevant at this stage apart from allowing a train to run from the output of one helix to the input of the other.

 

Control will be via DCC++EX, I have already built an operational system that can run via a mimic panel, block detection and a handheld wireless throttle or via a laptop running JMRI.  At this stage my preference is the mimic panel as I have already spent too long sitting behind a computer.

 

Probably of little interest, but as I already have a fair bit of Peco code 75 Bullhead track, I will build the main scenic areas with this and the non scenic areas with Peco code 100, I might even use set track for the helix if used.

 

The construction of the layout will depend upon the design, but I am tending to lean towards an open frame setup, however, this may all change!

 

If anyone has any ideas, please feel free to speak up, any help / suggestions would be gratefully received.

 

Cheers

 

Hooked Again

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by HookedAgain

[RobinofLoxley]

Have a quick look at discussion on the nearby thread started by I T G.

You need to explain please what you mean by no duck under or lift out section since you've already identified a u shape doesn't work. 

 

Also confirm what year approx you are looking at. End of war to Nationalisation was 1945 -8, a bit tricky to be so specific.

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2023 by RobinofLoxley

[HookedAgain]

Good morning @RobinofLoxleythank you for your message.

 

I will edit my original post as I agree, it is somewhat ambiguous and doesn't convey what I meant.

 

I am hoping to utilise as much space as possible for the layout, without the need for lifting out sections to access the room, as such it will be U shaped, but the dimensions of the corner at D preclude the use of a 3rd radius loop, such a loop would need to be located a corner C, hence why I had considered placing a branch line terminus at D.

 

Finally, with regard to the era I want to model, I am not aiming for a specific year - but rather suggest scenes that may have existed somewhere during this rough time frame. For example, I wouldn't want BR liveries on locomotives, vehicles, buildings etc. and don't want locomotives etc. that hadn't been designed/built.  

 

All the best

 

Hooked Again

 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

OK one point addressed. Do I assume that what you mean is you want to avoid a duck-under to get in the room but either that or a lift out section on the main track lines is OK. Because without that it will be a struggle.

 

Era is only important insofar as you get cues from the track layout telling you, as post diesel era, and in some cases earlier, the amount of track started to diminish but otherwise you have significant goods facilities and handling for steam locos normally meaning a turntable.

 

Also look up Lyneworth and Millhampton, a layout designed by Harlequin of this parish.

[Chimer]

Without leaping into a detailed design, your runaround mainline could perhaps be a mid-level dogbone with the loops in corners A and C.  A branch could lead to a (higher level??) terminus along CD, and another branch to a helix in corner A.  From the bottom of the helix, you could run at low level to another dogbone loop at C, with storage loops along the wall BC.  The mainline dogbone could be single track (which would look double where visible), or double track throughout (which would give much more visible running but might cramp things up too much).  The junctions to terminus and helix might possibly be incorporated into a mainline station, but open junctions "out in the country" would be much simpler, if you were prepared to do without a mainline station. 

 

The only duck-unders would be to get to emergency manholes in the centres of the loops in corners A and C.

 

And having written that, I've re-read your OP and realised that conforms pretty well to your para starting "One idea I had" except that I'm only thinking of one helix, which would serve as an out and back to the storage loops.

 

Any good?

[Chimer]

Additional semi-random additional thoughts (before Robin notices and tells me off 🙂) - a double-track dogbone would need a second helix, otherwise everything would end up on the same (outer) circuit with no way back.  And with a helix at A and another at C, you could do away with helix junctions and have a visible double track main line joining the tops, and the storage loops/fiddle yard joining the bottoms.  Which would leave lots of room for a decent junction station on the AB wall to spring the branch from.

[DCB]

The room is  about 25% of the floor area you need for your dream layout.  Its about the size of my loft where the never to be completed because its too complicated layout resides.  That has access from the middle and is pretty wierd. Its too complicated electrically to be worked if I finish it.    You could use N gauge.

Post war GWR 1945 to 1948 ish is a good period. Lots of models, the weird stuff was mainly scrapped by then and lots of GWR  models are post war livery and the ones that aren't just need weathering as they hadn't been shopped since 1940.

You need a Lift out, or up section over the doorway.  Big solid hinges, securely screwed to the wall its dead easy to operate if done well, 

Or a Terminus fy set up, as a dog bone won't fit Its all 3rd radius if you want to get at the back corner    See doodle. My loft layout handles 9 coach  trains in a similar space.   Spirals eat space.  I'm thinking train lift between levels here.  Low level storage, mid level main line, upper branch terminus.   But it's a waste of time suggesting anything if you wont bridge the doorway.

