New Layout Plan, feedback wanted.

[Ian B Lanacshire]

Hi all, I'm just returning to model railways after 25 years. I'm planning to build an around the wall layout in the loft of our bungalow. My last layout was as a teenager and on a 6*4 sheet of ply on the dinning room table. Everything had to be removable for storage which I found really limiting and I longed for a larger space where I could have tracks on different levels with tunnels and build really detailed scenery. Now that I have the space, or will have next year when I've finished making the loft space habitable, I know that building this layout will take many years and so I want to come up with a concept and track plan that I won't regret in years to come.

So here is what I've come up with, please everyone, pick it to pieces, don't hold back, really tear it apart :-)

 

The usable space is about 3m by 5m with a loft ladder coming up in the middle. I need access at the right hand side to get to the gas boiler and some storage space with a lower ceiling height so the bridge at the right hand side has to be removable.

I want a parade route to run trains on whilst I work on other bits of the layout or whilst I perform shunting operations in the yards. I don't envisage multiple operators, just me and the occasional spectator. The scenario I've chosen is late 90s/turn of the millennium, before electrification of the mainlines.

 

The centre of the layout, on the left hand wall is the station with a double main line which runs up a 3% slope in either direction from the station around the walls to the highest point which is the removable bridge at the right hand side, crossing other smaller bridges and tunnels as it goes. This will be the parade route. Both north and south bound mainlines have a platform track and a passing track at the station. There is then a branch line which services the docks, where I intend to build a working container crane to unload containers from a ship, and a general purpose yard for serving an industrial estate and acting as a classification yard. I'll keep a small shunter stationed in each yard and transfer completed trains between the arrival/departure tracks of each yard with a larger diesel engine. The branch line can access the mainlines at the station so that goods trains can be given a few laps around the layout on the mainline and mainline trains can use the branch line to access the future staging area.

 

The bottom right corner may get left at scenic countryside but I'm debating butting in another industry, quarry/mine/logging etc. or putting a small railway museum there so that I can have a heritage railway sharing the branch line and justify running the occasional steam train.

 

That little lot should keep me busy for a few years but I want the option in future to expand by putting a helix in the storage portion of the loft (bottom right) to drop trains onto a lower level where they would travel through various unrelated standalone dioramas to get to a staging area roughly under the main station. Ideas for which include a model of my local station (300 yards from my house which was closed by Dr. B) in the 1950s and possibly an American wild west scene. The lower level is all up in the air but I'd like to have options in the future. I can only really fit 1 helix so I'm thinking double track (one up and one down) with the track on the lower level roughly imitating the brand line on the level above with a loop at the top right so that I can send a train off towards the helix and if I forget about it then it would eventually reappear on the top deck rather than have it run into the buffer in the staging yard.

 

I'm also planning to put a subway platform under the main station with an automated shuttle train going in and out of the station just for some added interest.

 

This is all in OO code100 pico track with minimum 50cm radius curves. large points on the mainlines, mediums on the branch line and arrival/departure tracks and small points within the yards where only the shunters should go.

 

I've attached a jpg image of the proposed layout and also the anyrail file (with the file extension changed to .doc, to view it in anyrail just change the file extension from .doc to .any.

 

I'd really welcome any feedback that can stop me from making errors with the track plan that I'll regret later on.

 

Thanks in advance, Ian

Single Helix top deck.doc

[BR Blue]

You have got plenty of space and just like me after many years are planning a layout. The only thing that I would suggest is that the curves into and out of the station look a bit tight. Always go for the biggest curves you can. Radically you could swap the station and the MPD or even just do half a station with rest off scene. Incline is fine and 3% is not too bad but if you have the room make it 2%.

 

Best of luck

[brossard]

I don't understand why folk have to go for huge straight out of the blocks.  My advice to people starting out (and let's face it, after such a long hiatus, you are starting from scratch) is to start with something small, like a "plank".   Build a country station with the infrastructure (signal box, engine shed, goods shed etc).  This will allow you to get boards quickly, gain experience with track laying and wiring and, most important have somewhere to run trains while the opus magnus is being built.

 

What control system?  I don't think you have said.  DCC is where it's at and ideal for small or large layouts.

 

Why code 100?  I might assume it is because you already have it.  Nothing wrong with it but code 75 is finer and looks better.  All modern stock is compatible with it.  Peco now have Bullhead in code 75, far more typical of British railways than flatbottom.

 

Wiring:  for the sake of your sanity and back, try to design the boards so that they can be put in the vertical.  Terrible torture to have to do the job lying on your back.

 

John

[Ian B Lanacshire]

14 minutes ago, brossard said:

I don't understand why folk have to go for huge straight out of the blocks.  My advice to people starting out (and let's face it, after such a long hiatus, you are starting from scratch) is to start with something small, like a "plank".   Build a country station with the infrastructure (signal box, engine shed, goods shed etc).  This will allow you to get boards quickly, gain experience with track laying and wiring and, most important have somewhere to run trains while the opus magnus is being built.

 

What control system?  I don't think you have said.  DCC is where it's at and ideal for small or large layouts.

 

Why code 100?  I might assume it is because you already have it.  Nothing wrong with it but code 75 is finer and looks better.  All modern stock is compatible with it.  Peco now have Bullhead in code 75, far more typical of British railways than flatbottom.

