Building a layout on a 2m x 0.75m board, not sure about scale or layout design

[Jademalo]

I've recently been wanting to get a simple layout so I can run some trains around, but I'm struggling to come up with an interesting layout within my size restriction. My interest is generally East Coast Main Line passenger rail of any era, from A4s to the current Class 801s.

 

I've got a settee in my room, and the back is 2m x 0.75m. I have enough space behind that against the wall to store a board with a flat layout, and so want to try and fit something interesting into that space. Since the space to store the layout is narrow, I cannot do any sort of terrain or tunnels, it has to just be a flat layout on a board.

I ended up getting lucky and bought a door for £20 that measures 1981mm x 762mm, and it's absolutely ideal for the storage space. It's not too heavy, it's nice and rigid, and all in all just the ideal thing for the space I have available.

Initially I had hoped to build a OO layout since I already own a lot of locos in that scale and used to have one when I was little, but the width restriction I have is too small to even fit a radius 1 curve on it. That leaves me with two reasonable choices - TT:120 or N.

 

N definitely gives me a lot of space to play with making an interesting layout, but I always feel like N is getting to the point where the scale is too small to really enjoy the detail. It has decent support in the UK, but obviously UK N is a bit of a weirdly proportioned scale like OO. Models from other countries also won't look quite as bad as HO on OO, but they're still not ideal. You're also a lot more limited with sound decoders, due to the limited space.

TT:120 is obviously newer and less historically supported, but has strong current support from Hornby. It has good detail, an accurate scale, and is also well supported internationally. My board can fit a third radius curve oval, but with the limited range of track options I'm not exactly sure how to make something interesting. I'm also apprehensive about it being a fairly new scale in the UK, and support ending in a few years time. It does have full compatibility with Hornby's HM7000 system though, which is excellent and ideal for my wants.

 

Both seem to have good support for what I'm interested in, generally speaking. Hornby have just released a gorgeous Mallard and Flying Scotsman, and have announced full rake HSTs in TT:120. N seems to have some good stuff too, with a class 800 Azuma from KATO, a newly announced Mallard from Dapol as well as just released full rake HSTs. There's also an old Graham Farish GNER Class 91 available, if only second hand.

With regards to layout, I'm not entirely sure where to start. Ideally I'd like an interesting general running loop, ideally two with some parallel track, and a separate station track to add some interest and route variety. Ideally I'd like the station track to be 3 wide so I can have a train stopped with two running around the loop, or two stopped with one running. I'd also like some basic sidings and a yard to add a bit of variety, but the main loop is what I care about most.

 

From playing around with SCARM a bit, I'm quite restricted in TT:120 to anything aside from TrakMat style setups. I can comfortably fit two parallel ovals with some internal sidings, but I'm struggling to come up with anything more interesting. Getting a station off the main loop basically is just a station on a glorified passing track, and because the diameter of R3 curves is basically the width of my board there's not much I can really do. I had the idea of a diagonal station crossing the layout, but that becomes a wiring nightmare with reverse loops all over the place. If anyone can come up with a layout that isn't just a basic oval with some internal sidings within the space I have then I'd really appreciate some suggestions.

I've got a lot more freedom with N scale, but I'm still struggling to get something I like. I figure a dog bone style layout of some description could work well here, with maybe a basic oval around the outside and a multi track station complex diagonally across the middle to add some variety. Then I could have some sidings and maybe a small yard in the space inside the wider curves, but again I have no idea where to start and make this a reasonable layout.

I'm still apprehensive about going all in on N for reasons I've explained above, so if I can get an interesting layout with TT:120 then I feel like I'd rather do that. It feels like the space I have is right on the limit of what I can do interesting things with though, and I'm not experienced enough to make good decisions in the difficult restrictions.

 

If anyone has any advice on this, I'd really appreciate it. Space is ultimately the limiting factor here, and I want to make sure I'm doing something interesting with the space I have available. I know I could just basically scale a TrakMat to fit, but I want something with a bit more intrigue.

 

Thanks!

[Kris]

With N gauge you can use conventional DCC so unless you are absolutely wedded to the idea of HM7000 don't let that get in the way of your choice. If you particularly want to use a screen for control this is possible using a system such as the Z21. 

You will get far more in you space in N gauge and have far more availability of stock. 

[Right Away]

You mention a preference for East Coast Main Line; that in itself smacks of LONG trains and therefore your answer would generally be “N” gauge. “OO” is possible within the restricted space that you mention, predominantly an “end-to-end” branch design and compromises might have to be made.

