A new shed layout

[Backintime]

Hi everyone, 

 

I have insulated & lined my shed and now I am looking for suggestions for a track plan please?

 

The internal/available space is 11’ 6” x 6’ 6”, the space looks enormous but having read many of the posts on here, it is really small! The door opens out and is in the middle of the long wall.  I haven’t installed any bench work yet so I am flexible but I would like to avoid a simple 2 dimensional oval.

I know steam locomotives are not good at climbing inclines but the real world is not flat and I would like to replicate this if possible.

I also know that it won’t sit well with many, but I won’t be modelling any specific location as I have LMS, GWR and LNER steam locomotives with both freight & passenger rolling stock, in terms of era it is probably going to be pre WW2.

 

I don’t think I want a separate fiddle yard but beyond that…..

 

Please be gentle with me!

 

Cheers

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AndyB]

Hi Mark 

I guess a first question is about which gauge you're working in? 

OO, N?

Andy

[Backintime]

42 minutes ago, AndyB said:

Hi Mark 

I guess a first question is about which gauge you're working in? 

OO, N?

Andy

Hi Andy,

 

Sorry, should have led with that, it will be OO, I already have quite a lot of track and all my locos are OO!

 

cheers

Mark

[AndyB]

OK. So before we get into the detailes of the eventual track plan let's define the space avaliable for the layout.

 

For now let's assume you want to maximise the size of layout and assume it'll run round the walls with you sat in the middle.

So width wise I'd say the operating well would be ~3' wide, leaving ~20" width baseboards on the long walls; you can tweak that by making one side deeper and the other shallower. 

 

There's a door on the long wall and rather than a duck under I'd strongly recommend a lift out section, say 2' - 2'6" wide.

 

 You don't want a 2d oval, but is that because of the trains and inclines? I could imagine some kind of gentle inclines which would allow a long figure-of-8 continuous run. Or did you want a terminus out and back style? 

[ITG]

I currently have a similar space, albeit the door is at one end of the long wall. The door is bridged by a duck under section, sited diagonally across the door corner.

I have a 00 twin track circuit, with a single line branch which climbs to a terminus located along the opposite (to the door) long wall. The incline is 2% and all locos handle it easily with 4-5 coaches. But to get that slope, it requires almost a full circuit of the room, as my terminus board is 150mm above the lower board, to allow access for dealing with problems. Radii are minimum 2nd, pretty much all hidden in various ways. The diagonal duck under section allows for a long sweeping curve across that visible area.

My boards are 600mm (2’) wide, which leaves an 800m wide centre gap. I also have a reversing loop at the lower level, mounted on a removable girder bridge, which bisects the operating well, to allow trains to return to the terminus. Granted, there’s a lot of track in the space available, which wouldn’t be to everyone’s taste.

But it may give you some idea of what is possible.

Ian

[Backintime]

Hi Andy,

 

Thank you for your response, I like the idea of a lift out section, especially as any scenery (within reason) could stay attached to the lift out section and a set of tapered pins could help to align track.  My knees would probably appreciate not having to duck under the board all the time, although that option is still possible.
As time goes on, I could probably engineer a pulley system or even jack screw system to help lift the board.  

The size of the baseboards / operating well was roughly what I was thinking. I would probably go with an irregular shaped well with curved edges rather than straight edges, but at this stage that is not important.

I mentioned not wanting a flat 2D oval layout because I used to have a Hornby double oval set. I always thought of that as being a starter set and although I had some rudimentary scenery (chicken wire & papier-mâché hills) it was very basic. 

A terminus station is very appealing and I would not totally rule it out, but I think I would rather have a loop of some description and if it were to have gentle inclines, so much the better.

Mark

 

 

 

[Backintime]

Hello Ian,

 

Thank you also for your post, very interesting.

I have to admit that I couldn’t visualise a 2% slope and had to look it up, but (1 in 50) seems very gentle and I am sure that even my old Triang Hall class could make it up that! 
A couple of questions if I may:

 

Did you use a commercial product to achieve a consistent gradient or did you engineer a local solution?

How do you switch polarity on your reversing loop?

Are you using DC or DCC?

 

Thank you

Mark

[ITG]

10 minutes ago, Backintime said:

Hello Ian,

 

Thank you also for your post, very interesting.

I have to admit that I couldn’t visualise a 2% slope and had to look it up, but (1 in 50) seems very gentle and I am sure that even my old Triang Hall class could make it up that! 
A couple of questions if I may:

 

Did you use a commercial product to achieve a consistent gradient or did you engineer a local solution?

