Fredon - 1st layout

[RobinofLoxley]

17 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

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).

Thank you. There are none drawn on the @RCP design but I assume they show on the template its based on. Its a thing with the chosen size that its just on the boundary where a central well starts to become an option, whereas on 6x4 it cant really be done.

Edited August 12, 2023 by RobinofLoxley

[JohnR]

17 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

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 There are others, but they’re possibly so outdated in concept as to be of interest only to the retrophile. Even some of these ones use materials that have been superseded, and/or track geometry that went out with Hornby Dublo, but I still think the contain thought provoking ideas.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

 

 

One that I would add is 'Compact and Convenient' - Freezer - December 1968. 

[The Johnster]

10 hours ago, RCP said:

hanks 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.

 

 

Under R2 is pushing it both in terms of stressing the Peco flexi and in that many current RTR locos are at their specified limit at R2.  My advice is always to go one R over the spec for good running, not under.  I know it's hard when there isn't enough space but sometimes it's better to accept that there just isn't enough space.  This curve would be better laid in setrack R2, and the outer one in setrack R3.

 

10 hours ago, RCP said:

Always what do you mean by removing reverse curves?

 

S-bends, where one curved section adjoins another one curving the other way, right-left or left-right.  Where tight curvature is used, especially with setrack, propelling, and sometimes hauling, stock through them induces buffer lock and bogies are pushed by the couplings in ways they don't like, and will assert their displeasure by derailing.  A layout where stock constantly derails is frustrating and probably one of the main reasons people leave the hobby. 

 

6 hours ago, RCP said:

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

 

 

Much better.  As the layout is now reversed, perhaps it should be renamed Noderf...

 

 

[Chimer]

On the subject of DC electrics, if you stick to the simple two red and green sections and two controllers you suggested in your first post, you should consider setting things up so either controller can control either section.  Then when you want to move something from one section to the other, switch both sections to the same controller.  This is far better than trying to jump across with both controllers set at the same speed.  It just needs two switches, is traditionally called "cab control" and I can draw you a wiring diagram if you like.

 

If you split things up into the multiple sections as per your later diagram, it would need a lot more switches (one per section) but the principle remains the same - switch all the sections you need to use to complete a particular movement to the same controller.

 

Cheers, Chris

[RCP]

2 hours ago, Chimer said:

On the subject of DC electrics, if you stick to the simple two red and green sections and two controllers you suggested in your first post, you should consider setting things up so either controller can control either section.  Then when you want to move something from one section to the other, switch both sections to the same controller.  This is far better than trying to jump across with both controllers set at the same speed.  It just needs two switches, is traditionally called "cab control" and I can draw you a wiring diagram if you like.

 

If you split things up into the multiple sections as per your later diagram, it would need a lot more switches (one per section) but the principle remains the same - switch all the sections you need to use to complete a particular movement to the same controller.

 

Cheers, Chris

I would be interested in this. I was pondering if I could set this up with a rotary type switch allowing various sections to be switched between the different controllers, although hadn’t got as far as sketching out a schematic. 

[Nearholmer]

For such a small layout, I can’t imagine you’d want more than two controllers, in which case if you use common return, each section can be switched between them with an SPDT switch, and if you don’t common the return, then with a DPDT. You only start to need rotary switches if you have more than two controllers. 

[The Johnster]

My recommendation, again FWIW which is exactly what you paid for it(!), would be to consider now, before much stock is bought and the wiring irrevocably installed, whether or not you ultimately want DCC control.  If you do, there seems little point in building a DC layout only to be faced with a major-hit-all-at-once bill to chip a fleet of locos up at the changeover time; surely it would be better to make the decision now and proceed with DCC control.  This will remove the need for section switches, cab control, and so on, and you will be able to drive any locomotive, and more importantly park it, anywhere you like.

 

I decided that I couldn't afford DCC when I restarted in the hobby some seven years ago, a decision greatly 'informed' by the fleet of older Mainline, Airfix, and Lima locos I had.  In the event, these either conked out on me (ML, Afx) or were not up to my required standards of realism (Lima), and I could have proceeded without considering them, but I suspect the decision to run with DC, a devil I knew and with an eye to cost, would have been made anyway.  If the layout ever had a lottery money rebuild, I'd consider DCC; I have no objection to it but avoiding it has enabled me to afford the railway I want!