Just a thought, some very good industrial railways have been modelled in “OO” within such spaces, even including quayside scenes.

You also mention you have a considerable number of locomotives already; have you considered modelling a Motive Power Depot or Traction Maintenance Depot in “OO”? With some condensing of space, express steam and/or diesel locomotives could be operated quite realistically as they arrive from and depart for their rosters. 

With regards to modern express multiple units, it really needs to be “N”.

Good luck.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Right Away
spelling

[Jademalo]

13 hours ago, Kris said:

With N gauge you can use conventional DCC so unless you are absolutely wedded to the idea of HM7000 don't let that get in the way of your choice. If you particularly want to use a screen for control this is possible using a system such as the Z21. 

You will get far more in you space in N gauge and have far more availability of stock. 

 

I think the reason HM7000 interests me specifically is the fact that I don't need all that much in terms of track wiring both to get started and to run DC locos, especially when cost gets involved. I really like sound too, and I'm struggling to figure out what sort of sound stuff is available for N. HM7000 for TT has sound covered and is pretty cheap, relatively speaking.

 

How much more available will stock be going into the future?

Hornby are obviously full bore into development of new and fancy TT things, but I'm not all that sure how active the N gauge market is, especially when it comes to recent models. The Class 91 stuff seems to be from the 90s, and I worry that with TT getting the support it is that the market for N will start drying up.

Ultimately though my worry for N is the same worry for TT, and that's that I have no idea what the future will bring. At least with OO you know it will be around for yonks. Plus I won't lie, the fact that TT is an accurate scale is pretty appealing to me.

 

11 hours ago, Right Away said:

You mention a preference for East Coast Main Line; that in itself smacks of LONG trains and therefore your answer would generally be “N” gauge. “OO” is possible within the restricted space that you mention, predominantly an “end-to-end” branch design and compromises might have to be made.

Just a thought, some very good industrial railways have been modelled in “OO” within such spaces, even including quayside scenes.

You also mention you have a considerable number of locomotives already; have you considered modelling a Motive Power Depot or Traction Maintenance Depot in “OO”? With some condensing of space, express steam and/or diesel locomotives could be operated quite realistically as they arrive from and depart for their rosters. 

With regards to modern express multiple units, it really needs to be “N”.

Good luck.

 

I had considered end-to-end, but ultimately I just love watching big long trains go in circles. By the nature of how I have to store it I doubt this is going to be a particularly well rendered layout either, so interesting things like quayside features are possibly a bit too much.

I guess the decision still comes down to TT vs N, really. N seems to be the sensible choice, but I've got a lot of apprehension about getting into it with where the buzz and future development seems to be. I feel like TT is the choice if I can make it work, but even if I can just about make it work is that worth the compromise? N seems to have cheaper models on the whole, but when you factor in the needed DCC bits it comes out fairly even.

 

I'm going to have a go at making an N layout in SCARM to see if I can figure out something I like, but I'm a bit at a loss of where to start. I'm thinking I might be able to make a nice station complex with a couple of terminus tracks and a couple of through tracks, but it's trying to make the main loop more interesting than an oval while still letting nice long modern multiple units run.

Ty for the replies, much appreciated

Edited September 18, 2023 by Jademalo

[Kris]

2 minutes ago, Jademalo said:

 

I think the reason HM7000 interests me specifically is the fact that I don't need all that much in terms of track wiring both to get started and to run DC locos, especially when cost gets involved. I really like sound too, and I'm struggling to figure out what sort of sound stuff is available for N. HM7000 for TT has sound covered and is pretty cheap, relatively speaking.

 

How much more available will stock be going into the future?

Hornby are obviously full bore into development of new and fancy TT things, but I'm not all that sure how active the N gauge market is, especially when it comes to recent models. The Class 91 stuff seems to be from the 90s, and I worry that with TT getting the support it is that the market for N will start drying up.

Be careful with the HM7000 and using DC, it sort of works with some controllers but not with others. If you do go down the HM7000 route I would suggest grabbing a cheap basic Hornby or Bachmann DCC controller to provide the power. What I do on my children's layout is have the controllers plugging into phono plugs before the wiring gets to the track. This allows me to swap a DCC controller for a DC one as I require. 

 

Converting to sound in N is becoming easier, many new locos come with speakers fitted. Older locos, are less likely to have a speaker fitted and fitting one can be a challenge. I currently have 3 DCC sound locos in N. I would consider covering more but as you say the cost of chips is steep. I have more sound in OO and I am likely to add a few more in the coming months. 

