Fredon - 1st layout

[RCP]

So I'm looking at building my first layout with the idea that it will be a test bed for the getting to grips with various aspects. Its going to be in code 100 as I have a box of flexitrack and numerous other pieces of set track and a few points. Unfortunately most of the turnouts I have are streamline long turnouts and try as I might I'm struggling to get many to fit. So I'll have to buy some. To that end I'm looking at acquiring 1x SL-U76 3x SL-U77 & 3x SL-E97. This will compliment the 2x SL-97 1x SL95 and 1x SL88. These are all Insulfrog. I've borrowed the idea of using Streamline Y turnouts from the Bredon revisited thread as this seems sensible. The layout I've sketched out so far is as follows and measures 2100x1150mm:

 

 

For the baseboard I was intending on using 9mm hardwood ply from B&Q (should I go thinner). Given the intention to fit point motors am I right in thinking that 46mm depth would be sufficient? Any advice on the optimum strut depth to baseboard sheet thickness would be appreciated. It will be split in two.

 

To start with I'm intending on running it with 2 DC controllers and was planning on splitting it as follows:

 

What I want from the layout in future is as follows:

 

• I would like to progress the layout to DCC
• I would like Block detection in future (yes its small and pointless but its a training exercise) 
• I would like to end up using JMRI

 

I'm planning on putting droppers on all the track and then grouping them as follows if anyone can suggest improvements that would be appreciated:

 

 

My understanding is I have two options, current detection and optical. Given how small the layout is I presume that current detection is out the question. Can anyone point me in the direction of optical detectors? I'm happy hacking electrical items together so Pi based wouldn't be a disaster.

 

As mentioned at the start I'm going to have to but some more points and am intending to buy electrofrog. That will leave me with a mix. If you were in my shoes were would you place the two insufrog Y turnouts on the layout? Both in the sidings in the middle?

 

Am I missing any breaks?

 

Many thanks in advance for any responses.

 

 

[Nearholmer]

This is going to be one, big, solid baseboard?

 

I ask for two reasons:

 

- it will be heavy;

 

- will be unwieldy; and,

 

- once you add in the space you need around it for access, it will take up a lot of room.

 

(that’s three reasons)

 

The traditional 6ft x 4ft rather fell out of popularity for those reasons, but if none of them are real issues in your case: go for it!

 

If those reasons do make you start to wonder whether it’s really a good idea or not, the better way forward is to use a design that puts the operator in the middle, using sectional baseboards. The late C J Freezer long ago demonstrated how much better a layout can be made, occupying exactly the same floor area as is needed for a 6ft x 4ft with operating space in front of it (it ideally needs access all round).

 

Having got that off my chest ……. A baseboard made from a sheet of 9mm ply can be adequately supported by longitudinal and cross members at c18” (c450mm) centres. If you go down to 6mm ply, it would be wise to go to 1ft (300mm) centres.

 

But, big flat baseboards like this, even if adequately supported to prevent sagging in use, still tend to flex a bit if you lift one up by one corner, which might become an issue if you intend to stand it on one side against a wall when it’s not in use and have covered it with super-delicate scenery. To make a really rigid structure, you need to create a box. If you think about an ordinary cheap interior, flush-panel door, that is super-rigid, and it consists of two thin skins, separated by timber battens round the edges, with  a flimsy cardboard or plastic matrix inside …… it’s a box. If you won’t be lifting or shifting it, the rigidity point isn’t really important, but if you will, it begins to be.

 

Are you a Railway Modeller subscriber with access to all the back-numbers? If so, a lot of good stuff was written about “compact roundy-roundy” layouts just either side of 1960, and I can point you to the articles that repay a read.

 

Here is a very badly drawn version of CJF’s important sketch. Both versions occupy c6ft x 6ft, but the lower one allows a far better layout, easy to reach everything, and it appears a lot bigger once you’re inside it.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by Nearholmer

[RCP]

46 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

This is going to be one, big, solid baseboard?

