First ever layout, can you please help me?

[Bloxley]

Hi all,

I have never owned a train set/ layout before. Although I have weather a few items of rolling stock for fun. However I have done a lot of military modelling and dioramas has became a bit of a passion for me for the last 2 or so years.

However I have always wanted movement in this dioramas and railways seem to be the perfect fit. I have this idea for a small layout in oo gauge.

I am unsure if this is prototypical (suppose to do it right, i would need much more space) but I can probably overlook this. Layout is 180x45 cm (6x1.5 ft), squares are 30cm/ 1ft. This really is as much space as I want to dedicate to this.

I hope this layout would give me a fair opportunity to do some shunting with a 08 (think it has a inglenook in there? I am aware this location probably wouldn't have much shunting in real life.) Plus i can bring in and out some larger diesel loco or DMU's?

If it matters I would probably like to model the 90's/ early 2000's but this can be changed as I believe most modern wagons may be too long for this layout?

If anyone has any feed back, I would really appreciate it. As I have never done any railway modelling in the past, so I am sure I have overlooked many things.

[Mol_PMB]

Welcome to the forum and the hobby!

I think there are a lot of good features about this plan, and it makes good use of the space available.

 

One thing you might like to consider is that it would require a second loco to shunt the two sidings in the middle of the layout, because there is no loop to run round. That's not necessarily a problem - it gives you an excuse to have more than one loco. Or were you thinking that those sidings would just be for loco stabling?

 

In the modern era, there are still some short 4-wheel wagons in use. For example the PCA cement tanks. But most trains are formed of larger bogie wagons and there's little shunting to be done as they are block trains all carrying the same product. In the 1990s there was more variety so the further back you go, the more options you have. There were some interesting industrial private networks/sidings with through traffic from BR but industrial shunting locos - that principle might be ideal for this layout?

 

Best of luck with it - I'm sure others will chip in soon.

Paul

[Nearholmer]

Are you envisaging it as a locomotive servicing point? If so, you are right: not a lot of shunting, only wagons of fuel and maybe the odd open/van with some sort of spares/stores.

 

if not a locomotive servicing point, what gets maintained in that shed? Wagons? If that’s the case, then a fair bit of shunting, and potentially a variety of wagons.
 

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Wherry Lines]

I would be inclined to model the maintainence shed in low relief, with more of the trackwork in the open. It would open up the layout a little and make it seem a bit larger. You could always have the doors open with a cut down wagon in each doorway too.

Edited December 3, 2023 by Wherry Lines

[Nearholmer]

It’s a choice isn’t it? A dioramist might choose to have lots of the shed on stage, but leave part of the roof open, and go to town on interior detailing showing work in progress on wagons.

[Bloxley]

16 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Are you envisaging it as a locomotive servicing point? If so, you are right: not a lot of shunting, only wagons of fuel and maybe the odd open/van with some sort of spares/stores.

 

if not a locomotive servicing point, what gets maintained in that shed? Wagons? If that’s the case, then a fair bit of shunting, and potentially a variety of wagons.
 

 

I was kind of in the idea of something of a cross between the two, although not 100% prototypical I would imagine. But I had the idea it was a small all purpose depot servicing a small industry nearby. 

[Nearholmer]

So ‘industrial railway’, rather than a main-line operation?

[Bloxley]

22 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

Welcome to the forum and the hobby!

I think there are a lot of good features about this plan, and it makes good use of the space available.

 

One thing you might like to consider is that it would require a second loco to shunt the two sidings in the middle of the layout, because there is no loop to run round. That's not necessarily a problem - it gives you an excuse to have more than one loco. Or were you thinking that those sidings would just be for loco stabling?

 

In the modern era, there are still some short 4-wheel wagons in use. For example the PCA cement tanks. But most trains are formed of larger bogie wagons and there's little shunting to be done as they are block trains all carrying the same product. In the 1990s there was more variety so the further back you go, the more options you have. There were some interesting industrial private networks/sidings with through traffic from BR but industrial shunting locos - that principle might be ideal for this layout?

 

Best of luck with it - I'm sure others will chip in soon.

Paul

The no loop is a small issue, which is why I thought the yard could be serviced by the 08. Probably parked in the siding in the middle of the layout. I just couldn't figure out how to cram a loop in? I suppose I could get rid of the fiddle yard. But I like the idea of the break in the scenery for a new train to enter into the scene. 