 

I have built it to the principle of KISS, not the American softrock heroes but Keep It Simple, Stupid.  In my case this means minimising electrical connections and underboard wiring, so against conventional wisdom, I use insulfrog Streamline turnouts and allow them to direct where the current goes.  Track sections are connected electrically by Peco rail joiners, which hold the alignment at the ends of the rails, and there are no insulating ones!  There is only one feed, strategically located on what is basically an fy-BLT with kickback roads for one of the sidings and the colliery branch.  These can be activated electrically by simple bridging wires and the set of the turnouts.  This has served me well for some time, with good running despite the dead frogs, though I scrapped a curved turnout because my Hornby W4 Peckett's wheelbase was shorter than the frog...

 

But unreliabilities are creeping in after seven years of almost daily operating (operating is very much the raison d'etre of the layout), mostly centred on the point blade electrical contacts and rail joiners.  It's starting to get tired, and the time has come, the Walrus said, to speak of many things, of droppers for each section, proper switches, and such do-ings.  Not difficult, can prolly be done in a weekend, and a sort of natural progression from the original KISS principle.

 

On the subject of running, like some others I don't like your big solid baseboard which will be difficult to keep stiff without bracing that will make it uncomfortably heavy.  A shelf around the walls of the room would be much better, allowing smaller baseboard sections which are easier to stow away and will be much easier to keep flat and level, an essential requirement for good running.  I build from the bottom up, level by level as far as possible without starting the next bit until the first job level is complete.  Baseboard first, then trackbed, then track.  Lay the track loosely initially, pinned lightly down, and push stock around it with your finger; you are looking for smooth running and the loose pins will allow minor adjustments.  Then glue it permanently, and you can now start on the wiring.  During this period, take the longest vehicle you have, usually a coach, and tape felt-tip pens to the end corners and centre of the body sides.  Push it gently around the layout, allowing the pens to mark the baseboard, use different colours if you like!  Where the lines intersect is the 'fouling point' where stock will collide at converging point or on double track curves.  The lines give you a safety margin of half the thickness of the pen to account for wobble at speed, and are useful for establishing clearances for platforms, lineside structures, &c.  I can't take credit for this tip, think I got it out of a 60s  I Model Railway Constructor, in which case it's probably one of Cyril Freezer's, and not the only good idea I owe him.  On your curved turnouts, the clearing points will be a good distance from the tiebars...

 

When the wiring is done, there is that first wonderful moment when you put a loco on the track and turn the control knob, and it moves!  Test run all the stock all over the layout, and only when you are happy with the running move to the next level up from the ground, painting the sides of the rails.  Wipe the railheads off before the paint dries.  Test run exhaustively. Next level up, ballast, clear any stray from the checkrails and flangeways, and test run exhaustively.  Now you get to the fun level, buildings, signals, scenery, stations.  If you ever decide the layout is finished, you aren't trying hard enough, there is always more to do!!

 

[RCP]

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

My recommendation, again FWIW which is exactly what you paid for it(!), would be to consider now, before much stock is bought and the wiring irrevocably installed, whether or not you ultimately want DCC control.  If you do, there seems little point in building a DC layout only to be faced with a major-hit-all-at-once bill to chip a fleet of locos up at the changeover time; surely it would be better to make the decision now and proceed with DCC control.  This will remove the need for section switches, cab control, and so on, and you will be able to drive any locomotive, and more importantly park it, anywhere you like.

 

I decided that I couldn't afford DCC when I restarted in the hobby some seven years ago, a decision greatly 'informed' by the fleet of older Mainline, Airfix, and Lima locos I had.  In the event, these either conked out on me (ML, Afx) or were not up to my required standards of realism (Lima), and I could have proceeded without considering them, but I suspect the decision to run with DC, a devil I knew and with an eye to cost, would have been made anyway.  If the layout ever had a lottery money rebuild, I'd consider DCC; I have no objection to it but avoiding it has enabled me to afford the railway I want!