 

I would say that there is likely to be far more stock available in N Gauge for at least the next few years when compared to TT. Bachmann with their batch production have harmed N gauge over the last few years as there has been a bit of a famine. This year however it appears to be a feast. 

 

Finally the 91 - This is a very dated model, no question about it. I have one from back in the 90's, the only change between this and one of the slightly later ones is the colour of the wheels. I suspect that there will be a new version along at some point but who it will come from is anyones guess. 

[Jademalo]

1 hour ago, Kris said:

Be careful with the HM7000 and using DC, it sort of works with some controllers but not with others. If you do go down the HM7000 route I would suggest grabbing a cheap basic Hornby or Bachmann DCC controller to provide the power. What I do on my children's layout is have the controllers plugging into phono plugs before the wiring gets to the track. This allows me to swap a DCC controller for a DC one as I require.

 

Oh yeah, my intention would be to just run it from one of the Hornby transformers at a steady voltage. Again, it's a case of it being easy and low initial investment. Gives me space to switch to full DCC in the future if I wanted too.

 

1 hour ago, Kris said:

Converting to sound in N is becoming easier, many new locos come with speakers fitted. Older locos, are less likely to have a speaker fitted and fitting one can be a challenge. I currently have 3 DCC sound locos in N. I would consider covering more but as you say the cost of chips is steep. I have more sound in OO and I am likely to add a few more in the coming months.

 

That's good to hear, sound is definitely something I'm particularly interested in. For me it's the last little piece that sells the illusion, and really ties everything together.

Where should I be looking to start with sound for N? If I go for it I'd quite like to get a class 800 and fit dcc sound in that, but from what I can tell KATO models seem to use their own special decoders.

 

1 hour ago, Kris said:

I would say that there is likely to be far more stock available in N Gauge for at least the next few years when compared to TT. Bachmann with their batch production have harmed N gauge over the last few years as there has been a bit of a famine. This year however it appears to be a feast.

 

This is sort of my anxiety, I feel like it could either end up with TT getting a ton of support with everything I want with N going through a massive drought, or the TT hype could die down and suddenly N looks like the right place to be.

If it wasn't for the constraints I have then between the two I'd probably go TT for the detail, but then if I didn't have those constraints I'd go OO. N is seeming like the right choice here, but it very much feels like an unknown.

 

1 hour ago, Kris said:

Finally the 91 - This is a very dated model, no question about it. I have one from back in the 90's, the only change between this and one of the slightly later ones is the colour of the wheels. I suspect that there will be a new version along at some point but who it will come from is anyones guess. 

 

Yeah, if it had been just a bit more recent I feel like my choice would be easy, but I really love GNER class 91s. Considering the work Hornby have put into the new OO 91s I've got a feeling there's a high chance of them turning up in TT, but N is definitely a big unknown.

[njee20]

N is decades old, it’s not going anywhere. it’s say it’s a less ‘risky’ proposition than TT right now. 
 

The problem with N (relevant to all scales, but seems particularly acute in N) is the batch production nature. So yes, HSTs are plentiful at the moment because Dapol have released blue/grey and swallow, but give it 2 months, or try and get GNER or VTEC and it’s second hand only, often for inflated prices.

 

There’s a Zimo sound decoder for the Kato 800, but yes it’s a proprietary fitting as Kato eschew most standards. 

[Jademalo]

Obviously I'm oblivious to N, is the batch production problem really that bad?

I feel like I'm in quite a good place right now with good availability for most of what I want, is it worth me just striking while the iron is hot and picking up what I want? Is the second hand market reasonable in terms of buying something not being an immediate loss?

 

I'm starting to think N is probably the sensible choice here, I'm just obviously very hesitant.

[The Johnster]

Batch production affects all scales, and is a consequence of the mainstream companies' outsourcing manufacturing to China in the late 90s-turn of the century period in order to exploit low Chinese labour costs which were coupled with high skill levels and worker committment.  The Chinese 'system' is to subconrtract the manufacture of components from CAD data from hundreds of almost backroom workshop suppliers all over the place, bring them to another subcontraced assembly facility, then assemble and pack them for shipping.  This is done with the company here ordering, say, 2,000 of an item that they think there is a demand for, and exactly that number of components are made, then the order is complete.  You can't re-order to maintain a continuous supply because the whole system is now manufacturing something else for someone else, and assembly/packing slots have to be 'booked' years in advance.  It is worse in N, and will be bad in TT as well once the initial flurry is over, because there are fewer models in the ranges, so it might be that four or five years might elapse before anything suitable for the ECML becomes currently available again. 