 

I drive past bescot fairly regularly and they have some smaller I presume ballast wagons, I am unsure exactly which wagons they are. Looking online they look simialr to a MHA?

 

Think that could work with my idea as some sort of depot for minor repairs to locos and wagons, servicing a industrial branchline. 

 

I am not 100% caught up on accuracy, so I am willing to flex away from prototypical to have a layout that is fun to my own narrative. 

[Bloxley]

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

So ‘industrial railway’, rather than a main-line operation?

So the railway I lived by all my life is the chase line, it has a lot of industrial use (or did until the powerstation closed) and services 2 or 3 car dmus only. Atleast in my living memory. So i kind of was thinking along these lines, its a fictional location. But yes the line would primarily be a industrial line, but purely because I traveled on DMU's every week from about age 11 till 23, i like the idea of a DMU refuelling there or something (if its only because I want to see it I can live with that justification) 

[Bloxley]

30 minutes ago, Wherry Lines said:

I would be inclined to model the maintainence shed in low relief, with more of the trackwork in the open. It would open up the layout a little and make it seem a bit larger. You could always have the doors open with a cut down wagon in each doorway too.

 

I think your right, it would give the perception that the sidings going into the shed are much longer. Thank you

[The Johnster]

Fair enough, but I suspect you will 'flex' towards accuracy over time as your knowledge of the subject increases.  A loco servicing point sharing faciiities with a freight handling yard is not a very likely scenario (I can't think of one off-hand anywhere), just flagging that up.  Loco servicing is usually close to a main line, not down some obscure industrial branch...  You don't need a run-around loop if the loco propels the incoming train, which is perfectly feasible in this situation; we used to propel from North Curve Yard to Ely Harbour tank farm in Cardiff, about two miles with sidings serving small factories and a scrap yard off at Ferry Road (where ASDA is now).

 

As you are considering a traverser fiddle yard, you will be able to exploit the lateral space more effectively if the scenic break entrance is more towards the centre of your layout.  I would be considering lift-out cassettes for this sort of operation.  I don't know how, or where, you'd shoe-horn a dmu or any passenger working in unless you resorted to the common dodge of a backgound high-level line single track open platform terminus.  Perhaps you could be differnent and have it low level in the foreground.

 

I note you've done some military stuff; if any of this is in 1/76ths, you are well set up for a rail-served military logistics depot with an end-loading dock for vehicles, gantry crane for containers, and Railfreight 4-wheel vans, and even in the 90s and 00s this might have a Ruston 44DS shunting engine!  Army have these all over the place, and you find Naval ones as well; the flyboys seem to keep to their own airfields.

[Bloxley]

6 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Fair enough, but I suspect you will 'flex' towards accuracy over time as your knowledge of the subject increases.  A loco servicing point sharing faciiities with a freight handling yard is not a very likely scenario (I can't think of one off-hand anywhere), just flagging that up.  Loco servicing is usually close to a main line, not down some obscure industrial branch...  You don't need a run-around loop if the loco propels the incoming train, which is perfectly feasible in this situation; we used to propel from North Curve Yard to Ely Harbour tank farm in Cardiff, about two miles with sidings serving small factories and a scrap yard off at Ferry Road (where ASDA is now).

 

As you are considering a traverser fiddle yard, you will be able to exploit the lateral space more effectively if the scenic break entrance is more towards the centre of your layout.  I would be considering lift-out cassettes for this sort of operation.  I don't know how, or where, you'd shoe-horn a dmu or any passenger working in unless you resorted to the common dodge of a backgound high-level line single track open platform terminus.  Perhaps you could be differnent and have it low level in the foreground.

 

I note you've done some military stuff; if any of this is in 1/76ths, you are well set up for a rail-served military logistics depot with an end-loading dock for vehicles, gantry crane for containers, and Railfreight 4-wheel vans, and even in the 90s and 00s this might have a Ruston 44DS shunting engine!  Army have these all over the place, and you find Naval ones as well; the flyboys seem to keep to their own airfields.

Thank you, you might be right. When I first started military modelling I never much cared for historical accuracy. But as time went on... you know how the rabbit hole goes. I suppose its easier with single models to progress like this, whereas a layout is a bigger undertaking and longer term planning is probably needed. 