 

I have built it to the principle of KISS, not the American softrock heroes but Keep It Simple, Stupid.  In my case this means minimising electrical connections and underboard wiring, so against conventional wisdom, I use insulfrog Streamline turnouts and allow them to direct where the current goes.  Track sections are connected electrically by Peco rail joiners, which hold the alignment at the ends of the rails, and there are no insulating ones!  There is only one feed, strategically located on what is basically an fy-BLT with kickback roads for one of the sidings and the colliery branch.  These can be activated electrically by simple bridging wires and the set of the turnouts.  This has served me well for some time, with good running despite the dead frogs, though I scrapped a curved turnout because my Hornby W4 Peckett's wheelbase was shorter than the frog...

 

But unreliabilities are creeping in after seven years of almost daily operating (operating is very much the raison d'etre of the layout), mostly centred on the point blade electrical contacts and rail joiners.  It's starting to get tired, and the time has come, the Walrus said, to speak of many things, of droppers for each section, proper switches, and such do-ings.  Not difficult, can prolly be done in a weekend, and a sort of natural progression from the original KISS principle.

 

On the subject of running, like some others I don't like your big solid baseboard which will be difficult to keep stiff without bracing that will make it uncomfortably heavy.  A shelf around the walls of the room would be much better, allowing smaller baseboard sections which are easier to stow away and will be much easier to keep flat and level, an essential requirement for good running.  I build from the bottom up, level by level as far as possible without starting the next bit until the first job level is complete.  Baseboard first, then trackbed, then track.  Lay the track loosely initially, pinned lightly down, and push stock around it with your finger; you are looking for smooth running and the loose pins will allow minor adjustments.  Then glue it permanently, and you can now start on the wiring.  During this period, take the longest vehicle you have, usually a coach, and tape felt-tip pens to the end corners and centre of the body sides.  Push it gently around the layout, allowing the pens to mark the baseboard, use different colours if you like!  Where the lines intersect is the 'fouling point' where stock will collide at converging point or on double track curves.  The lines give you a safety margin of half the thickness of the pen to account for wobble at speed, and are useful for establishing clearances for platforms, lineside structures, &c.  I can't take credit for this tip, think I got it out of a 60s  I Model Railway Constructor, in which case it's probably one of Cyril Freezer's, and not the only good idea I owe him.  On your curved turnouts, the clearing points will be a good distance from the tiebars...

 

When the wiring is done, there is that first wonderful moment when you put a loco on the track and turn the control knob, and it moves!  Test run all the stock all over the layout, and only when you are happy with the running move to the next level up from the ground, painting the sides of the rails.  Wipe the railheads off before the paint dries.  Test run exhaustively. Next level up, ballast, clear any stray from the checkrails and flangeways, and test run exhaustively.  Now you get to the fun level, buildings, signals, scenery, stations.  If you ever decide the layout is finished, you aren't trying hard enough, there is always more to do!!

 

Thanks for the tips!

I have access to a stack of old and used electronic parts so there would be no outlay on rotary switches, resistors, capacitors etc. As such it’s a question of time, what can I learn and what can I practice. I can put some set track together at any point and run trains if that’s my desire. Far more fun to see what I can achieve with what I have. My initial thoughts were to have several options on a rotary switch (All off one input/split1/split2), they are the modular variety where you stack disks. Still trying to establish what exactly I’ll be getting (3 pole 5 way) (1 pole 12 way) but will see what is possible when I get my mitts on them.
 

The droppers are for better running and because I’d like at a minimum to be able to detect trains on a particular section for automation of the signals in the future (open to ideas how to do this with DC if at all possible). By wiring at the start I have options even if I don’t go down the DCC route later.

 

As you have identified DCC is expensive hence the bias to the Hornby Bluetooth efforts. I don’t have lots of trains and I don’t have lots of space to store trains so my reasoning is fewer but better. They are in the main Mainline and AirFix (one Lima Gwr parcel railcar but I can improve that with new glass etc) and they are variable in running performance. I see that as an opportunity to play and upgrade them with either new chassis or refurbishment. 
 

