Brand new to Railway modelling, Bachman? DCC Digitrax DCS52 Zephyr Express and more?

[Cliff M]

Hi all. I am in the process of building my first 00 gauge layout as I am now retired. I have done a lot of research over the past weeks while I insulate my garage and prepare the space for the layout.

I have found SCARM and designed a layout, it's a twin track figure of eight with Industry and a shunter yard on the inside spaces.

The board measures 9 ft x 6 ft and I am using Peco 100 track both Set and Flexi. with Electrofrog points.
I am going for DCC and have been looking at the Digitrax DCS 52 as it seems a good entry point to DCC and I like the levers rather than the buttons. Does anyone have any experience with this controller?
I will also be using switches to activate the points which will be MP 4s or MP 1s. Again any experiences with these point motors?
I will separately power the signals and lighting possibly with a Gaugemaster-cased 12-volt unit which has two outputs.
Is there a case for having 3 power supplies, track, signals, and lighting?
Also, I am leaning toward the Bachman brand for locos. I like the DMUs and plan to have sound fitted. Again any opinions on Bachman? What class of loco and type of passenger wagon models should I look at for the 60s into the 70s?
I live near the main line to Liverpool Street so something in keeping with that would be good.
Which retailers do you use for Locos and scenery? I will be modeling street scenes, brick buildings, warehouses, etc rather than the countryside, and would prefer not to do too much painting. Are the Metcalf card kits any good?
Any comments at all would be appreciated as it is one thing to look at YouTube and Google but would prefer the experience of all of you guys first.
Many thanks in advance.

[MartynJPearson]

Lots of questions, but hopefully you'll find lots of help here!

 

I've not used SCARM but what you might want to do once you have the board in place is to print out the track plan and see how it looks. Running trains (or cardboard cut outs) on it will give you an idea of what fits where, and what moves are possible. Better to find issues before buying and fitting track!

 

With regards to the controller, an option might be to visit a retailer who will be able to show you the controller and others and let you have a go with it to make sure it's right. Digitrains in Lincoln are well worth a chat to (they also attend some shows). (No connection other than a satisfied customer!)

 

Your controller will power the track and while you can control accessories from the track as well, unless you are using the DCC signal to control accessories (like point motors, DCC ready signals etc), you will probably be better off with a separate supply. Remember too that running accessories from the track feed consumes power, something to consider if you might have lots of trains running at once. Years ago I managed to pick up a cheap Hornby booster which I use with my Gaugemaster Prodigy, the booster powering the track and the Prodigy powering the accessories. One advantage of this is that when a short happens and kills the track power, (which 99% of the time is me not setting the points right), I still have power to the accessories to move the points.

 

I've no experience with those point motors, I use servos for scenic parts and solenoids for non-scenic, but then I like tinkering with the electrics to make them work (my servos are driven by an Arduino which takes the control signals from the DCC accessory feed). 

 

I've a mixture of Bachmann and Hornby, predominantly Bachmann and apart from a motor expiring before it really ought to have done, and niggles with the couplings on their Mk1s I've had nothing but trouble free running from all my Bachmann stock. Others may have better experience with Hornby but I've had more issues, including poor running (warranty return, wasn't much better when it came back), faulty wiring (warranty return), intermittent lighting thanks to a flawed method of electrical connection, and Mk2 couplings which are held on by nothing but willpower.

 

With regards to scenery and buildings, there is so much to railway modelling, it comes down to courses for horses (or is it horses for courses..?) Metcalfe kits are fun to build and can be added to - for example, adding interiors, lighting and more detail like gutters, but then they can look a little samey. Scalescenes do some excellent downloadable kits and papers for scratchbuilding, and laser cut wooden kits such as those from Petite Properties allow you to really customise your builds to create buildings that are unique. Not the best video, but this is my Petite Properties church along with a ScaleModelScenery cottage (the white one) and two further PP buildings built but "plonked" for now!

 

 

 

[Philou]

Hello @Cliff M and welcome to the RMWeb collective!

 

You've just asked a question to which you will have a million (OK not quite) answers. Thumbs up for Scalescenes buildings - they take a while to build but you can print off as many copies as you like and alter them too. Another thumbs up for SCARM - my under construction layout was designed with it. If you like computers and can do 3D, SketchUp is quite good too and I created the final layout in that to get a feel of what it should look like.