 

I ask for two reasons:

 

- it will be heavy;

 

- will be unwieldy; and,

 

- once you add in the space you need around it for access, it will take up a lot of room.

 

(that’s three reasons)

 

The traditional 6ft x 4ft rather fell out of popularity for those reasons, but if none of them are real issues in your case: go for it!

 

If those reasons do make you start to wonder whether it’s really a good idea or not, the better way forward is to use a design that puts the operator in the middle, using sectional baseboards. The late C J Freezer long ago demonstrated how much better a layout can be made, occupying exactly the same floor area as is needed for a 6ft x 4ft with operating space in front of it (it ideally needs access all round).

 

Having got that off my chest ……. A baseboard made from a sheet of 9mm ply can be adequately supported by longitudinal and cross members at c18” (c450mm) centres. If you go down to 6mm ply, it would be wise to go to 1ft (300mm) centres.

 

But, big flat baseboards like this, even if adequately supported to prevent sagging in use, still tend to flex a bit if you lift one up by one corner, which might become an issue if you intend to stand it on one side against a wall when it’s not in use and have covered it with super-delicate scenery. To make a really rigid structure, you need to create a box. If you think about an ordinary cheap interior, flush-panel door, that is super-rigid, and it consists of two thin skins, separated by timber battens round the edges, with  a flimsy cardboard or plastic matrix inside …… it’s a box. If you won’t be lifting or shifting it, the rigidity point isn’t really important, but if you will, it begins to be.

 

Are you a Railway Modeller subscriber with access to all the back-numbers? If so, a lot of good stuff was written about “compact roundy-roundy” layouts just either side of 1960, and I can point you to the articles that repay a read.

 

Here is a very badly drawn version of CJF’s important sketch. Both versions occupy c6ft x 6ft, but the lower one allows a far better layout, easy to reach everything, and it appears a lot bigger once you’re inside it.

 

 

 

 

I am a railway modeller subscriber. So can access any article that you think is relevant. The plan is for it to be in 2 baseboards of 1100x1150mm which are joined together. I’ve taken care to not put points over the join although the Central crossing are at an angle. The size was chosen as that’s the space I have allocated under the eves… I accept it will take up the room but if it’s out then that’s all I intend to be doing with the room at that point. After it goes away. 1.1m square boards seem manageable 

 

It will be bolted together in use and packed away when not in use. Obviously I’m not expecting scenery to last that long on it, but this is an exercise in just getting going. 
 

Do you think a double skinned board with holes cut on one skin in the non braced sections for access would be superior to a single thicker sheet? My only concern is the reduced accessibility of under the board.

[Nearholmer]

Ah, it will be in two sections …… I missed that.

 

1000mm x 1000mm is not a wonderful size to handle, but it’s a lot better than double that.

 

It may be overkill for a first layout, so feel free to decide so, but I would create a box-structure in 6mm ply (the ‘ordinary’ stuff the from DIY shop will do), using members 75mm deep for the sides and cross members. If you glue and pin that, then let the glue dry with the box on a nice flat surface (kitchen floors are good!) it will be very rigid. If you then cut out access holes , but leave a ‘web’ about 100mm wide around the edge of each, it will retain virtually all of the rigidity. It becomes like a guitar body with an over-sized sound hole. I’ve made boards for H0 and EM layouts like that, and they lasted incredibly well.

 

I will find the 6ft x4ft articles later.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Nearholmer

[RCP]

55 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Ah, it will be in two sections …… I missed that.

 

1000mm x 1000mm is not a wonderful size to handle, but it’s a lot better than double that.