Edited January 14, 2023 by DCB

[Chimer]

8 hours ago, DCB said:

The room is  about 25% of the floor area you need for your dream layout.  Its about the size of my loft where the never to be completed because its too complicated layout resides.  That has access from the middle and is pretty wierd. Its too complicated electrically to be worked if I finish it.    You could use N gauge.

Post war GWR 1945 to 1948 ish is a good period. Lots of models, the weird stuff was mainly scrapped by then and lots of GWR  models are post war livery and the ones that aren't just need weathering as they hadn't been shopped since 1940.

You need a Lift out, or up section over the doorway.  Big solid hinges, securely screwed to the wall its dead easy to operate if done well, 

Or a Terminus fy set up, as a dog bone won't fit Its all 3rd radius if you want to get at the back corner    See doodle. My loft layout handles 9 coach  trains in a similar space.   Spirals eat space.  I'm thinking train lift between levels here.  Low level storage, mid level main line, upper branch terminus.   But it's a waste of time suggesting anything if you wont bridge the doorway.

 

Those circles look about 5 foot in diameter to me ...

 

[HookedAgain]

Hi everyone,

 

Thank you for your responses, I think it is time to go back to the drawing board - in this case literally!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DCB]

Its all about compromise, as # chimer says my circle at C was  enough for 4 tracks, 3rd 4th 2ft  2ft 2" rad to give some storage or for 2ft min rad if the loop was visible and the  one at A around the pillar for visual effect, it could have been squeezed inside but if you want the look and feel of those layouts featured in Railway Muddler you would be better off with all an round the room.   However, if you don't mind 70% of your train mileage in a tunnel, and TFL seem quite happy to run their trains that way, and can afford the cost of ready to run helix, or the hair tearing reality of building your own the dog bone might work. I have a three level dog bone in my mind.  I had better stop now before my brain starts hurting. 

[Steam Revival]

Hi,

 

Just had a quick play with Scarm, sorry no points etc, I am still trying to learn how to use the program.

 

Fully realise that boards may be too deep for access to rear track, but all curves are min R3.  
 

Red (branch line) dips below main line, max gradient 2.2%. Haven’t drawn in your branch line terminus…….

 

Might be best to reduce the width of boards and curve the edges to give a flowing design - but what do I know !?

 

Andy

 

 

[Kris]

If you were to move the station to the rear of the board you could then alter the run of the branchline allowing for an even shallower gradient. If you then wanted to reduce it further you could add some very shallow gradients to the main line as well. 

[HookedAgain]

Thanks everyone,

 

@Steam Revivalthank you for the time you have spent on the plan, I too have been messing around with SCARM as well as XTracCAD and AnyRail so please don't apologise, I really appreciate your efforts.

 

our designs are very similar except that I fed the branch line over to the other side of the station, therefore only crossing the main line once, but I can see an aesthetic value in your approach. 

[Steam Revival]

You are very welcome! It was a fun thing to do!  
 

I wasn’t sure how to design the mainline station, perhaps too simplistic as it stands. 

 

I guess it would benefit from storage, shunting, goods and coal yards.

[DCB]

Although it doesn't meet  the

Storage area/fiddle yard below main layout requirement

You could make  # Steam Revival's plan better by swinging the branch behind the main station.  That would make the branch gradient possible , its 1 in 10 ish at present.  see doodle.  Bringing the mainlines forward would leave room for two very long loops, effectively 4 tracks from A to A behind  a backscene, maybe add extra crossovers but you could have 3 or 4 trains each way before taking stuff off the layout and replacing it. 

[Chimer]

I got this far, noting the OP was inspired by helices, here using 28" and 30" radii and needing access manholes ......

 

Junction station needs a lot of work, branch terminus on the end of the green line rising from the junction, storage loops inside radius 30".

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

Hi HookedAgain,

 

You've described some quite complex infrastructure that would take a long time to build and get right but I note that all of that infrastructure is in the "would like to have" group and the "must haves" are very simple and straightforward.

 

So wouldn't it be better to design something a bit simpler that gets your "must-haves" more directly?

 

The only thing on your "must-not-have" list is a lift-out section. Fair enough, if you literally mean a section that has to be lifted out and placed aside, but consider hinged lifting flaps or hinged gate-style sections (typically non-scenic). They are very easy to operate and wouldn't be a significant block to visitors. If you have one across the doorway then it would make a simple double-track roundy round layout much easier to set up.

 

There's enough room for a roundy-round all on the same level, with a station and fiddle yard on opposing sides of the room and for a branch line to rise at a reasonable gradient so that it sits completely, or partially, above the FY with plenty of clearance. That would give scenery nearly all round and lots of unclutterd space in the middle for you and your visitors to admire the layout.