 

In all honesty I will likely ditch the dmu off then. As the one I would actually want I can't actually find in stock anyway (london midland class 170)

 

Main reason i wanted a traverser is because I am draftsman by trade and think I could quite easily design a traverser. So its just a bit of a side project. And I quite like staying afterwork to play in the machine shop on various personal projects. 

 

I probably need a rethink of the purpose of the layout after all your comments. This is exactly why I posted as my railway knowledge is limited. I think some kind of wagon repair facility could be feasible? As i grew up around a coal based power station (Rugeley) I think this would suit my needs I mainly saw freightliner (HHA?) wagons on the line. But due to small space i think I would roll back the clock and base it on HAA wagons as they are much smaller. 

[The Johnster]

Glad to have been of some use, Bloxley; it's getting rarer these days!

[Bloxley]

14 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Glad to have been of some use, Bloxley; it's getting rarer these days!

Okay looking at ariel photos (most are blurred, for security reasons?) but I can see this shed not sure on its purpose? And what might be a refuelling point? So my initial layout albeit it more busy, is potentially on the right type of idea? 

 

There is what also appears to be coal unloading facility closer towards where the track branches off the mainline. So it would pass through the unloading facility before it reaches this area. I don't know if that helps determine this sheds use more easily? 

 

Although there is no road bridge on this section on the photos there is one further up. And I think some artistic license to compress the scene is fair otherwise I would need a layout longer than my house. lol

[tom s]

Could have the kickback sidings be a place to showcase whichever mainline diesel brought the wagons too, as well as the shunter that releases it and shunts the wagons for interest.

[Michael Hodgson]

Sorry if this is a bit too basic but as you're new to modelling, I suppose we should ask whether you envisage using conventional DC (analogue) control or DCC (Digital).  Doesn't affect the track layout, but will affect the wiring.  If the former you'll need to provide isolating sections in places where you want to kill one engine while another is shunting.  If DCC, you'll need decoders in your locos.

 

I like your idea of a traverser if your skills are to it.  you need somewhere for the trains to run to/from.  Otherise you are probably looking at exchangable cassettes.

 

As to purpose, I would think the space is suitable for a small loco or wagon repair/maintenance facility; if you want to run coal wagons, you'd probably have to model either a power station or a colliery.  Or you could go for a dockyard scene, or some small factory (which might determine what type of wagons you need).  You probably don't have enough space for a Freightliner terminal, at least not a modern one.

 

I can't see a justification for running in a DMU unless you provide a platform  London Midland Class 170 has been produced by Bachmann in OO and Farish in N, but you might have to look around on ebay for a second hand one.

Edited December 3, 2023 by Michael Hodgson

[tom s]

https://www.emgauge70s.co.uk/layout_villier.html I liked the small fuelling point on the EM layout Villier Street.

[Bloxley]

4 minutes ago, tom s said:

Could have the kickback sidings be a place to showcase whichever mainline diesel brought the wagons too, as well as the shunter that releases it and shunts the wagons for interest.

Please forget my ignorance as I know very little about railways. So I think from what you have shown, shunter either sits in fuelling point or bottom right siding? Is there operational or prototypical benefits of having the fuelling point there? Or is purely so it can more easily service two trains? 

[Bloxley]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Sorry if this is a bit too basic but as you're new to modelling, I suppose we should ask whether you envisage using conventional DC (analogue) control or DCC (Digital).  Doesn't affect the track layout, but will affect the wiring.  If the former you'll need to provide isolating sections in places where you want to kill one engine while another is shunting.  If DCC, you'll need decoders in your locos.

 

I like your idea of a traverser if your skills are to it.  you need somewhere for the trains to run to/from.  Otherise you are probably looking at exchangable cassettes.

 

As to purpose, I would think the space is suitable for a small loco or wagon repair/maintenance facility; if you want to run coal wagons, you'd probably have to model either a power station or a colliery.  Or you could go for a dockyard scene, or some small factory (which might determine what type of wagons you need).  You probably don't have enough space for a Freightliner terminal, at least not a modern one.

 

I can't see a justification for running in a DMU unless you provide a platform  London Midland Class 170 has been produced by Bachmann in OO and Farish in N, but you might have to look around on ebay for a second hand one.

I think isolating all the track sounds a lot more effort, so although expense may dictate otherwise I had thought dcc would be the easier way too go? 