 

It may be overkill for a first layout, so feel free to decide so, but I would create a box-structure in 6mm ply (the ‘ordinary’ stuff the from DIY shop will do), using members 75mm deep for the sides and cross members. If you glue and pin that, then let the glue dry with the box on a nice flat surface (kitchen floors are good!) it will be very rigid. If you then cut out access holes , but leave a ‘web’ about 100mm wide around the edge of each, it will retain virtually all of the rigidity. It becomes like a guitar body with an over-sized sound hole. I’ve made boards for H0 and EM layouts like that, and they lasted incredibly well.

 

I will find the 6ft x4ft articles later.

 

Brilliant, I'll do that. Do you have any tips on keeping them from flexing too much I was thinking coach bolts 2/3rds down the members.

[ITG]

I’ve learnt a lot from this forum since I recommenced modelling some 4-5 years ago, so perhaps I’ll throw some of that learning at you.

Have you thought about buying laser cut self-assembly boards? They will be closer to the box structure, often with ply bracing. If not going for laser cut modules, B&Q ply is oft quoted as not the quality you may want, and local timber merchants might be better. Marine ply is what I used in areas where I didn’t use laser cut kits.

Why start with DC, if your end destination is DCC? I’d say operational flexibility is simpler with DCC, and you may waste money and time going down the DC route only to convert later. (Of course, other opinions are available!).

May I say your planned use of Y turnouts does give a slightly odd to look to the track plan in some places. Track spacings look awry, unlEss that’s what you are trying to achieve. And , again with the DC v DCC argument, why buy insulfrogs if you might benefit later on from live frogs, because whilst the latter are perfectly usable with DCC, they bring no benefit. And may bring poorer running.

 

Good luck

Ian

[Nearholmer]

Here is a short reading list, the ones in bold being the real cream IMO. There are others, but they’re possibly so outdated in concept as to be of interest only to the retrophile. Even some of these ones use materials that have been superseded, and/or track geometry that went out with Hornby Dublo, but I still think the contain thought provoking ideas.
 

‘Six by Four’, Ahern, 06/1953

 

’A Baseboard for Christmas’,  Freezer,12/1959

 

’The Ffarquhar Branch”, Awdry, 12/1959

‘Multum in Parvo’, Freezer, 07/1959

 

‘Layouts for the Modeller No.3’, Freezer, 08/1951

 

’Inside six-by-four’, Freezer, 01/1960

 

‘Edwardian Splendour in 6’x4’’, Ray, 02/2018

 

‘Bredon - 00 in a small space’, Wood, 09/1981

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by Nearholmer

[RobinofLoxley]

Just checking... there was a mention of eves (eaves) usually means roof space - those boards work OK?

 

The Y turnouts look really awful on the plan. Usually tracks run parallel, even on small track plans. I dont think Y turnouts even exist on the real railways ??

 

Dont design a track plan to use whats in your box. A mixture of turnout specs isnt the best idea though it will work, of course.

 

Depends what you are running but you might have a bit of trouble getting stuff through the St245 - SL-97 crossover.

[Nearholmer]

2 hours ago, RCP said:

Do you have any tips on keeping them from flexing too much I was thinking coach bolts 2/3rds down the members.

Do you mean to join the two boards together? If so, yes 6mm coach bolts, say 250mm in from each side, but you’ll also need dowels to ensure correct alignment, coach bolts alone, even in fairly snug holes, aren’t really precise enough.

[RCP]

2 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Just checking... there was a mention of eves (eaves) usually means roof space - those boards work OK?

 

The Y turnouts look really awful on the plan. Usually tracks run parallel, even on small track plans. I dont think Y turnouts even exist on the real railways ??

 

Dont design a track plan to use whats in your box. A mixture of turnout specs isnt the best idea though it will work, of course.

 

Depends what you are running but you might have a bit of trouble getting stuff through the St245 - SL-97 crossover.