 

You've asked about DCC - I can only comment on what I bought as I decided that I would go DCC from the off on retirement, despite having amassed a huge amount of stock over the years. I went for the ESU ECoS II, wasnt cheap but not the most expensive (apparently) out there. It has all the bells and whistles and will control two trains at once on individual controls plus all your accessories. Oh and it has a large touch-sensitive screen for ease of control. You can also use hand-held controllers via wiffy but not Bluetooth.

 

However, being a bit of a Luddite AND seeing how big the layout will actually be, I've decided to divide the layout into zones and each area will have a mimic board with good ol' fashioned mini-DPDTs and LEDs for the point control in each zone.

 

Good to see that you're going for Peco streamline (with some set track) and electrofrogs.

 

You haven't as yet posted a plan to show your proposal and I don't know if you've thought of gradients but the shallower the better avoiding anything steeper than 1:50 (if you can) as some locos can hardly pull the skin of a rice pudding once faced with a gradient. You should be fine with Bachmann not the cheapest, but don't discount other makes. There's a whole load of good locos and stock out there (some poor of course), but even Hornby turns out good stuff.

 

Good luck,

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

PS: If you want to have a look at the layout (WiP), type 'Dymented' (without the '') in the search bar above.

[Dungrange]

7 hours ago, Cliff M said:

Also, I am leaning toward the Bachman brand for locos. I like the DMUs and plan to have sound fitted. Again any opinions on Bachman?

 

You're not stuck with one brand.  My stock is a mixture of Oxford Rail, Dapol, Hornby, Bachmann, Rapido, Accurascale and Revolution Trains.  I probably have more Bachmann stock than any of the others, but it's the latter three that have been getting more of my money these days.  The only thing that really matters is that the couplings are compatible and that's not guaranteed even if you were to stick with one brand (particularly if that brand were Hornby).  It's better to think about what you want to model and then look at who produces that model.  Whilst there is more than one manufacturer that produces certain models, such as the Class 37 and Class 47, for many prototypes, there is only one manufacturer.

 

7 hours ago, Cliff M said:

What class of loco and type of passenger wagon models should I look at for the 60s into the 70s?

 

Best to invest in a number of books that cover the area and the period that interests you.  Doing a bit of research can be quite interesting in itself.

 

 

[The Johnster]

Bachmann make excellent RTR products, and you won't go wrong with them so long as you don't try to run locos or stock rated for larger radius curves than you have.  This is a point to watch with your flexible track, as it is easy unless you take suitable care to lay a curve to an average radius, but the track tends to form transition curves which may mean that the actual radius in the central part of the curve can be much less than you have measured.

 

But RTR is manufactured to common standards (allegedly) by all the companies involved, and all will run happily through each others' pointwork and couple with each other.  So, if you want a model of a prototype or in a livery not made by Bachmann you will have no problem in obtaining one available from another company.   Watch out for Hornby Railroad, though; these are older toolings with less detail than is customary nowadays, and on some of them this sadly includes couplings which do not match the currently universal (in the UK) NEM tension lock type.  Like Dungrange, I have more Bachmann locos than any other make, in fact more than half of them are blue box, but this is not out of any particular brand loyalty, it is simply that Bachmann make more of the ex-GW South Wales engines that I need for my layout than any other firm.

 

For the 60s to mid 70s, you can include the later examples of steam locos, depending on where you set your 60s start date, and green-liveried diesels with maroon coaches, but the core of this period is represented by the 'corporate' BR blue livery with yellow ends for locos, blue/grey for coaches, and blue with some blue/grey for dmus.  This was introduced in 1966, and the previous liveries were rare by the turn of the decade. 

 

Good news is that the RTR companies between them provide just about all the locos and stock, passenger and goods/mineral, that ran during that period, with the exception of some dmus, electric locos, emus, and some of the more esoteric small shunting engines that were mostly scrapped by the end of the 60s.  Gaps are being closed all the time, though.  Some classes were only used in certain areas at that time though, for instance the Deltics would only be seen on the ECML, and the WR hydraulic transmission types did not venture far off that region (except that the class 43 Warships were used on the LSWR Waterloo-Exeter route from 1966).

 

I use DC control on my own layout and know little of DCC, so cannot really advise you about it.  But I will comment that the best time to make the DC/DCC decision is before you amass a fleet of DC locos that will be costly to convert at one go.  If you go for DCC (which I highly reccommend if you can afford it; I can't), again watch out for Hornby Railroad, some of which cannot be converted to the format.