 

You have quite limited space; nobody has enough space, even Pete Waterman and he uses cathederals, so my personal advice would be to ditch the ECML plans unless you are prepared to accept radically shortened trains.  Does anything else appeal (and don't say WCML)?  I mean, can you think of a general type of modelling using shorter trains that might attract you, such as secondary main line, branch, or industrial operation?  You are used to 00 and like that scale, but say that you don't have space for even an R1 curve, by which I assume you mean a 180-degree curve for an oval circuit.  But there is no law that says you have to have a continuous run circuit layout, and an end-to-end setup is much more suited to the space you have.

 

2m by 0.75m is enough for a branch or secondary main line terminus, or industrial setup, split roughly into three  areas each about 0.66m long.  This is enough for a three-coach/nine-wagon train in 00, 4/12 in TT120, 6/18 in N (modern goods wagons are longer and you will not be able to 'get as many in'.  One 0.66m will be a terminus station, one will be the various junctions and points, perhaps goods shed, loco depot, and the last will be the fiddle yard, an 'off stage' area for trains to come from and go to.  In front of that can be a kickback siding(s) serving a factory, wharf, dairy, army depot, whatever you like.  In N, it becomes possible to have a through station between two fiddle yards with kickback roads in front of one or both, and scenarios such as the Cambrian, Highland, Far North line, and similar can be brought into play.

 

No main line ECML high-speed operation, but the truth is you haven't got room for it, and this sort of setup plays to the room you have got more easily.  You will struggle to get an effective main line layout in the space you have.  Give some thought to the type of trains that a) will work well in your limited space and b) give you satisfaction in owning and operating.  If you can't think of such examples other than long main line expresses running at high speed (and I understand this, they are marvellous), then perhaps a club environment where such layouts are constructed for exhibiting to fund the next layout would be better suited to your needs.

 

I'd very strongly suggest concentrating on one (or two at the very most) periods, as this will concentrate your buying of locos and stock and you will spend less on items you may eventually decide you do not really need.  Perhaps a layout with some removable buildings and plug-in signals that can easily be adapted to different periods, but of course the track layout and basic scenery would be the same.  Or the two periods might be, say, 1930s, and current heritage railway with a mix of stock.

 

I realise that some of my comments about the space you have available may not be what you wanted to hear, but the space is what it is, and you will have some tough decisions to make.  If you have a lot of small 00 locos and setrack pieces, I'd suggest an industrial or dockside setup, as these often feature very sharp curvature in reality.  The earlier in your modelling life you make these choices the better, as they will eventually have to be made and once made, will focus your efforts, and spending, on stuff suited to the plan.

[Jademalo]

I mean, at the end of the day you aren't wrong and I appreciate the advice, it's just that what interests me and what I want is to watch some trains I like run around a track. I could just buy a starter loop of whatever and set it up on my floor, but I figured I could get a bit more intrigue out of a different scale and a bit of clever track planning. I could just build an N or TT loop and be done with it, but that just seems a bit boring. This is ultimately something to have while I'm limited on space that I can pull out and watch trains I like go around.

 

I think you might also be overestimating the size I have available vertically as well - This layout has to be stored between a settee and a wall, so it has to be pancake flat. Any buildings and scenery I include will have to be removable no matter what, and I can't even begin to consider things like wired signals. Decoration can't go much further than a grass mat and maybe some ballast, with some removable buildings placed on top.

My goal here isn't really to create a highly detailed scene, when I eventually get the space to do that and have a permanent setup I'll almost definitely do it in OO. It's entirely to have something a bit more compelling than a circle on my floor.

 

I'm not bothered about sticking to a perfectly prototypical ECML, I mostly said that to give a rough sense of what I like which is generally speaking passenger stuff that has been run on the ECML that I fell in love with when I was little. I always used to see Class 91s crossing bridges, and I have so many memories of falling in love with Mallard at the NRM. With regards to sticking to an era, it's sensible advice but honestly there won't be enough detail on this layout for there to really be anything era defining. I could pick one or the other, but the fact is I love both.