I had originally planned on using the set track turnouts as the space is limiting. I took the Y turnout idea from the Brendon revisited thread. They’re streamline so the reasoning is that the train running will be better than using the set track. Whilst I agree that it looks funny, it gives me hopefully a smooth running layout. I won’t be using ST245 rather the new PECO streamline version (not in AnyRail currently) , hopefully with better running characteristics. All the engines are 0-6-0 or prairie type affairs so hopefully no major problems. 
 

eves the wrong word but attic space close to the edge. The rest is taken up with priority junk 🙄

Edited August 11, 2023 by RCP

[Nearholmer]

2 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

I dont think Y turnouts even exist on the real railways ??

They do, but they aren’t all that common, and they go under multiple names: equilateral, split, wye, and Y being ones I know of.

 

They don’t have to be fully equilateral either, and I don’t think these ones are:

 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by Nearholmer

[RCP]

5 hours ago, ITG said:

I’ve learnt a lot from this forum since I recommenced modelling some 4-5 years ago, so perhaps I’ll throw some of that learning at you.

Have you thought about buying laser cut self-assembly boards? They will be closer to the box structure, often with ply bracing. If not going for laser cut modules, B&Q ply is oft quoted as not the quality you may want, and local timber merchants might be better. Marine ply is what I used in areas where I didn’t use laser cut kits.

Why start with DC, if your end destination is DCC? I’d say operational flexibility is simpler with DCC, and you may waste money and time going down the DC route only to convert later. (Of course, other opinions are available!).

May I say your planned use of Y turnouts does give a slightly odd to look to the track plan in some places. Track spacings look awry, unlEss that’s what you are trying to achieve. And , again with the DC v DCC argument, why buy insulfrogs if you might benefit later on from live frogs, because whilst the latter are perfectly usable with DCC, they bring no benefit. And may bring poorer running.

 

Good luck

Ian

I did look at the laser cut boards but they are pricey for something that is ultimately a test bed rather than a serious endeavour at modelling rail. The cost of one of the two boards would equal the whole of a diy board and I have timber left over from the house renovation so..

 

I’m starting DC as that is what I have in the box to start with. The plan is to fit Hornby Bluetooth receivers as funds allow and then when I have a better idea as to what I want from a controller to move to DCC. I’m not buying any insulfrog points they are what I have already and I’m trying to keep costs down from that perspective.

 

track spacing does look funny but it allows the use of all streamline points rather than set track points and I’m hoping that will allow better running. 

[The Johnster]

I understand the need to keep a lid on costs, but I think that your attempt to design a Bredon variant around the track and turnouts you have available is hampering the effectiveness of the effort.  Because they increase the area that stock will foul the next line, the curved turnouts are not actually saving you much space and the Y in the running line looks very odd.  And I'm not convinced that sub-2' radius curvature with flexible track is advisable; it is diffiuclt to lay it that tight and you will be placing strain on the plastic chairs, with the risk of the rails breaking out of them.  My advice FWIW would be to build Bredon to the original plan using setrack, and keep the Streamline and turnouts for another layout later.  The Ys can be used in the goods yard.

 

A drawback to this idea is that all the turnouts will be insulfrog.  The original plan was clever in that, like Minories, it eliminated reverse curves which made for more reliable propelling movements

[Nearholmer]

I think it might be possible to smooth things out by taking the blue point from the top RH corner and using that as the entry from the running lines to the goods yard, and by removing the point at the lower RH side that leads to the loop at the bottom altogether, making that road a long lay-by siding.

[MPR]

12 hours ago, RCP said:

 

Brilliant, I'll do that. Do you have any tips on keeping them from flexing too much I was thinking coach bolts 2/3rds down

I would attack this in three ways;

1) Make the framing at least 100mm deep - this would also let you use modern underboard point motors like the DCC Cobalt.

2) use triangular bracing - this is hugely effective in increasing torsional stiffness.

3) When you build the boards, build them as a pair, with the opposing framing pieces drilled, dowelled and bolted together before final assembly onto the first board. Use cling film or similar if you are glueing to stop them sticking together. That way, even if they aren’t quite straight, they will be exactly the same as each other and fit snugly. 