How do you switch polarity on your reversing loop?

Are you using DC or DCC?

 

Thank you

Mark

1. I used the Woodland Scenics inclines, and I found them easy to use and are flexible so work around bends as well. Bear in mind that the ‘drag’ factor around an incline bend is greater than on the straight. Also, one needs to consider the transition between level and incline (at both top and bottom) so the rail does not go from 0% suddenly to 2%. This is where some locos may stall if you don’t get that right as the sharp transition may lift pick-up wheels. The visual downside of having a gradient and upper board in this sort of space is that it’s difficult to get separation of the branch away from the main line, so they run almost parallel albeit on different levels. The start of my gradient is actually below the terminus. When calculating clearance, remember that you need to allow for the thickness of the board and any bracing. Although my upper board is actually 150mm above, the net clearance is only 113mm, as the board is 12mm ply and I have aluminium tubular bracing of 25mm (used to keep it shallow).

2. I used the Gaugemaster auto reverse module (other makes area available). Works perfectly. The idea around the lift out bridge is that when I’m working on the layout, it can be removed making access easier. But obviously it’s in place for running sessions.

3. DCC

Ian

[AndyB]

So, Mark.

Taking this a bit further.

You'll need a workbench to assemble models and maintain rolling stock. I'd suggest putting that below baseboard height at one end of the shed. 

I'd consider a station at the other end of the shed which would have terminus platforms and through running (to allow you to sit back and watch the trains go by).

 

On the long wall opposite the door I'd suggest some combo like goods yard / small MPD / carriage sidings. 

 

I don't know if you hanker for a rural setting or more urban theme. If rural then ditch the MPD and carriage sidings. 

 

You could engineer a longer run between trains passing through the station by introducing gradients and a 2nd circuit avoiding the station.

[Harlequin]

17 hours ago, Backintime said:

Hi everyone, 

 

I have insulated & lined my shed and now I am looking for suggestions for a track plan please?

 

The internal/available space is 11’ 6” x 6’ 6”, the space looks enormous but having read many of the posts on here, it is really small! The door opens out and is in the middle of the long wall.  I haven’t installed any bench work yet so I am flexible but I would like to avoid a simple 2 dimensional oval.

I know steam locomotives are not good at climbing inclines but the real world is not flat and I would like to replicate this if possible.

I also know that it won’t sit well with many, but I won’t be modelling any specific location as I have LMS, GWR and LNER steam locomotives with both freight & passenger rolling stock, in terms of era it is probably going to be pre WW2.

 

I don’t think I want a separate fiddle yard but beyond that…..

 

Please be gentle with me!

 

Cheers

Mark

 

 

Hi Mark,

 

I don't think you've got room to have any sensible gradients, I'm afraid (except maybe on a terminal branch line of some sort). But you can build the layout using an open framework so that the ground level rises and falls around the track.

 

Your track doesn't have to be a literal oval. In fact you'll make better use of the space by widening your curves in places and cutting diagonally across one or more of the corners.

 

So, while at a simplistic level the layout might be a flat oval, it would in fact be much more interesting to look at.

 

[Backintime]

6 hours ago, ITG said:

1. I used the Woodland Scenics inclines, and I found them easy to use and are flexible so work around bends as well. Bear in mind that the ‘drag’ factor around an incline bend is greater than on the straight. Also, one needs to consider the transition between level and incline (at both top and bottom) so the rail does not go from 0% suddenly to 2%. This is where some locos may stall if you don’t get that right as the sharp transition may lift pick-up wheels. The visual downside of having a gradient and upper board in this sort of space is that it’s difficult to get separation of the branch away from the main line, so they run almost parallel albeit on different levels. The start of my gradient is actually below the terminus. When calculating clearance, remember that you need to allow for the thickness of the board and any bracing. Although my upper board is actually 150mm above, the net clearance is only 113mm, as the board is 12mm ply and I have aluminium tubular bracing of 25mm (used to keep it shallow).

2. I used the Gaugemaster auto reverse module (other makes area available). Works perfectly. The idea around the lift out bridge is that when I’m working on the layout, it can be removed making access easier. But obviously it’s in place for running sessions.

3. DCC

Ian

Hi Ian,

 

thank you for your reply and for the heads up re vertical clearance. DCC adds an interesting opportunity to try something different.
 

Cheers

Mark

[Backintime]

5 hours ago, AndyB said:

So, Mark.

Taking this a bit further.

You'll need a workbench to assemble models and maintain rolling stock. I'd suggest putting that below baseboard height at one end of the shed. 