 

As a newcomer to the insanity hobby (welcome, btw), you may not be conversant with RTR firms other than Hornby, Bachmann, and perhaps Dapol or Heljan; these are the established names and main players.  But there are new kids on the block who are producing some fine models at competitive prices; have a look out for Accurascale and Rapido (the latter are a very well established Continental firm with a good reputation but have started producing 00 4mm scale RTR in the last few years). 

Edited December 19, 2023 by The Johnster

[ITG]

16 hours ago, Cliff M said:

The board measures 9 ft x 6 ft

Welcome. Do you plan to have access on all 4 sides of this solid board? If not, reaching across will be impossible. Even with all sides access, you need a 3’ reach for the centre, ok for a quick task but a stretch for a prolonged piece of work. Many folk in a garage space would opt for a 2’ board around the outside - any reason why not in your case?

I prefer Bachmann, simply due to the better running I’ve found, but I also run Hornby and Heljan locos. Rolling stock pretty much all makes seem ok to me. I’ve recently started using MTB MP1 motors - a definite thumbs up, they have several design features which make installation easier than many other brands.

I’d advocate splitting the DCC bus into two, track and accessories (ie turnouts) for easier management as others have suggested.

I use 12v DC for uncouplers, with a separate circuit for lighting, though from same power source.

Its worth sharing your scarm plans on here - best to get feedback at the concept stage rather than make changes when track or boards are in situ.
Ian

Edited December 19, 2023 by ITG
Added info

[Izzy]

There are lots of very helpful people on here, but perhaps the easiest way to find views on particular subjects is to use the search box to bring up the various threads. For example there have been several on the MTB  point motors and I believe the same regarding the Digitrax Zepher DS52. Can take a while to sift/read through them sometimes but worth the effort. 
 

Regarding DCC, Coastal DCC in Ipswich is perhaps closer if you live in Essex or Suffolk and comes highly recommended from me - usual disclaimer. They do attend a lot of shows but have a shop in with Orwell Models and Scograil. Kevin is ever helpful by phone/e-mail/website as well as personal visit but best to contact first in case he has popped out.

 

Bob

[Cliff M]

Hi all and thank you for your detailed and useful replies.

I have included a screenshot of my layout. I understand the need for trap doors etc to aid reach but I did not want to have two holes on either side as I want to create scenery and interest with gravel workings and countryside as well as the shunting yard on the left and the industry on the right.

The whole board will be on casters so I can get to the back edge and the right and front edges with no problem, but the left-hand edge will be a problem. The top left-hand corner will be a raised street scene coming down that side to where the tunnel exits.

Do I need to cover the whole board when built with 3 mm cork? then strips of more 3 mm cork for under the track?

What is the minimum height I can get away with for the center bridge to clear properly?

The station will be in the centre just below the bridge.

I will be using two power supplies to separate the track and the points, signal, etc, could you recommend a specific type or model power supply for the accessories?

Also is there a go-to retailer that you use for track, locos, etc?

Any guidance will be very much appreciated as I have now finished the reorganizing and insulation in the garage before I start spending cash.

 

 

 

 

[ITG]

I suggest you try to take this one step at a time, as there’s a lot of questions.

Something to first settle on is the track plan. Your design looks tricky to make work, due to the clearance necessary for your bridges, and the resultant required gradients. I’d aim for around a minimum of 70mm clearance, which by the time you have upper baseboard thickness etc, probably means you need rail top to rail top of a little more than that. Gradients are probably best at 3% (1 in 33) at the steepest, but 2%  (1 in 50) would be better. So to get 70mm height you need between 2-4 meters. Your track plan doesn’t look like it can achieve those kind of distances. Plus, gradients become more challenging for locos/trains if on curves, which much of your plan would be.

Also, what is the purpose of turnout 10. Nothing would be able to use it, as there’s no space to progress beyond it. If it is intended to facilitate a run round loop, is that loop long enough for your required length of trains?

Why have the two crossovers in the centre? Both face the same way, both of which, incidentally, are not typical as they are facing not trailing which would be more prototypical.

You don’t have to have a separate power supply for turnouts - you could simply separate the two bus wires, meaning they are both fed by the same source, but split at source.

ian 

[Harlequin]

Sorry Cliff but that really doesn't work.