[RCP]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I understand the need to keep a lid on costs, but I think that your attempt to design a Bredon variant around the track and turnouts you have available is hampering the effectiveness of the effort.  Because they increase the area that stock will foul the next line, the curved turnouts are not actually saving you much space and the Y in the running line looks very odd.  And I'm not convinced that sub-2' radius curvature with flexible track is advisable; it is diffiuclt to lay it that tight and you will be placing strain on the plastic chairs, with the risk of the rails breaking out of them.  My advice FWIW would be to build Bredon to the original plan using setrack, and keep the Streamline and turnouts for another layout later.  The Ys can be used in the goods yard.

 

A drawback to this idea is that all the turnouts will be insulfrog.  The original plan was clever in that, like Minories, it eliminated reverse curves which made for more reliable propelling movements

Thanks for the response. The inside right hand track is a touch under R2 but not by much. It was as large a curve as I could manage but perhaps I can rectify that.

 

I’m not sure what you mean by fowl the next line? I’m looking at moving away from code 100 track altogether so this will be the first and last (hopefully) track using it. 
 

The justification for the Y turnouts was better running characteristics to the short set track type turnouts it suggests. I could swap the lower left Y for another curved turnout as that’ll be electofrog and would flow better.

 

Always what do you mean by removing reverse curves?

Edited August 12, 2023 by RCP

[RCP]

9 minutes ago, MPR said:

I would attack this in three ways;

1) Make the framing at least 100mm deep - this would also let you use modern underboard point motors like the DCC Cobalt.

2) use triangular bracing - this is hugely effective in increasing torsional stiffness.

3) When you build the boards, build them as a pair, with the opposing framing pieces drilled, dowelled and bolted together before final assembly onto the first board. Use cling film or similar if you are glueing to stop them sticking together. That way, even if they aren’t quite straight, they will be exactly the same as each other and fit snugly. 

Is 100mm the minimum size to fit things like the cobalt. I was eyeing up the MP5 motors and was hoping the rest of the movements (gates, signals, shed doors) would be covered by mini servos (I have a stack of them). I’m really looking to minimise the baseboard thickness to the bare minimum. With that said the motors seem to be constantly out of stock everywhere.

[RCP]

27 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I think it might be possible to smooth things out by taking the blue point from the top RH corner and using that as the entry from the running lines to the goods yard, and by removing the point at the lower RH side that leads to the loop at the bottom altogether, making that road a long lay-by siding.

The point at the top right is to run to a cassette system, I’ll have a play with removing that lower RH side point. I guess I could also use another curved point. Down that end as an alternative. I’ll play with this idea later. 👍

[Flying Pig]

19 hours ago, RCP said:

The layout I've sketched out so far is as follows and measures 2100x1150mm:

 

 

I have to agree with other posters that the Y point arrowed below is deep in Yuk territory.  It introduces a completely unnecessary reverse curve, which will hamper smooth running, and if you can lay the adjacent flexible track without a nasty kink at the joint you will be doing very well.

 

[Nearholmer]

It’s is possible to use a Y in a main running line, but it does need a fair bit of care to avoid a horrible joggle. Here’s the one on my train-set.

 

 

You can probably see that there is a short section of tangent track after the turnout, before the reverse, which even with the tight radius in question (38” in 0 gauge, so equivalent to 21” in 00) avoids short bogie coaches doing too much of a conga. With 6-wheelers it looks perfectly fine and if you look at some Victorian stations they did have amazingly tight turnouts.

[RCP]

OK So taking into account the feedback and realising that if I mirrored the layout I could use more of the turnouts that I have...

Version Fredon rev0.01

 

I've added the .any file, modify the extension to use.