I'd consider a station at the other end of the shed which would have terminus platforms and through running (to allow you to sit back and watch the trains go by).

 

On the long wall opposite the door I'd suggest some combo like goods yard / small MPD / carriage sidings. 

 

I don't know if you hanker for a rural setting or more urban theme. If rural then ditch the MPD and carriage sidings. 

 

You could engineer a longer run between trains passing through the station by introducing gradients and a 2nd circuit avoiding the station.

Hi Andy,

 

Thanks for your suggestions, I am tending to lean towards a rural setting with perhaps a small hamlet if space allows.  
 

I also like the idea of having some form of goods facility and possibly an engine shed, but I realise that this is a small space in real terms and I would rather have fewer buildings rather than cram too many together.

 

Originally, I had thought of portraying three ages of transport in the layout i.e. the past: a canal, the present: the railway and the future: a large trunk road under construction - but this might be too twee and has probably been over done!

 

once again, thank you for your inputs, 

Cheers

Mark

 

 

[AndyB]

Hi Mark.

So we're looking at a rural country through station by the sounds of it. 

 

One thing to remember is that stations serve communities, albeit sometimes the community may be at a distance from the station. So in terms of scenic treatment the rdgehof a hamlet or village could be hinted at; a useful corner filler and if you were trying to disguise a curve at a corner then even better.

I think a canal would be nice, but perhaps a trunk road may spoil the overall effect, IMHO. As ever, your layout, your choice is important to remember. 

Whilst you've said you don't want a fiddle yard it might be worth considering. For example you could turn the station into a junction with one fork going to a FY behind a backscene.

 

Here's what I have so far...

 

[Backintime]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

Hi Mark,

 

I don't think you've got room to have any sensible gradients, I'm afraid (except maybe on a terminal branch line of some sort). But you can build the layout using an open framework so that the ground level rises and falls around the track.

 

Your track doesn't have to be a literal oval. In fact you'll make better use of the space by widening your curves in places and cutting diagonally across one or more of the corners.

 

So, while at a simplistic level the layout might be a flat oval, it would in fact be much more interesting to look at.

 

Hi Phil,

 

thank you for your message, whilst disappointing to hear that my space is too small for serious gradients, I completely understand.
I am planning to use an open frame layout, so as you suggest, I can give the illusion of varied terrain, I also like the idea of a terminus / branch line.
 

Unfortunately, I can’t visualise how you would cut diagonally across a corner. May I ask how this would be achieved?

 

Cheers

Mark

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

43 minutes ago, Backintime said:

Hi Phil,

 

thank you for your message, whilst disappointing to hear that my space is too small for serious gradients, I completely understand.
I am planning to use an open frame layout, so as you suggest, I can give the illusion of varied terrain, I also like the idea of a terminus / branch line.
 

Unfortunately, I can’t visualise how you would cut diagonally across a corner. May I ask how this would be achieved?

 

Cheers

Mark

 

 

 

Hah, yes, easy: Have a look at Little Hermitage and other designs in my album. (Link in my signature block below.)

 

[AndyB]

16 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

I don't think you've got room to have any sensible gradients, I'm afraid (except maybe on a terminal branch line of some sort).

 

 

Sorry to circle back on this. 

 

Certainly having an open baseboard will allow terrain to rise and fall will help avoid a flat earth feel.

 

But if a gradient was introduced, for example, to provide a folded figure of 8 are you saying it's not possible to get one track to rise up over another track and descend back again to rejoin at the starting point in this space? It's been a while since I modelled in OO. But would a 3" clearance suffice, achieved over, say, 10' + 5' rising and the same to descend again?

Not forgetting that half that clearance could be achieved by having grades on both loops?

Is this about realism or loco pulling power?

Cheers. Andy.

 

[Harlequin]

26 minutes ago, AndyB said:

 

Sorry to circle back on this. 

 

Certainly having an open baseboard will allow terrain to rise and fall will help avoid a flat earth feel.

 

But if a gradient was introduced, for example, to provide a folded figure of 8 are you saying it's not possible to get one track to rise up over another track and descend back again to rejoin at the starting point in this space? It's been a while since I modelled in OO. But would a 3" clearance suffice, achieved over, say, 10' + 5' rising and the same to descend again?

Not forgetting that half that clearance could be achieved by having grades on both loops?

Is this about realism or loco pulling power?

Cheers. Andy.

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

I've just checked and you're right. I was wrong. A folded figure of eight works mathematically with ease even allowing for a decent level length for a station!

 

Sorry, I jumped in with a gut-feel response - should have done the maths first.