The turnouts are going to be a collection of uni frog and insufrog as that’s what I have to start with. I’m looking to slowly build points, replacing the insufrog first (conveniently also the simplest ones). I’ll also slowly buy point motors (mp5) and convert the unifrog into electrofrog. This is to spread the costs out. I’m interested in any ideas or example wiring diagrams for point control.

 

The board (or two halves) is what I have permission to build and allocated space for (which is at a premium. I like it primarily as there is plenty of space for a bit of everything. The feedback has had me thinking about how and where I could build a stackable/portable layout with the operator in the centre, but there is no opportunity for shelves round a room so it would go from one set of legs to many with the weight that would come with that. That and needing to level a multi board layout every time it came out led me to think the 6x4 idea isn’t that bad.

 

Either way it’s work in progress and it’ll be a little bit here and there whilst the weather is still good, and the priority is likely to be outside events, aka the park with the little one. But come late autumn/winter it would be good to have a basic layout ready (baseboard and tracks).

 

 

 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

This is as I was 6 years ago. I built a layout in the space I had, which is a loft, using track and stock from when the kids and I used to set up on the floor and run trains. Old point motors. It was a bit of a diversion, apart from some coaches I would have been better off starting from scratch, looking back on it. Building a fully DCC layout now.

[RCP]

5 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

This is as I was 6 years ago. I built a layout in the space I had, which is a loft, using track and stock from when the kids and I used to set up on the floor and run trains. Old point motors. It was a bit of a diversion, apart from some coaches I would have been better off starting from scratch, looking back on it. Building a fully DCC layout now.

Funny enough 6-7 years is the time scale for us looking to move to our next house. I’m looking at it as practice time 😂

[Chimer]

17 hours ago, RCP said:

I would be interested in this. I was pondering if I could set this up with a rotary type switch allowing various sections to be switched between the different controllers, although hadn’t got as far as sketching out a schematic. 

 

OK, here's the basic picture

 

This shows 2 controllers feeding 3 sections via DPDT (double pole, double throw) switches.  It should be obvious how it can be extended to any number of sections.  The crucial point is that the switchery allows either controller to feed any number of sections, but prevents both controllers feeding the same section simultaneously.  As @Nearholmer observes, you can use common return and SPDT switches to reduce the amount of wiring, but using DPDTs as shown is the solution I prefer.   He's also right about only needing the more expensive multi-way rotary switches if you want more than two controllers.

 

The green and yellow wires heading off to the right from DPDT2 are feeding another piece of track in the same section (i.e. represent another pair of droppers).

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by Chimer

[The Johnster]

It might be possible to get shelves around the room past the planning authority by having two levels of shelves, the lower one with drop-down doors revealing the layout, which can be shut away when not in use, and the upper being used for whatever shelves are used for; knick-knacks, objects d'art, tv, hifi, houseplants, books, whatevs.  This, if acceptable to the planning authority, might be easier than having to get large boards out of storage and set the trains out on them every time you want an operating session.  The actual layout baseboards would be on battens above the lower shelf, not actually a part of it, so that they could be taken out and worked on.  You could make some of the drop-down doors glass or smoked glass to display parts of it.

 

Solid baseboards with tight curvature are a bit trainsetty, and best avoided if that is not the look you are going for.

 

Just sayin'.

[RCP]

So I think I have my final layout plan. I've extended the board to 2400x1200 and propose to use 3x 1200x800 boards as on printing out the layout a meter+ really is quite unwieldy... (thanks @Nearholmer) This means it lives always in the attic but will stack nicely on top of each other. The major changes are as follows:

 

• Flipped the station round again. So it follows the original Bredon.
• Longer platform two which means  the 14xx + auto coach fits nicely in. 
• A goods line / storage line on the outer left edge. I envision the goods/mineral train coming into the lower line and then being banked into that hidden line.
• 2 hidden sidings at the top which will receive the postal rail car and the auto coach train as they go down the branchline.