 

The gradients up and over the bridge will be too steep even for minimal clearance (say 65mm rail top to rail top). You have to take into account some length of track to curve in the vertical direction at both ends of the gradient. If that vertical curve is too sharp locos are likely to derail, especially at the top where the track is still turning as it levels out. With such curves included in the red and green sections at top and bottom the gradients will be something like 1 in 25.

 

Also:

• As the green gradient descends it won't leave space for any kind of station infrastructure for the central station.
• The spacing between the double tracks varies around the layout. Why? Is there a good reason for that?
• Facing crossovers in your station: Why facing? Why 2 so close together?
• Level crossing at top crosses one line but not the one right next to it. So where does the road go?
• How is the right hand industry worked? Without a run round loop wagons have to be propelled for a long distance along the mainline before entering the yard, and worse, wagons leaving the yard have to be hauled in the wrong direction on the mainline. That's not realistic.
• You have a run round loop in the shunting yard on the left but there's no room for a loco to clear the loop points so it serves no purpose. The same propelling in, wrong road out problem applies to the yard on the left.

Along with the reach problems mentioned above you really need to rethink your plans. IMHO.

 

How big is the space inside the garage? What most people would do is build baseboards around the outside of the garage with a space in the centre for you to stand and operate the layout. That allows you to reach everywhere and make the best use of the space available. Could you do that? You will find lots of track plans using that basic format in books and magazines to take inspiration from.

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by Harlequin

[Dungrange]

1 hour ago, Cliff M said:

Also is there a go-to retailer that you use for track, locos, etc?

 

If you have a local retailer, why not use them?  For on-line orders, I've used several model shops including Hattons, Rails of Sheffield, Kernow, Derails, Footplate Models, Rainbow Railways and probably one I've forgotten about.  I haven't had problems with any, so it's just a case of who is selling what you want.

 

1 hour ago, Cliff M said:

 

I have to say that I agree with both @ITG and @Harlequin.  I just don't think the plan that you have is workable and in my opinion you need to start again with the planning before you buy anything other than rolling stock.  My first layout as a teenager had a gradient, possibly about as steep as yours (I had a 6' x 4' baseboard).  That layout was quickly scrapped, as I couldn't get anything more that a two coach train up the gradient and when the two coaches were hauled by an 0-4-0T is was a most unrealistic struggle.  If this is your first layout, my advice would be to ditch the gradient.  If you really must have a gradient, then your mainline will have to start rising as soon as you are under the bridge.  There can only be two level sections: under the bridge and over the bridge.  The rest of the track needs to be on rising or falling gradients.  How good are your carpentry skills to get constant gradients and smooth transitions top and bottom?

 

As has been noted, the two yards are unworkable without a proper run round in each and your crossovers are in the wrong place.  They need to be located such that a train leaving your yard can quickly crossover onto the correct track.  In the UK trains always drive on the left track (just like when you're driving along the road).

 

Your first post mentioned Liverpool Street as inspiration, which to me implies a largely passenger railway, yet the only operational interest you seem to have is being able to drive what would presumably be a goods train between two yards.  You're station wont fit where you think, but presumably you want to have somewhere where a Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) will stop.  Is this just going to go round and round or does it have a place to go?

 

I realise that the criticism of your plan might be hard, but it's best to sort these issues before you start buying timber.

[RobinofLoxley]

Although a straightforward roundy layout may appear less interesting than what you have drawn up Cliff, it will at least work. There are plenty of compact plans around that are adaptable for 9 x 6 and examples can be found by working backwards through the layout and track design section.

[Cliff M]

Wow, such criticism but I fully agree with you all and I am very grateful for it. The gradient did seem to be difficult when planning but as I have no experience I thought it might work ok. The station buildings were to be on the right-hand side of the tracks with streets behind. I didn't realize that trains drive on the left!  My garage space is 9 feet by 5 ft 9ins. I can't go an inch more. 

What would be your reply to the cork questions?

So I will rethink and just go for a double oval type layout and try to make the industry and shunter yard more realistic.

Is there a particular design that you know of that will fit my board and give the features I am looking for?

RobinofLoxley, when you say 'working backward through the layout and track design section'  is that on RMweb? How do I find it?

Thanks again gentlemen, very valuable input.