 

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

2m by 0.75m is enough for a branch or secondary main line terminus, or industrial setup, split roughly into three  areas each about 0.66m long.  This is enough for a three-coach/nine-wagon train in 00, 4/12 in TT120, 6/18 in N (modern goods wagons are longer and you will not be able to 'get as many in'.  One 0.66m will be a terminus station, one will be the various junctions and points, perhaps goods shed, loco depot, and the last will be the fiddle yard, an 'off stage' area for trains to come from and go to.  In front of that can be a kickback siding(s) serving a factory, wharf, dairy, army depot, whatever you like.  In N, it becomes possible to have a through station between two fiddle yards with kickback roads in front of one or both, and scenarios such as the Cambrian, Highland, Far North line, and similar can be brought into play.

 

I've been considering a non-loop layout since the start, but I like watching trains run rather than just shuttling back and forth so I've been trying to figure out a way to make a loop that works. I'm also hesitant to spend space on things like fiddle yards when it's so limited, it seems like the space would be better spent on actual running track.

Can you elaborate a bit on the specifics of what you're envisioning here? I sort of understand what you're thinking, but I'm struggling to come up with anything in SCARM.

The only sort of thing I've been able to come up with so far is along these lines, with a terminus station on the left with a through track for running. Technically this station should be able to accomodate a kato class 800, but honestly I'm out of my depth planning here. This is obviously just rough, ignore the points mess etc. As I said in my OP, the exercise is ultimately me trying to make something more compelling than a trakmat.

 

 

 

[Kris]

8 hours ago, Jademalo said:

 

Oh yeah, my intention would be to just run it from one of the Hornby transformers at a steady voltage. Again, it's a case of it being easy and low initial investment. Gives me space to switch to full DCC in the future if I wanted too.

 

 

That's good to hear, sound is definitely something I'm particularly interested in. For me it's the last little piece that sells the illusion, and really ties everything together.

Where should I be looking to start with sound for N? If I go for it I'd quite like to get a class 800 and fit dcc sound in that, but from what I can tell KATO models seem to use their own special decoders.

 

For the class 800 here is one solution to fitting sound. https://www.youchoos.co.uk/Index-Resource.php?L1=Guides&Item=NKatoIET800 From the look of it not a quick task. There are people who would do it for you. I can't recommend any as I have not used any myself. 

 

As for the DCC controller. If you are happy with second hand, you can pick up a Hornby Select for as little as £30 on Facebook (you do need to be quick at this price) but £50 is more realistic. 

[Nearholmer]

You appear to be about to replicate my first “layout”, some track screwed to a door, which hinged up against the wall over my bed, when I was about 7yo. In that case the track was Hornby Dublo, the loco ‘Silver King’, and the coaches tinplate.

 

Even in HD format, the “layout” had what might be called severe limitations!

 

If you are going to do this, go N, or the limitations will drive you mad very quickly.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Dunalastair]

Thinking outside the box, your 'layout behind the sofa' height constraint might prevent you doing a wired Royal Border Bridge version of The Forth Bridge, but there are characterful stretches of the ECML which might be represented in T gauge if you enjoy watching trains go by.

 

https://bala-lake-railway.co.uk/2019/06/03/may-2019-update/

 

Alternatively, if you want a larger scale, what about backdating the era to the 1840s - trains and stations were generally much shorter then. Not much in RTR, but Shapeways might offer bodies to sit on second hand running gear. 

[njee20]

A lot of naysayers here. I’m reminded of the N gauge layout “Deansmoor” which is built on a door; and therefore I assume a similar size to yours. Plenty of articles/videos of that about, and a detailed thread on the N gauge forum. That evokes the atmosphere of a mainline (WCML in that case) in a small space.  
 

I would advise that yes, if what you want is available then buying it now would make sense. The second hand market is buoyant and you’ll sell stuff easily if you change your mind. 

[scottystitch]

14 minutes ago, njee20 said:

A lot of naysayers here. I’m reminded of the N gauge layout “Deansmoor” which is built on a door; and therefore I assume a similar size to yours. Plenty of articles/videos of that about, and a detailed thread on the N gauge forum. That evokes the atmosphere of a mainline (WCML in that case) in a small space.  
 

I would advise that yes, if what you want is available then buying it now would make sense. The second hand market is buoyant and you’ll sell stuff easily if you change your mind. 

What he said.

 

 

Best

Scott.

[cypherman]

On 19/09/2023 at 07:01, Jademalo said:

I mean, at the end of the day you aren't wrong and I appreciate the advice, it's just that what interests me and what I want is to watch some trains I like run around a track. I could just buy a starter loop of whatever and set it up on my floor, but I figured I could get a bit more intrigue out of a different scale and a bit of clever track planning. I could just build an N or TT loop and be done with it, but that just seems a bit boring. This is ultimately something to have while I'm limited on space that I can pull out and watch trains I like go around.