Edit: Sorry, I posted that in a hurry during a lull at work and I notice that some of it restates what others have already said.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Harlequin

[RobinofLoxley]

While there's some room for doubt about the OP's real requirement there were but three must haves.

 

00 gauge

 

Postwar prenationalisation steam

 

Scenery rich

 

[HookedAgain]

Hello again,

 

I hope that this finds everyone well.

 

Thank you once again for everyone's suggestions, I very much appreciate everyone taking the time to contribute.

 

Hindsight is a glorious thing and with that in mind, I wish that I had given my room dimensions to indicate an L shaped room.   It would have precluded me from having to apologise and say that I am just not interested in a hinged section or lift out portion of track.  Sorry for being so blunt and for possibly upsetting anyone in the process, I don't mean to, but this form of layout (in this location) isn't for me.  I can certainly see how this works for most people and indeed, if I were building this in my loft, then it is probably the direction I would take.

 

This is intended as a long term project, a little world where I can improve my modelling skills and hopefully change my wife's attitude to the hobby 

 

In terms of what would work for me,  I really like the simplicity of @Steam Revival's design with @DCB's modification. This would offer two distinct station areas both with sidings for added interest and an area between which can be landscaped.

 

However, I am intrigued by @Chimer's dual helix design which could add even more flexibility and opportunity for automation.  I believe it is standard practice for a descending loco to use the inner track of the helix to minimise the effects of the gradient......

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chimer]

20 minutes ago, HookedAgain said:

However, I am intrigued by @Chimer's dual helix design which could add even more flexibility and opportunity for automation.  I believe it is standard practice for a descending loco to use the inner track of the helix to minimise the effects of the gradient......

 

That means descending trains going anti-clockwise in a British "keep left" scenario, so the entry and exit to the top right helix would have to be switched, which in turn would mean a tight right turn in the visible section on leaving the station.  Given the 28"/30" radii used for the helix, hopefully conforming to "standard practice" might not be as necessary as if using R3 and R4 ........

[Steam Revival]

35 minutes ago, HookedAgain said:

Sorry for being so blunt and for possibly upsetting anyone in the process, I don't mean to, but this form of layout (in this location) isn't for me.

I don’t think you need to apologise, this is your layout, you will be paying for it, building it and living with it, therefore, you must be happy with it!

[RobinofLoxley]

2 hours ago, HookedAgain said:

Hello again,

 

I hope that this finds everyone well.

 

Thank you once again for everyone's suggestions, I very much appreciate everyone taking the time to contribute.

 

Hindsight is a glorious thing and with that in mind, I wish that I had given my room dimensions to indicate an L shaped room.   It would have precluded me from having to apologise and say that I am just not interested in a hinged section or lift out portion of track.  Sorry for being so blunt and for possibly upsetting anyone in the process, I don't mean to, but this form of layout (in this location) isn't for me.  I can certainly see how this works for most people and indeed, if I were building this in my loft, then it is probably the direction I would take.

 

This is intended as a long term project, a little world where I can improve my modelling skills and hopefully change my wife's attitude to the hobby 

 

In terms of what would work for me,  I really like the simplicity of @Steam Revival's design with @DCB's modification. This would offer two distinct station areas both with sidings for added interest and an area between which can be landscaped.

 

However, I am intrigued by @Chimer's dual helix design which could add even more flexibility and opportunity for automation.  I believe it is standard practice for a descending loco to use the inner track of the helix to minimise the effects of the gradient......

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but this isnt helpful. It doesnt matter so much about the dimensions of the space but its necessary to be clear about whether you will duck under a baseboard to get into the interior of the layout or not. Or is there something that hasnt been disclosed, like a disability?

 

For any layout a limit is required on reach-over which i would normally set at 80cm straight on, which would make 90-95 cm on a diagonal reach to a corner, assuming curved track around a corner, from the furthest track element to the baseboard edge. This is required so that derailed or stalled stock can be rerailed, moved or given the hand of god treatment. Nothing presented so far complies with this restriction, mainly because without information, people either start to guess, or do nothing. If anyone is going to devote a couple of hours to developing a decent proposal they dont expect to be told, 'Oh, I dont want that'. 

[sjp23480]

@HookedAgain there have been a lot of responses to your questions, I see you have been "messing about" with xtrkcad and SCARM.  It might be really productive to show us where you are at in your deliberations so that we can begin to help narrow the focus?

[DCB]

If yo wanted a complete nightmare of maxed out 3/4th radius spirals impossible access and master craftsman type construction I reckon this might do   add  extra storage to taste but trains can tail chase or dog bone return loop around one spiral and under the other.  My phone email are down hence the delay in responding having to use the library...