 

I think due to the space a wagon maintenance would be easier to model. Plus the coal trains that serviced the power station to be was so long, think it would eventually bother me that I was showing 1/5 of the train. Which is why I am trying to figure out if it is feasible a power station would have some sort of moderate repair facilities on site?

 

This is just my first idea and I can change industry if needed. 

 

I think i have ditched the idea of the DMU as with the space I have I don't think I could produce anything I would enjoy playing with? Drop off and drive out seems like it would get boring quickly. Whereas the industrial sidings seems to give a bit more playability to a small space. 

[tom s]

4 minutes ago, Bloxley said:

Please forget my ignorance as I know very little about railways. So I think from what you have shown, shunter either sits in fuelling point or bottom right siding? Is there operational or prototypical benefits of having the fuelling point there? Or is purely so it can more easily service two trains? 

I was thinking that with the inglenook theme of the three sidings and no run around, it would make sense for the kickbacks to be used for locomotives to sit between duties, and having two would allow a shunter and mainline diesel to pass each other when swapping duties without using the space in the three wagon roads. Not necessarily both fuel served if it's not to taste.

[Bloxley]

2 minutes ago, tom s said:

I was thinking that with the inglenook theme of the three sidings and no run around, it would make sense for the kickbacks to be used for locomotives to sit between duties, and having two would allow a shunter and mainline diesel to pass each other when swapping duties without using the space in the three wagon roads. Not necessarily both fuel served if it's not to taste.

No now you have explained it makes total sense. Thank you. This seems a much better way of doing things, than I had planned. Why would you fuel in a siding, yeah should have thought of that!

[Pacific231G]

18 hours ago, Bloxley said:

I think isolating all the track sounds a lot more effort, so although expense may dictate otherwise I had thought dcc would be the easier way too go? 

 

 

If you're just starting out it might make sense to go with DCC as that can give sound, lights etc. For DC however, a simple layout like this,doesn't require a lot of isolating to be done as you can use point switching for most of it. If the points are set against a dead end siding then it's electrically dead.

Unless you want to have more than one loco in each of the fuelling sidings then you need just two feeds (points are alway fed from the switch end and never from the crossing end) and three isolations (achieved quite simply with insulating track joiners). I've marked these on your plan as red dashes.

 

The feeds are shown conventionally as red and black triangles and the section breaks (i.e. insulating track joiners) as red dashes- it doesn't matter which rail you put the break in. Because you have in any case to insulate both rails between the two points facing each other, this is also the minimum set up in DCC .

Assuming that you want a loco to bring in a train of wagons that is then shunted I'd sugest a switched break at a loco length from the end of the longer siding to enable the incoming loco to be isolated so that another can draw the wagons back to shunt them. If incoming trains are propelled in and drawn out then you don't even need that.

If you want the fuelling depot to accomodate more than two locos (I assume the shunting locos are short) then you need a switched section break in one of both of its sidings as indicated by red dashes (it doesn't actually matter which rail you break) and then bridge with an on-off section switch.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Pacific231G
grammar

[Bloxley]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

If you're just starting out it might make sense to go with DCC as that can give sound, lights etc. For DC however, a simple layout like this,doesn't require a lot of isolating to be done as you can use point switching for most of it. If the points are set against a dead end siding then it's electrically dead.

Unless you want to have more than one loco in each of the fuelling sidings then you need just two feeds (points are alway fed from the switch end and never from the crossing end) and three isolations (achieved quite simply with insulating track joiners). I've marked these on your plan as red dashes.

 

The feeds are shown conventionally as red and black triangles and the section breaks (i.e. insulating track joiners) as red dashes- it doesn't matter which rail you put the break in) Because you have to insulate both rails between the two points facing each other, this is also the minimum set up in DCC . Assuming that you want a loco to bring in a train of wagons that is then shunted I'd sugest a switched break at a loco length from the end of the longer siding to enable the incoming loco to be isolated so that another can draw the wagons back to shunt them. If incoming trains are propelled in and drawn out then you don't even need that.

If you want the fuelling depot to accomodate more than two locos (I assume the shunting locos are short) then you need a switched section break in one of both of its sidings as indicated by red dashes (it doesn't actually matter which rail you break and then bridge with an on-off section switch.