 

I think you might also be overestimating the size I have available vertically as well - This layout has to be stored between a settee and a wall, so it has to be pancake flat. Any buildings and scenery I include will have to be removable no matter what, and I can't even begin to consider things like wired signals. Decoration can't go much further than a grass mat and maybe some ballast, with some removable buildings placed on top.

My goal here isn't really to create a highly detailed scene, when I eventually get the space to do that and have a permanent setup I'll almost definitely do it in OO. It's entirely to have something a bit more compelling than a circle on my floor.

 

I'm not bothered about sticking to a perfectly prototypical ECML, I mostly said that to give a rough sense of what I like which is generally speaking passenger stuff that has been run on the ECML that I fell in love with when I was little. I always used to see Class 91s crossing bridges, and I have so many memories of falling in love with Mallard at the NRM. With regards to sticking to an era, it's sensible advice but honestly there won't be enough detail on this layout for there to really be anything era defining. I could pick one or the other, but the fact is I love both.

 

 

I've been considering a non-loop layout since the start, but I like watching trains run rather than just shuttling back and forth so I've been trying to figure out a way to make a loop that works. I'm also hesitant to spend space on things like fiddle yards when it's so limited, it seems like the space would be better spent on actual running track.

Can you elaborate a bit on the specifics of what you're envisioning here? I sort of understand what you're thinking, but I'm struggling to come up with anything in SCARM.

The only sort of thing I've been able to come up with so far is along these lines, with a terminus station on the left with a through track for running. Technically this station should be able to accomodate a kato class 800, but honestly I'm out of my depth planning here. This is obviously just rough, ignore the points mess etc. As I said in my OP, the exercise is ultimately me trying to make something more compelling than a trakmat.

 

 

 

Hi Jade,

Looking at your initial single track plan made me have a play with it in Anyrail. I came up with these eight variations on it. I kept the diamond crossing in some of them as you had put one in your plan. I used Hornby standard track geometry to keep it simple. They nearly all allow end to end running and continuous running and a passing loop. Hope this helps. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by cypherman

[Jademalo]

On 19/09/2023 at 08:31, Dunalastair said:

Thinking outside the box, your 'layout behind the sofa' height constraint might prevent you doing a wired Royal Border Bridge version of The Forth Bridge, but there are characterful stretches of the ECML which might be represented in T gauge if you enjoy watching trains go by.

 

https://bala-lake-railway.co.uk/2019/06/03/may-2019-update/

 

Alternatively, if you want a larger scale, what about backdating the era to the 1840s - trains and stations were generally much shorter then. Not much in RTR, but Shapeways might offer bodies to sit on second hand running gear. 

 

Oh wow, that's absolutely gorgeous. Oh how I wish I had the space for something like that, lol.

That's a fair thought, but as I said above it's just not the era that gets me going.

 

On 19/09/2023 at 08:51, njee20 said:

A lot of naysayers here. I’m reminded of the N gauge layout “Deansmoor” which is built on a door; and therefore I assume a similar size to yours. Plenty of articles/videos of that about, and a detailed thread on the N gauge forum. That evokes the atmosphere of a mainline (WCML in that case) in a small space.  
 

I would advise that yes, if what you want is available then buying it now would make sense. The second hand market is buoyant and you’ll sell stuff easily if you change your mind. 

On 19/09/2023 at 09:06, scottystitch said:

What he said.

 

 

Best

Scott.

 

Oh wow, that layout is absolutely gorgeous. It really uses elevation well though, which I unfortunately don't have the luxury of.

Good to know the secondary market is solid, I'm not averse to buying so long as I know I'm not just throwing away money. I hate whenever I have to get something that I know will immediately lose a lot of value, but it's why I tend to spend more on good stuff I can sell rather than buying cheaper stuff I can't.

 

16 hours ago, cypherman said:

Hi Jade,

Looking at your initial single track plan made me have a play with it in Anyrail. I came up with these eight variations on it. I kept the diamond crossing in some of them as you had put one in your plan. I used Hornby standard track geometry to keep it simple. They nearly all allow end to end running and continuous running and a passing loop. Hope this helps. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh wow, these ideas are absolutely fantastic, thank you so much! I genuinely really appreciate it.