[Dungrange]

13 minutes ago, Cliff M said:

RobinofLoxley, when you say 'working backward through the layout and track design section'  is that on RMweb? How do I find it?

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/forum/66-layout-track-design/

 

This is the section of RMweb that all of those who like designing layouts tend to hang out in.

 

14 minutes ago, Cliff M said:

What would be your reply to the cork questions?

 

Why do you want to use cork?  It's a preference thing, but there are two reasons why some people use cork.

 

The first is for sound deadening.  Because there are voids in the cork, it can dampen the noise from the vibrations of the electric motor inside the locomotives.  However, it's only really effective if you use a latex type glue such as Copydex.  If you follow the method of ballasting using PVA glue, then the PVA fills the voids and make a rock hard track-bed that effectively eliminates any noise reduction characteristics.  My preference is closed cell foam rather than cork.

 

The second reason for using cork is just to lift the track bed above the surroundings.  On the real railway, the tracks are laid in the ballast - ie there is ballast under the sleepers as well as between the sleepers.  In model form, the cork (or foam) is used to represent the ballast under the sleepers so that the track is higher than the drains that would run alongside the formation in an area known as the cess.  The amount of ballast under a mainline railway is much greater than under a little used branch-line or a yard (where there may have been little or no ballast - just ash cinders).  The ballast shoulder (ie the edge where the ballast slopes down from top of sleeper level into the cess) was much more pronounced in the steam era than it is today, despite more ballast being used in the modern railway.

 

Personally, I see no reason for covering the whole board in cork.

 

27 minutes ago, Cliff M said:

I didn't realize that trains drive on the left! 

 

Yes, but only in this country.  If you want to model continental Europe or North America, then their trains drive on the right.  Obviously, on a single track line, trains travel in both directions and in some locations, particularly at busy stations, you'll find platforms that have signalling for bi-directional operation (ie they can be used in both directions), but for the vast majority of the network where there are two tracks, trains will only travel on the left track.  Where they have to cross over to access a yard and travel a short distance on the right track, this is known as 'wrong line running' - ie they are running in the wrong direction, but the signalling will be designed to accommodate this where it is required.

 

You'll find there is a lot more to model railways than just pinning some track down on a board and playing with trains (although that is all some people do, and if it makes them happy, great).  Personally, I find learning how the real railway railway operates / or operated is all part of the hobby.

[Cliff M]

Thanks, Dungrange, ill have a look at the closed-cell foam. 

Could I get your opinion on the layout I have attached, please?

I will have to take 3 inches out of the height to get to 5 ft 9 ins but the width is no problem.

 

 

 

[ITG]

You could scour eBay for a copy of one of CJ Freezer’s track plans books. Many plans will be smaller than your space, often designed for 6’x4’, but this will be advantageous as you’ll be able to expand them to look less crowded. 
 

https://www.google.com/search?q=60+plans+for+small+railways&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari

[Dungrange]

3 hours ago, ITG said:

You could scour eBay for a copy of one of CJ Freezer’s track plans books. Many plans will be smaller than your space, often designed for 6’x4’, but this will be advantageous as you’ll be able to expand them to look less crowded. 
 

https://www.google.com/search?q=60+plans+for+small+railways&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari

 

Not sure why anyone would want to pay up to £25 for a second hand book, when Peco sell a new version for £1.60 - https://peco-uk.com/products/the-railway-modeller-book-of-60-plans

 

3 hours ago, Cliff M said:

Could I get your opinion on the layout I have attached, please?

 

It's not something that I'd build, but it will work to a point if all you want is a trainset to drive trains on.  It can't be signalled because the track layout is not really prototypical, which is why it wouldn't be for me.  The goods facilities are also nearly impossible to operate.  Obviously, real trains travel between two places: A and B.  They will also be able to make that same journey in reverse from B to A.  One direction is referred to as the Up line and the other as the Down line.  Originally, Up was the line travelling towards the company's headquarters, but latterly Up has always been taken as meaning towards London and Down would be away from London.  Therefore trains arrive at Liverpool Street on the Up line, where they terminate, and then depart on the Down line towards Ipswich, Norwich or wherever.  Signals are normally placed to the left of the running line (unless at a location with overhead gantries).   The purpose of signals it to indicate to the driver whether he needs to stop and the route he's going to take.