I dont think anyone could've explained that better. Thank you. 

 

I thought it would be much harder than that to wire DC. 

 

Going DC would certainly leave more budget for everything else.

 

Massive help, cheers 🍻 

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Bloxley said:

Although there is no road bridge on this section on the photos there is one further up. And I think some artistic license to compress the scene is fair otherwise I would need a layout longer than my house. lol

 

For some of us it would be longer than our street.  Even Pete Waterman needs to borrow cathederals to put his layouts up...

 

To be honest, the blurring (selective, so yeah, prolly for security reasons, but it seems odd that some buildings are considered 'ok'; that said, military and governmental security, the world of the Secret Squirrels, is not anything I have any understanding of, which shows that they are doing their job) is so extensive that, without close knowledge of the area, it is difficult to identify or define the purpose of anything much.  I could be, as you say, a fuelling point and a coal faciltiy, but it could just as easily be something else. 

 

One sees a lot of this sort of shunting problem layout, and they can be superb models.  I would say the things to avoid are too many locos; I've seen some at show where there are more locos than wagons, train spotters' wet dreams, and one where moving one wagon required three locomotives; that would be very unusual in reality, the operating costs would have the branch closed and the land sold off for housing in a week. 

 

Realism is usually best served by modelling the everyday and mundane, but doing it well and with an eye for fine detail and atmosphere; your military modelling learning curve will serve you well!

 

1 hour ago, Bloxley said:

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I think isolating all the track sounds a lot more effort, so although expense may dictate otherwise I had thought dcc would be the easier way too go? 

 

39 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

If you're just starting out it might make sense to go with DCC as that can give sound, lights etc.

 

The DC vs DCC debate is a pointless way of wasting a Sunday avo, but it's evening now...  My views FWIW, which is probably exactly what you're paying for them, are as follows:-

 

. DCC is always the preferable option, if:-

 

1) You can afford it (I can't).  This is the cost benefit equation, it will save money and complication in wiring your layout, but will be much more expensive that the 'analogue' methods that are the alternative.  Your layout is fairly simple and wiring & switches for isolating sections to park locos and reversing polarity switches for live frog turnouts (not needed if you use setrack or dead frogs but advised for running quality) should not break the bank, but you will probably not need more than two or three locos to work it, and that shouldn't break the bank if you go the DCC route either.

 

2) All your locos are suitable for fitting DCC chips, loudspeakers, &c inside.  Assuming all yours will be of recent RTR tooling production, this should not present problems, but you need to be aware that fitting chips to older locos, and perhaps some kits, may not be possible, and loudspeakers, lights, and internal wiring to power them, as well as heatsinks and other gubbins, will not help the situation!

 

Your locos will be smaller shunting types mostly, and Bachmann or Hornby 08s are fine, as are current production 'main line' diesels like 20s or 25s, even 37s, which would be the typical fare in the northwest Midlands I imagine.

 

I would strongly advise making this decision now, though.  It will be better than going with DC 'for now' and building a collection of locos that will need to be converted at once, a big wallet hit, if you change the decision later.  There are plus points to DC, apart from it being the poor man's system, especially on a shunting layout like this; it is logical once you get your head around the basic principles, and if there is a fault it it usually easy to trace (note 'usually') by process of elimination. There is a more direct 'feel' to the driving, in that the loco responds to voltage changes and you need to pay attention to the audible and visual feedback it is giving you, you have to 'drive' it other words to get the best performance out of it rather than rely on a digital feedback system that sort of removes that direct connection.  I find that the lack of sounds is not a barrier to my mentally providing them any more than the mental provision of steam loco steam or smoke, and am not much impressed with sound as it is offered at the present time anyway, bit tinny and lacking in impact, would be better on headphones with a simulated stereo effect,  I have made some progress with battery-on-board powered lighting.  

 

My layout is a fairly conventional BLT, and as I've said uses DC because I'm nobbut a poor pensioner (cue tragic violins), can you spare a crust for an old man, sir; I also use insulfrog turnouts, to simplify and economise on wiring and switches, against the recieved wisdom, despite which my running is pretty d*amned good.  This, though, needs very careful attention to track laying and bridgeing wires so that one does not have to rely on turnout blades for current supply, and strict & frequent attention to hygiene; railheads, wheel treads, pickup surfaces, and pickups, as well as to ensuring that all pickup wheels sit square and firm to the rails even on curvature. 