 

Wiring:  for the sake of your sanity and back, try to design the boards so that they can be put in the vertical.  Terrible torture to have to do the job lying on your back.

 

John

Thanks John. Yeah I should have mentioned it will be DCC, I'm opting for code100 because I have a decend collection of older rolling stock in a box and a few existing trains which I'll convert to DCC.

In terms of going big from the off the intention was to put in the mainline base, cork roadbed and track so that I can get trains running and ensure that the grades are ok. I was then going to build and scenic the station before moving around the layout doing roughly a 4 foot section at a time installing the branch line and fully scenicing before moving on to the next section. Only if/when the whole top deck is complete would I start on the helix and lower deck. The lower deck contents will be influenced by which elements of the top deck I enjoyed foing the most. Urban vs rural etc.

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond.

[brossard]

OK, you know best.

 

As far as stock, don't assume older stock is incompatible with code 75.  At our club we have discovered most of the older stuff is fine.  Unless the stock is Horby Dublo vintage with really coarse wheels, you might be pleasantly surprised.  Before committing, get hold of a piece of code 75 track and do some testing.

 

John

[Ian B Lanacshire]

41 minutes ago, brossard said:

OK, you know best.

 

As far as stock, don't assume older stock is incompatible with code 75.  At our club we have discovered most of the older stuff is fine.  Unless the stock is Horby Dublo vintage with really coarse wheels, you might be pleasantly surprised.  Before committing, get hold of a piece of code 75 track and do some testing.

 

John

Cheers John, I'm going to do that. 

[ColinK]

I like the plan, especially the station on the left hand side.

[ITG]

As far as I can see, there’s only a single crossover linking the two circular main lines, and that is facing. Some would say trailing would be more realistic.

Separately, and possibly conversely, although there is a run round loop on each of the main lines alongside the platforms, if you wanted to run any terminating services which then reverse direction (which does add operational interest), a clockwise travelling train would have to run into the inner platform roads ahead of the station, as it can’t stay on its own side as there’s no easy route back to right road running when it starts it’s return journey.

And an anti-clockwise travelling train can only enter platforms/loops on the inner side as well, but then cannot get back to right road running as there’s no crossover.

Maybe that’s irrelevant for how you wish to operate, but it’s certainly worth thinking about.

ian

[5BarVT]

22 hours ago, brossard said:

OK, you know best.

 

As far as stock, don't assume older stock is incompatible with code 75.  At our club we have discovered most of the older stuff is fine.  Unless the stock is Horby Dublo vintage with really coarse wheels, you might be pleasantly surprised.  Before committing, get hold of a piece of code 75 track and do some testing.

 

John

When I was considering doing that and suggested I’d buy a yard of flexi, it was suggested that points may be worse than plain line, so include a point in your trials.

Lime “pizza cutter” wheels are supposed to be the worst but they can be swapped out easily - I have a Lima class 117 running very happily on peters spares replacement wheels.  Just pop out the old and pop in the new on unpowered vehicles.  (I have the replacements for the powered bogie too, just haven’t got round to it!).

Paul.

[Harlequin]

Many older locos are a pain to convert to DCC. So when push comes to shove you might end up replacing them with newer stock and then the Code100 restriction would become less relevant. Coaches and Wagons are easy to rewheel.

 

3% gradient could be a problem for steam locos and anything more than a few coaches.

 

There's a layout and track planning subforum where this plan would get more feedback from people interested in the topic.

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Harlequin

[brossard]

27 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Many older locos are a pain to convert to DCC. So you might end up replacing them with newer stock when push comes to shove and then the Code100 restriction would become less relevant. Coaches and Wagons are easy to rewheel.

 

3% gradient could be a problem for steam locos and anything more than a few coaches.

 

There's a layout and track planning subforum where this plan would get more feedback from people interested in the topic.

 

 

Yes, and the old Mainline/early Bachmann locos come to mind.  The split chassis design makes installing DCC tricky.  I did it a time or two but after those experiences refused to do it again.  The other major flaw with these locos is the plastic spacer between the drivers.  These are notorious for cracking and wheels coming loose.  I think there are aftermarket replacements in the 3D print marketplace.

 

I agree with Harlequin, take a hard look at what you have and perhaps compare to what's available now.  Today's prices can be silly so that may be an issue.  Modern models have amazing performance, especially when fitted with DCC, so that's a consideration.  Then again, you don't have to buy everything at once.

 

John

[Ian B Lanacshire]

On 24/10/2023 at 19:58, ITG said:

As far as I can see, there’s only a single crossover linking the two circular main lines, and that is facing. Some would say trailing would be more realistic.

Separately, and possibly conversely, although there is a run round loop on each of the main lines alongside the platforms, if you wanted to run any terminating services which then reverse direction (which does add operational interest), a clockwise travelling train would have to run into the inner platform roads ahead of the station, as it can’t stay on its own side as there’s no easy route back to right road running when it starts it’s return journey.

And an anti-clockwise travelling train can only enter platforms/loops on the inner side as well, but then cannot get back to right road running as there’s no crossover.

Maybe that’s irrelevant for how you wish to operate, but it’s certainly worth thinking about.

ian

Thanks Ian, that's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. I've tweaked the plan and as the other have pointed out that code75 is probably a goer I've updated the plan with some double slips (which apparently aren't available in code100) and made the station into a wedge shape.