I particularly like 2 and 6, I'm going to have a play with something along those lines and see if I can get something ideal. Unfortunately my door probably isn't deep enough for a turntable, as much fun as that would be. These have definitely given me a load of great ideas though!

 

The original reason the diamond crossing was there was for a double loop, but I couldn't quite get something I liked with it. I had the idea of being able to run it either as two opposing loops or a figure 8, depending on how I was feeling, with some sort of feature at the top.

 

Do you have any particular recommendations or ideas in terms of where to put platforms and how wide to space things? I'm actually wondering if it could work to sort of mirror the internal section of 8, and run the diagonals as platforms in addition to the ones outside of the loop. It's actually reminding me a bit of Newcastle in the 80s and earlier looking west, with some straight terminus platforms where the car park is now and the curved through platforms next to them.

 

 

Obviously I want to be careful to not make it too busy, but I feel like there's the seed of an idea here!

 

 

[Jademalo]

Ok this layout is a bit of a mess, but this is roughly what I've got in my head. It needs a lot of fixing since everything is a bit wonky, and I feel like I could utilise the right hand side better. A lot of the wonkiness is due to track piece limits though, more than anything else.

What I'm thinking is two physical platforms on the left for the two terminus lines and the outer loop, with no platform on the inner loop. One on the outside, two tracks, then one between. Then having the left bank of 3 tracks be two short platforms on the outside with a siding in the middle, a lot like the rightmost newcastle platform in the image I posted above.

 

If anyone has any decent feedback on this sort of thing I'd very much appreciate it, but I'm really starting to like how this is coming along.

 

 

As a side note, Anyrail's flex track system is so much better than SCARM's.

[njee20]

Any platforms on that will be so short as to be virtually useless. Perhaps 2 coaches at most. 
 

Take it back to Deansmoor - there are no points on the main scenic section. If you want to build a shunting/depot layout you can have more pointwork, if you want to evoke the feeling of a mainline then I’d suggest that less is more here. That’ll look massively overcrowded. Save complex junctions for when you have more space IMO. 

[Jademalo]

Deansmoor is 90% scenery and has a lot of elevation to make better use of the space, both things I can't do. All I want to do is run trains in circles with a bit more intrigue than a simple oval, not design a masterpiece that will outlive me. The only real similarity is the fact that it's on a door.

 

As I said, the positioning of everything is all over the place and not sized properly for platforms yet. That was just me throwing together a rough outline of the shape. Measuring the two left hand platforms they should be long enough for the kato class 800, especially if they're actually pulled out to the edge properly. The inner platforms are absolutely not sized right at all, the points need moving around.

I guess you could say I'm wanting to evoke something along the lines of Newcastle central station with the loop over to Gateshead, just without the bridges.

[RobinofLoxley]

I'm sorry, Im finding this thread a bit confusing; it belongs in layout and track design, would it be OK to move it?

 

The confusion is because the board size is restricted to 2.0M x 0.79M and yet there are plans here in OO with third radius curves that dont fit on the template. Has the template changed?

 

2 hours ago, Jademalo said:

Ok this layout is a bit of a mess, but this is roughly what I've got in my head. It needs a lot of fixing since everything is a bit wonky, and I feel like I could utilise the right hand side better. A lot of the wonkiness is due to track piece limits though, more than anything else.

What I'm thinking is two physical platforms on the left for the two terminus lines and the outer loop, with no platform on the inner loop. One on the outside, two tracks, then one between. Then having the left bank of 3 tracks be two short platforms on the outside with a siding in the middle, a lot like the rightmost newcastle platform in the image I posted above.

 

If anyone has any decent feedback on this sort of thing I'd very much appreciate it, but I'm really starting to like how this is coming along.

 

 

As a side note, Anyrail's flex track system is so much better than SCARM's.

The wonkiness is due to poor selection of track elements; using Anyrail takes practice (I feel comfortable after about 3 years worth of playing around, and that is just track not scenery!); is this Peco code 80, and would this be your final choice?

[Jademalo]

1 minute ago, RobinofLoxley said:

I'm sorry, Im finding this thread a bit confusing; it belongs in layout and track design, would it be OK to move it?

 

Oh my apologies, is it in the wrong place?

I had assumed the Modelling in the title of the subforum was the broader sense as in the whole hobby, rather than specifically scenic dioramas. The fact that the whole section is called Modelling zone in contrast to the Trade & Products zone only cemented that. I double checked to see if there was a better place when I first posted it, and this was the only place I could see that was specifically for questions and help.