[Bloxley]

14 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

For some of us it would be longer than our street.  Even Pete Waterman needs to borrow cathederals to put his layouts up...

 

To be honest, the blurring (selective, so yeah, prolly for security reasons, but it seems odd that some buildings are considered 'ok'; that said, military and governmental security, the world of the Secret Squirrels, is not anything I have any understanding of, which shows that they are doing their job) is so extensive that, without close knowledge of the area, it is difficult to identify or define the purpose of anything much.  I could be, as you say, a fuelling point and a coal faciltiy, but it could just as easily be something else. 

 

One sees a lot of this sort of shunting problem layout, and they can be superb models.  I would say the things to avoid are too many locos; I've seen some at show where there are more locos than wagons, train spotters' wet dreams, and one where moving one wagon required three locomotives; that would be very unusual in reality, the operating costs would have the branch closed and the land sold off for housing in a week. 

 

Realism is usually best served by modelling the everyday and mundane, but doing it well and with an eye for fine detail and atmosphere; your military modelling learning curve will serve you well!

 

 

 

The DC vs DCC debate is a pointless way of wasting a Sunday avo, but it's evening now...  My views FWIW, which is probably exactly what you're paying for them, are as follows:-

 

. DCC is always the preferable option, if:-

 

1) You can afford it (I can't).  This is the cost benefit equation, it will save money and complication in wiring your layout, but will be much more expensive that the 'analogue' methods that are the alternative.  Your layout is fairly simple and wiring & switches for isolating sections to park locos and reversing polarity switches for live frog turnouts (not needed if you use setrack or dead frogs but advised for running quality) should not break the bank, but you will probably not need more than two or three locos to work it, and that shouldn't break the bank if you go the DCC route either.

 

2) All your locos are suitable for fitting DCC chips, loudspeakers, &c inside.  Assuming all yours will be of recent RTR tooling production, this should not present problems, but you need to be aware that fitting chips to older locos, and perhaps some kits, may not be possible, and loudspeakers, lights, and internal wiring to power them, as well as heatsinks and other gubbins, will not help the situation!

 

Your locos will be smaller shunting types mostly, and Bachmann or Hornby 08s are fine, as are current production 'main line' diesels like 20s or 25s, even 37s, which would be the typical fare in the northwest Midlands I imagine.

 

I would strongly advise making this decision now, though.  It will be better than going with DC 'for now' and building a collection of locos that will need to be converted at once, a big wallet hit, if you change the decision later.  There are plus points to DC, apart from it being the poor man's system, especially on a shunting layout like this; it is logical once you get your head around the basic principles, and if there is a fault it it usually easy to trace (note 'usually') by process of elimination. There is a more direct 'feel' to the driving, in that the loco responds to voltage changes and you need to pay attention to the audible and visual feedback it is giving you, you have to 'drive' it other words to get the best performance out of it rather than rely on a digital feedback system that sort of removes that direct connection.  I find that the lack of sounds is not a barrier to my mentally providing them any more than the mental provision of steam loco steam or smoke, and am not much impressed with sound as it is offered at the present time anyway, bit tinny and lacking in impact, would be better on headphones with a simulated stereo effect,  I have made some progress with battery-on-board powered lighting.  

 

My layout is a fairly conventional BLT, and as I've said uses DC because I'm nobbut a poor pensioner (cue tragic violins), can you spare a crust for an old man, sir; I also use insulfrog turnouts, to simplify and economise on wiring and switches, against the recieved wisdom, despite which my running is pretty d*amned good.  This, though, needs very careful attention to track laying and bridgeing wires so that one does not have to rely on turnout blades for current supply, and strict & frequent attention to hygiene; railheads, wheel treads, pickup surfaces, and pickups, as well as to ensuring that all pickup wheels sit square and firm to the rails even on curvature. 

I will I think on this occasion go for DC, its a first layout. It's not really designed to be expanded into a bigger layout.

 

DCC looks like the money could add up very quickly even on a small layout. 

 

I think considering I have never even operated a model train in my life, I should probably start basic.

 

I know I will enjoy the building of the layout, as I enjoy modelling and diorama work. So that bit is fine. How often I will feel the urge to operate the layout, is yet to be seen. So I will keep the costs associated with that as moderate as I can.