 

Turnout list stands as follows:

 

SL-87, 00/H0 Peco Streamline Code 100, Left curved turnout 12º x3

SL-89, 00/H0 Peco Streamline Code 100, Left turnout 259mm. x1

SL-97, 00/H0 Peco Streamline Code 100, Wye turnout 148mm. x2

SL-U76, 00/H0 Peco Setrack Code 100, Right curved turnout 22.5-33.75º (manual) x3

SL-U77, 00/H0 Peco Setrack Code 100, Left curved turnout 22.5-33.75º (manual) x2

 

• This removes the Y turnout from the station
• Makes all curves min R2+
• All Brach/Main line points are express apart from the curved PECO streamline ones.

It does result in the track going to the very edge of the board.. But that's how it is. Maybe I can add a cm or 2 to the width. I like the curved turnouts as they would make for a cracking project in templot once I get going.

 

 

Fredon_rev0.01.any.xls

Edited August 12, 2023 by RCP

[Nearholmer]

I feel so much better now.

 

Those Ys were causing me to feel awfully stressed.

[RobinofLoxley]

Personally the only time I used a Y was at the entrance to a 2-road shed where it looked appropriate. You can convince yourself something looks OK when you built it yourself!

 

The other thing about using a mix of setrack and streamline is that setrack is designed to run on a separation of 67mm or thereabouts whereas Streamline runs on 50mm  which is more scale appopriate. However, as @The Johnster has pointed out, its hard to curve flexi to R3 or less, much better to use the right setrack curves and make the necessary adjustments using very short pieces of cut rail to increase the separation slightly where Streamline has been used. A particular example would be a cross-over of 2 streamline turnouts.

 

I am 100% with @Nearholmer on using an interior space for operating even if its a bit tight - better to feel inside the layout. To get an example of this I have just cut down an existing plan I did on another thread. Using some setrack turnouts. By no means perfect as its hard in Anyrail to get the bespoke curves exactly as you want them. A first radius curve has sneaked in, but as it sits between two seconds the impact isnt felt. It fits the original space, but is intended to split lengthways. The coloured section is the location of a possible lift out section - it looks small but at thigh level most people dont need that much space to sneak through. The lift out would make the baseboards in 3 sections of course.

[RCP]

24 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Personally the only time I used a Y was at the entrance to a 2-road shed where it looked appropriate. You can convince yourself something looks OK when you built it yourself!

 

The other thing about using a mix of setrack and streamline is that setrack is designed to run on a separation of 67mm or thereabouts whereas Streamline runs on 50mm  which is more scale appopriate. However, as @The Johnster has pointed out, its hard to curve flexi to R3 or less, much better to use the right setrack curves and make the necessary adjustments using very short pieces of cut rail to increase the separation slightly where Streamline has been used. A particular example would be a cross-over of 2 streamline turnouts.

 

I am 100% with @Nearholmer on using an interior space for operating even if its a bit tight - better to feel inside the layout. To get an example of this I have just cut down an existing plan I did on another thread. Using some setrack turnouts. By no means perfect as it’s  hard in Anyrail to get the bespoke curves exactly as you want them. A first radius curve has sneaked in, but as it sits between two seconds the impact isnt felt. It fits the original space, but is intended to split lengthways. The coloured section is the location of a possible lift out section - it looks small but at thigh level most people dont need that much space to sneak through. The lift out would make the baseboards in 3 sections of course.

I think I’ve addressed the concerns around the turnouts and curves. I’ll use set track curves were I have nickel silver curves and infill as suggested with flex track. Turnouts are now all from streamline range.

 

The running trains is just a part of it for me. I see that middle space as modelling area and it keeps the “mess” in a nice compact square. When running I’ll push it to the wall and the kid can see Thomas come in and out of the station then disappear into a tunnel. It’s the simple things.

 

 

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, RobinofLoxley said:

To get an example of this I have just cut down an existing plan

I notice you’ve used another very helpful tiny space ploy too: an island platform. I always think that Haven Street on the IoW was designed as a 6ft x 4ft layout; that Y point is there too (in the sidings).