 

I'm assuming that the area to the top right is meant to represent a Traction Maintenance Depot (TMD).  I think it would be unusual for this to be accessed by a facing point (that is one where you approach it from the 'toe' or 'switch' end).  Such an arrangement was very much frowned upon in the earlier steam era, but is perhaps more common nowadays.  Anyway, we'll ignore that for now.

 

Starting with your outer circuit, trains would traverse this in a clockwise direction.  We'll call this the Up line.  Your top station has three platforms.  If we number these from the baseboard edge, then Platform 1 is an Up platform (ie for travel towards London). This will be blocked every time you want to remove a locomotive from one of the dead end sidings in the TMD.  The other two platforms at this station must be Down line platforms as there is no way for a train departing from these to join your clockwise circuit.  That therefore means that trains departing from these platforms need to run in an anticlockwise direction.   Platform 2 is presumably for express services, because it can't access a platform at your second station.  Platform 3 is presumably for stopping services because it leads to what would have to be the Down platform at your second station.  However, what you'll note here is that you have a double track section where both trains need to travel in the same direction (anticlockwise).

 

Looking at the lower station, I'm not sure of the purpose of the dead end siding or how you might use this.

 

Looking at the Goods Yard, you now have the ability to run round an arriving train (because you have a loco's length ahead of the release point).  However, to complete your run-round and to undertake any shunting, your Goods Train is going to be blocking the Down mainline.  This would have been quite common in sparsely populated rural backwaters, but not common in a more urban environment, which is what you are hoping to portray.  On the real railway, a separate head-shunt would be provided to accommodate shunting of the mainline.  A head-shunt is effectively a long siding that runs parallel to the mainline but faces the opposite way from your other sidings.

 

However, the biggest drawback to the plan that you've presented is how do you operate a Goods Train?  The exit from your goods yard is directly onto your Down line (anticlockwise), but the train is heading in the Up direction (clockwise), so this is wrong line running.  To get to the Up (clockwise) line, you need to go through your facing crossover in the lower station.  You can make a few circuits of that track, but then what?  How do you get back to where you started?  The only way is to stop in your lower station and reverse all the way along the Down line to get to the Goods Yard.  You're never going to be able to drive a train into that yard with the locomotive leading.

 

It therefore looks to me as though that's a plan that's been drawn up by someone who has never operated the layout that they've drawn.

[RobinofLoxley]

Another thing to be wary of with what I would guess is a plan from free track plans is that the plan may turn out to be drawn using first radius curves. Certain locos cant negotiate a first radius curve. Its understandable to specify them where space is tight but not if its to create a plan with many operating limitations. 

 

Cliff you can also download a demo version of a modelling software called Anyrail and have a play around with it.

[Oldddudders]

Regarding choice of DCC system, I have been a Digitrax user since 1998, but recognise that European systems offer very different interfaces that may have an equally different appeal. The DCS52 replicates the capabilities, though not the current, of the more expensive Digitrax standalone command station/boosters  DCS100/210/240 etc, so you will be able to do pretty much anything you want within DCC. It also enables use of hand-throttles and radio, at extra cost, which may be of interest if you want to walk around the layout.

 

But inspecting systems first-hand at a specialist dealer, as suggested, is the best way to avoid disappointment.  DCC systems are not cheap, so getting it right first time is best for your budget.

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, Dungrange said:

 

Not sure why anyone would want to pay up to £25 for a second hand book, when Peco sell a new version for £1.60 - https://peco-uk.com/products/the-railway-modeller-book-of-60-plans

 

 

It's not something that I'd build, but it will work to a point if all you want is a trainset to drive trains on.  It can't be signalled because the track layout is not really prototypical, which is why it wouldn't be for me.  The goods facilities are also nearly impossible to operate.  Obviously, real trains travel between two places: A and B.  They will also be able to make that same journey in reverse from B to A.  One direction is referred to as the Up line and the other as the Down line.  Originally, Up was the line travelling towards the company's headquarters, but latterly Up has always been taken as meaning towards London and Down would be away from London.  Therefore trains arrive at Liverpool Street on the Up line, where they terminate, and then depart on the Down line towards Ipswich, Norwich or wherever.  Signals are normally placed to the left of the running line (unless at a location with overhead gantries).   The purpose of signals it to indicate to the driver whether he needs to stop and the route he's going to take.