The random double slip is because I only have a left hand Hornby express turnout as the alternative. It also means I could add fiddle yard latter (borrowed from one of the original creators of Bredon here: https://www.westernthunder.co.uk/threads/bredon.3009/#post-78358)

 

All in all pretty happy with this setup. It has the back stage area to store whole trains+rakes that I have, and enough of all the bits to make it interesting. I need to decide on laser cut baseboard vs make it myself. The cost saving is quite a few MP5 motors but the dcc train automation ones look cracking. Moving onto the electrical plumbing now and have just discovered StaRFIsh Rail as an alternative to current block detection. Another rabbit hole to disappear into 😁.

 

Thanks for all the suggestions!

 

[RCP]

So there has been progress on the layout, I now have boards, track and droppers fitted. And it kinda works. More on that later

 

Layout

I ended up going with making up the boards myself, it was £100 worth of material vs the £270 laser cut ones. I went to B&Q and got them to cut up 2x 1200x2400 into 3. Simple frame round the outside with one strut in the middle. I’ll add more struts from some 5mm ply I have cut to size. I figured it was better to get the wiring in place first. I’ve used 5 dowels and 4 bolts on each join, Seems ridged enough. Despite best efforts there was a fingernail ridge between the boards in sections. I ramped the track with a couple of pieces of paper pva glued down to make this flat.

 

 

Track was laid according to the AnyRail plan apart from the slight deviation on the inside left curve which I pushed out to make the curve longer. There hasn’t been much running but things work better than I thought they would. Derailments seem to be limited to the GWR parcels car, the Bachmann crocodile, and the Bachmann Collett coaches, The Crocodile seems to be fine when I add something heavy as a load. The coaches seem to only derail on the single right hand curve. I’m thinking I might push it out a bit more, by replacing the R2 with some flexible track. The Parcels might be the back to back on the wheels.

I’ve drilled 8mm holes in preparation for point motors, probably MTB MP10 (requested as xmas presents).

 

Wiring is on a Bus after biting the bullet and decided DCC from the get go. Everything seems to run round no problem from a pickup perspective.

 

I ended up using epoxy resin on the track joins, which seems to work although I’m temped to rework some of them as they aren’t the best job I’ve ever done.

 

 

Stock

 

Autocoach A30

 

After acquiring the dart castings kit, I’ve been slowly plugging my way through the instructions. I went with removing everything on the underside and starting from fresh. I’ve used 1mm brass angle for the underframe. Quite pleased with the outcome although I think the queen posts(??) aren’t actually angle in real life. That might bug me.

 

 

I used Halfords etch primer and then covered using Railmatch worn black paint and an airbrush. Frankly amazed it turned out half as good as it did. I used half half thinner to paint.

 

 

I added all the gubbins to the ends so coupling it to the 14xx shall be interesting. I did see at scaleforum what appeared to be coaches joined together by rigged wire. So I think this might be the way forward. Still to add are some Accurascale couplings.

 

 

The roof underside has received 2 coats of halfords regular grey primer and will be sprayed white before the lights and reed switches are fitted in place.

 

The coach body is coming along, I didn’t cut anything off I shouldn’t have. Just need to decide on if I should do the door handles as well. Not sure what gauge wire I should be using for that though (0.5mm?). I also need to deciede if I’m going to go for it and repaint the actual coach body work. I can’t find any details on which coaches were assigned where, so I’m holding off until I have a plausible number to add to the side. Preferably one that ran too Frome during the mid 1930’s. Westbury and Bristol had 14xx’s so maybe from one of those directions.

 

 

Following images posted by brossard I decided that the way forward would be to print the inside in its entirety. I headed over to Didcot only to find that on non steam days you can’t see inside autocoach 190… Hey ho. I’ve made a cad stencil of the various compartments and will fill it as I get pictures. In the meantime I did the seat covers as there are sufficient images available for this. The results look way better than anything I could ever hope to achieve with a brush so that sold it for me.