 

Getting both circuits to cross the doorway, while they are on different levels, would probably require a gate style movable section.

 

[Backintime]

2 hours ago, AndyB said:

Sorry to circle back on this

pun intended 😉

Andy & Ian, 

 

thank you for your inputs and Ian, thank you for pointing me towards you designs, all very interesting and certainly food for thought!

 

If I am understanding this correctly, one track could pass over the other (within my size constraints) by having a downward gradient on one track and up on the other?

 

This certainly is 3D thinking 🙂, I had been trying to mock-up the distance required for an overpass when adjusting one track only, allowing for a reduction in gradient for the curves, but this approach all but halves the required distance. Thank you both!

 

I have a couple of ideas for the entrance section which would accommodate both 2D & 3D arrangements.
 

Cheers

Mark
 

 

 

 

[AndyB]

Mark,

I think Phil's idea of a swing gate may be best long term. A lift out section may damaged. You could look at a hinged drawbridge as well. 

 

And yes, you've understood correctly; one track slopes down and one slopes up.

 

A bit like this:   <   and  >

 

Rather than this:   /___   ___\

 

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by AndyB

[Chimer]

To illustrate using the simplest example - a folded eight single line where brown track is on the level at the lowest point, suitable for a station, rising both ways to the bridge in the top left corner.  Here the gradient is 0.9% (just better than 1 in 100) on the outer loop and 1.3% (1 in 75ish) on the inner to give an elevation of 3" at the bridge.  To arrange things so both gradients flatten out to cross the doorway at the same elevation (making a lift out arrangement as easy as possible) should be do-able, but would obviously make the grades steeper.

 

Edit to add - with a 2'6" wide "bridge" across the doorway, both tracks at an elevation of 1.64" (!), and the track coming off the bridge behind the station staying at 3" until the curve, the worst gradient is 1.4% ....

 

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Chimer
Add extra info

[AndyB]

We'd need to factor in that a station platform would have to be horizontal, so that would steepen the gradients elsewhere. However, it probably wouldn't be too steep.

 

To that end it may be time to ask Mark what kind of trains (and their lengths) he has in mind. Are we talking 2 or 3 coaches? Or 4, 5  or 6? 

 

[Chimer]

I've allowed for the station being on the level, the brown, pink and green bits are flat .....

Edited January 31, 2023 by Chimer

[AndyB]

7 minutes ago, Chimer said:

I've allowed for the station being on the level, the brown, pink and green bits are flat .....

 

Sorry Chimer. Didn't spot that. My bad.

Looks like 8' of horizontal to include throats at each end plus platform.

Roughly does that feel like 4 coaches and a tender loco? 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

An interesting project.  I like the way the idea is being developed, but I wonder if I might chip in with a couple of thoughts?
 

Q for @Chimer: are those 2’ radius curves in the diagram?  If so I think that’s a good idea and I wouldn’t want the minimum to go tighter: with the curves on gradients, avoiding the tightest possible curvature seems sensible to me.  

I do wonder if 3” headroom is enough in OO where the tracks cross.  To me that seems tight: earlier @ITG quoted 150mm (gross) giving headroom of 113mm (nett), which I think is closer to 4.5”.  That seems more like it to me?  Just a thought.

 

Question for our host - in an earlier post an existing track collection is mentioned: is that Setrack or Flextrack?  To my mind, using Flextrack and larger points is the easiest way to get away from something that looks like a Train Set, which is mentioned as something you’d like to do.

 

And a final question for @Backintime, you mention not being sure whether you want a fiddle yard or not.  There are a number of different ways of operating a model railway, and in my experience it’s what you enjoy and / or want to have at the end of the project that determines if a fiddle yard, or some staging (scenic or hidden) is needed.  I can however see we’re already eating into the space, so any sense things will become a tight fit even in this generous space is not a surprise.

 

Just some things to add to the conversation, Keith.

 

[Harlequin]

2 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I do wonder if 3” headroom is enough in OO where the tracks cross.  To me that seems tight: earlier @ITG quoted 150mm (gross) giving headroom of 113mm (nett), which I think is closer to 4.5”.  That seems more like it to me?  Just a thought.

 

@ITG was including supports for an expanse of baseboard above a lower level but if it's just a bridge that crosses one or two tracks then a short length of 6mm ply is enough to support the upper level just while it crosses. Then 75mm elevation minus 4mm for track (Code75) minus 6mm base gives 65mm clearance, which is just comfortable.

 

Another question for @Backintime: Do you want a single track (rural/branch line) or double track (main line) circuit?