 

I'm assuming that the area to the top right is meant to represent a Traction Maintenance Depot (TMD).  I think it would be unusual for this to be accessed by a facing point (that is one where you approach it from the 'toe' or 'switch' end).  Such an arrangement was very much frowned upon in the earlier steam era, but is perhaps more common nowadays.  Anyway, we'll ignore that for now.

 

Starting with your outer circuit, trains would traverse this in a clockwise direction.  We'll call this the Up line.  Your top station has three platforms.  If we number these from the baseboard edge, then Platform 1 is an Up platform (ie for travel towards London). This will be blocked every time you want to remove a locomotive from one of the dead end sidings in the TMD.  The other two platforms at this station must be Down line platforms as there is no way for a train departing from these to join your clockwise circuit.  That therefore means that trains departing from these platforms need to run in an anticlockwise direction.   Platform 2 is presumably for express services, because it can't access a platform at your second station.  Platform 3 is presumably for stopping services because it leads to what would have to be the Down platform at your second station.  However, what you'll note here is that you have a double track section where both trains need to travel in the same direction (anticlockwise).

 

Looking at the lower station, I'm not sure of the purpose of the dead end siding or how you might use this.

 

Looking at the Goods Yard, you now have the ability to run round an arriving train (because you have a loco's length ahead of the release point).  However, to complete your run-round and to undertake any shunting, your Goods Train is going to be blocking the Down mainline.  This would have been quite common in sparsely populated rural backwaters, but not common in a more urban environment, which is what you are hoping to portray.  On the real railway, a separate head-shunt would be provided to accommodate shunting of the mainline.  A head-shunt is effectively a long siding that runs parallel to the mainline but faces the opposite way from your other sidings.

 

However, the biggest drawback to the plan that you've presented is how do you operate a Goods Train?  The exit from your goods yard is directly onto your Down line (anticlockwise), but the train is heading in the Up direction (clockwise), so this is wrong line running.  To get to the Up (clockwise) line, you need to go through your facing crossover in the lower station.  You can make a few circuits of that track, but then what?  How do you get back to where you started?  The only way is to stop in your lower station and reverse all the way along the Down line to get to the Goods Yard.  You're never going to be able to drive a train into that yard with the locomotive leading.

 

It therefore looks to me as though that's a plan that's been drawn up by someone who has never operated the layout that they've drawn.

Yes, freetrackplans are free for a good reason - they're mostly rubbish. 😃

 

To be fair though, this one's not as bad as some. On top of the operational problems that @Dungrange has pointed out there's a physical reach problem into the top left corner, although if we assume the the dark rectangle is a lift-off layer above the rails maybe that's OK.

 

Sorry Cliff, we're sounding rather negative but stick with us and we can guide you to the sunny uplands of a good model that you really can build and operate successfully.

 

What do you want from your layout? What things are important to you? What range of years and what kind of trains would you like to represent?

 

[Dungrange]

The issue of first radius curves that @RobinofLoxley highlights is a good point and perhaps best explained with reference to a plan of set-track geometry.

 

https://support.Hornby.com/hc/en-gb/article_attachments/10406061442332 is plan of the Hornby trackwork.  First radius is track with a radius of 371 mm.  This is adequate for a lot of older models (manufactured pre-1990) or items of stock with a short wheelbase, but most modern stock will state on the box that it has been designed for a minimum radius of 438 mm (2nd radius).  That doesn't means that it won't go round a first radius curve (it might), but that the manufacturer has only designed and tested it on second radius curves.  The problems with operating such stock on first radius curves may be that the bogie hits the cylinders or part of the frame.  Therefore, if possible, and it should be easy with the space you have available, go with 2nd and 3rd or 3rd and 4th radius for your curves.  You can go with even more generous curves using Flxitrack.

 

Unfortunately a lot of older plan books will be drawn with 1st and 2nd radius curves and therefore you'll need a bit more space than is shown in the book.  I understand that Peco used to make first radius points, but neither Hornby or Peco have made these for many years.  Again, this means that a workable plan may take up a bit more space than might be shown in the book.  It's therefore easier to pick an 8' x 5' plan and stretch it.

 

However, I think we need to better understand what you want.

 

8 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

What do you want from your layout? What things are important to you? What range of years and what kind of trains would you like to represent?