 

 

Prize Beetle Van

 

The prize beetle van was an impulse purchase after have a rather fruitless search for suitable GWR cattle vans. Everything seems to have one issue or another with regards to accuracy. I’ve added 25grams of wheel weights inside and this seems to give it a satisfying weight. After a trip to the scale forum in High Wickham and armed with Miss Prisms advice that I was looking for cross-cornered DCIII set of brakes the helpful person on the Scale Forum stall sold me a Morgan Designs etch kit. All I can say is that I’m still trying to figure out the brake rod arrangement and the DC3 ratchet etch has me stumped. I’ve been using 0.3mm brass wire on all of the cross rodding but I take that it should be 0.7mm.. This is definitely work in progress, clasp brakes (think that’s what they are called) images seem to be sparse.

 

 

 

GWR Parcels Van

The parcels van received a new set of wheels from peters spares, extra pickups, shawplan glazing, 8 pin harness and a LAISDCC decoder. The good news is that apparently my layout works with DCC and the conversion worked first time although the wiring needs cleaning up after completion of the running lights.

 

 

Bad news is apparently with the new wheels it doesn’t like the track in two places. One is the single track curve (R2 radius) right side, and the other is the central straight at the front. The curve will be pushed out, but I suspect I might have a back to back issue. It only derails on the trailing bogie. The shawpaln glazing looks lovely however the original set of glazing had what appears to be grills or bars on the window? Has anyone addressed this and if so how? Were these bars or wooden shutters? I noticed on the Heljan model that the drivers side window had a red outline, Is this on all sides? Still to add is screw lock couplings, steam/vacuum pipes, plus any other recommended mods.

 

I’m planning in filing down some tower LED’s and fitting them to the front and rear, Just need to figure our how to wire the DCC lighting for forwards and reverse.

 

 

[GWR-fan]

20 minutes ago, RCP said:

 

.........................Bad news is apparently with the new wheels it doesn’t like the track in two places. One is the single track curve (R2 radius) right side, and the other is the central straight at the front. The curve will be pushed out, but I suspect I might have a back to back issue. It only derails on the trailing bogie.........................

 

 

 

 

Had a similar issue with several Lima railcars converted with those wheels,  but it was the powered wheels that required regaugung.  The models ran well after adjustment.

[RCP]

8 minutes ago, GWR-fan said:

 

Had a similar issue with several Lima railcars converted with those wheels,  but it was the powered wheels that required regaugung.  The models ran well after adjustment.

What did you adjust the back to back to? 14.4?

[GWR-fan]

4 hours ago, RCP said:

What did you adjust the back to back to? 14.4?

I still use the imperial measurement,  0.575",  which no doubt equates to around 14.4mm.  My dial Vernier is in imperial.  A quick calculation it comes to 14.375mm.

[DCB]

6 hours ago, RCP said:

So there has been progress on the layout, I now have boards, track and droppers fitted. And it kinda works. More on that later

 

Layout

I ended up going with making up the boards myself, it was £100 worth of material vs the £270 laser cut ones. I went to B&Q and got them to cut up 2x 1200x2400 into 3. Simple frame round the outside with one strut in the middle. I’ll add more struts from some 5mm ply I have cut to size. I figured it was better to get the wiring in place first. I’ve used 5 dowels and 4 bolts on each join, Seems ridged enough. Despite best efforts there was a fingernail ridge between the boards in sections. I ramped the track with a couple of pieces of paper pva glued down to make this flat.

 

I don'r think I have seen baseboard legs attached to the outside of the baseboards before,   I would put some form of cover over them to give a bit more foreground scenery.    To my  way of thinking the track should be raised above the supporting  table,  with scenery below track level as well as above and a river or similar at the lowest level.   

 

A sleeper slid under the fishplate makes a big difference to the appearance of track,on full size railways the sleepers each side of the fishplate are closer than the usual spacing  Sleepers under the rail joint, (Joint chairs)  were phased out very early in railway history in favour of fished joints but that said a sleeper, typically a flexi track sleeper shorn of its rail fixings and with two grooves filed to fit snugly under the fishplate, it the gap looks a lot better to the casual glance

[Harlequin]

If the track planning stage of the project is over, please consider starting a new thread in layout topics or asking the mods to move this one. Thanks.