If so that explains the miscommunication, If there's a better place it could be moved to then that would be appreciated.

 

7 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

The wonkiness is due to poor selection of track elements; using Anyrail takes practice (I feel comfortable after about 3 years worth of playing around, and that is just track not scenery!); is this Peco code 80, and would this be your final choice?

 

Oh yeah, at the end of the day I didn't spend all that much time on it, I was just trying to chunk it out conceptually. It's pointless spending hours mediculously radiusing curves and getting everything spaced perfectly if the core concept isn't right. Plus I'm using the free version, so I had to do everything I could to squeeze it out of the 50 pieces I had.

I'm not 100% decided on Code 80, mainly because of some of the fancier elements available in Code 55. I have a feeling a single slip crossing is a better way of doing what I'm trying to do with the interior platforms/yard, but that's only available in 55. Honestly I'm not all too familiar with the differences, I know the profile of the rail is different but not really any advantages or disadvantages.

[RobinofLoxley]

2 minutes ago, Jademalo said:

 

Oh my apologies, is it in the wrong place?

I had assumed the Modelling in the title of the subforum was the broader sense as in the whole hobby, rather than specifically scenic dioramas. The fact that the whole section is called Modelling zone in contrast to the Trade & Products zone only cemented that. I double checked to see if there was a better place when I first posted it, and this was the only place I could see that was specifically for questions and help.

If so that explains the miscommunication, If there's a better place it could be moved to then that would be appreciated.

 

 

Oh yeah, at the end of the day I didn't spend all that much time on it, I was just trying to chunk it out conceptually. It's pointless spending hours mediculously radiusing curves and getting everything spaced perfectly if the core concept isn't right. Plus I'm using the free version, so I had to do everything I could to squeeze it out of the 50 pieces I had.

I'm not 100% decided on Code 80, mainly because of some of the fancier elements available in Code 55. I have a feeling a single slip crossing is a better way of doing what I'm trying to do with the interior platforms/yard, but that's only available in 55. Honestly I'm not all too familiar with the differences, I know the profile of the rail is different but not really any advantages or disadvantages.

Well thats all good. You can post where you like, the only advantage to moving the thread is that those with a specific interest in layout design might miss it where it is; If others behave as i do, they dont look in subsections that dont interest them, ever.

 

You are absolutely right about code 80 and 55; but they can be mixed, and this is especially important regarding slips which are only available, strangely, in code 55 and are absoluely essential for space saving. While the 2M dimension isn't especially restricted in N (would be 4M translated to OO which is quite a decent room size) the 0.79M dimension is. Its important for drafting track plans as its a waste of time to draw things in a different code that cant then be reproduced in the chosen one because the turnout angles arent the same, for example.

 

@AY Mod can we move this to layout and track design pretty please?

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, Jademalo said:

Ok this layout is a bit of a mess, but this is roughly what I've got in my head. It needs a lot of fixing since everything is a bit wonky, and I feel like I could utilise the right hand side better. A lot of the wonkiness is due to track piece limits though, more than anything else.

What I'm thinking is two physical platforms on the left for the two terminus lines and the outer loop, with no platform on the inner loop. One on the outside, two tracks, then one between. Then having the left bank of 3 tracks be two short platforms on the outside with a siding in the middle, a lot like the rightmost newcastle platform in the image I posted above.

 

If anyone has any decent feedback on this sort of thing I'd very much appreciate it, but I'm really starting to like how this is coming along.

 

 

As a side note, Anyrail's flex track system is so much better than SCARM's.

 

Some hints

• you don't need to use every track piece in the inventory;
• be careful with diamonds that give limited access to a route or siding
• beware leaving yourself unusably short sidings or (particularly) headshunts

And you don't actually need terminal platforms to terminate trains.  I would be looking at a through station on one side of the layout with a middle road accessible from both directions which I would lay out with three platform faces (one ordinary and one island platform).  On the other side, a goods loop and sidings.  This will allow up to four trains with two runing at any one time and should be doable in N on a door.  If you go for TT you may need to simplify.

[scottystitch]

To give some perspective, this is a Code 55, basic double oval drawn on the size given.  Inside radius is 12" (305mm).  I personally don't build/plan any of my layouts with anything tighter.

 

The dark green line on the inner circuit at the bottom is a representation of the size of Kato's 800 series train.  Gaugemaster quote the overall length as 880mm.

 

The grid size is 100mm square.

 

Best

Scott

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by scottystitch