 

These are very important questions.  Why do you want to have a model railway?  Where do you draw your inspiration from?  Was it standing on the end of a platform at Liverpool Street in the 1970s watching trains arrive and depart?  Was it watching a small shunter working away in a marshalling yard?  Was it sneaking into a locomotive depot as a teenager?  Was it a holiday where you travelled by train or a preserved railway that you visited?  In general most of us want to create something that reminds us of something that interested us in our past or present, or something we've read about.  In my case, I'm about to start building a model based in 1921 - not because I was around then, but because it's the time that will allow me to operate the stock that I want to run and because I have a place I want to recreate in miniature I don't need to look for a plan - I just need a map and my track plan will be just like the prototype.  I then just need to read books to better understand what life was like 100 years ago.

 

In general, think about what your 'must haves' are and then what you'd like if you have space and what you definitely don't want.

[Cliff M]

Thanks again, everyone. So good to get proper unbiased help.

I have been modifying the layout I found above and did find several problems trying to design it in Scarm.

I attach where I am with it at the moment. I am trying for a double runaround circuit which has a station a shunting area and an industry area.

The top left quadrant will be covered with a raised street-type scene.

I have only used 2nd or 3rd radius curves using Flexirail.

the station is on the bottom right with a loco shed or similar behind.

I have reduced the board to 8 ft x 5 ft.

I have measured the distance between tracks and they are all above 2.9 inches.

It's still in the raw.

Any comments are as always, very welcome.

 

[ITG]

It can be tough learning and seeking input, which may feel over critical. But it’s well meant, to avoid pitfalls experienced by so many others.

Although you describe your latest plan as a “double runaround”, it’s not a conventional twin track circuit. The track spacing is not consistent, and is wider than usual. Do you intend to have a twin track “mainline” feel, or are those two circuits intended to meander separately, albeit following roughly the same path? Why insert the short straights between your x-overs? Peco streamline standard spacing is 50mm (2”) and IIRC set track is 67mm. If you’re using set track turnouts, they should give that 67mm automatically. Your 2.9” is 74mm. Not much difference but in a restricted space that will make a difference.

The upper sidings run round loop is again unworkable - no space for a loco at the end beyond the turnout. Both sets of sidings only work with shunting which fouls the main running lines; not prototypical if that’s what you’re aiming for. Trains leaving the sidings have no option but to run “wrong road” for 1/3 of the circuit.

I would urge you to draw inspiration from other track plans and layouts, not free track plans or self-made inventions. What you are arriving at is very “train set”, not there’s necessarily any thing wrong with that, but the very fact that you’re on this forum, suggests you are looking for more than that. .

[Dungrange]

1 hour ago, Cliff M said:

I have measured the distance between tracks and they are all above 2.9 inches.

 

As @ITG has already indicated, I don't understand why you think you need to put a straight between the turnouts that are forming your crossovers.

 

If you were making a true scale model, your track centreline to centreline distance should be 45mm (1.77").  Unfortunately, none of us have the space to accommodate scale curves and as we adopt tighter curves we need to increase the spacing between the tracks to accommodate the end throw and overhang of our models.  If you place two Peco streamline points together to form a crossover (without a straight), then your parallel tracks will be 50.8 mm (2") apart.  This spacing is adequate for layouts with a minimum radius of about 2' 6" or greater.  If you can achieve curves of this radius, then it looks more realistic.  If however, you have to adopt tighter curves, then you need to widen the spacing further.  However, there should be no need to go above the set track spacing of 67mm (2.64").  This is more than enough space to avoid two pieces of stock colliding on 1st and 2nd radius curves.    If you plan to use 2nd and 3rd radius curves, then you'll automatically have the correct 67 mm spacing provided your curves start and end at the same point.

 

However, it's perhaps worthwhile highlighting that you can mix both streamline (code 100) and set track (which is also code 100) in the same layout, but it is the radius that you select for your corners that will define the centre to centre spacing that you need to adopt.  If you wanted your double track circuit to use the streamline spacing, then you should be aiming for curves at either end with radii of approximately 2'6" (inner) and 2'8" (outer), which should fit on a 6' wide board.  You would however have to test this with whatever stock you plan to use.

 

2 hours ago, Cliff M said:

I have reduced the board to 8 ft x 5 ft.

 

Sorry if I confused you.  If you're designing the layout in SCARM or Anyrail, then set the board to the space that you have available (which I think was 9' x 6') as these packages have a library of accurate templates.  I only suggested looking at 8' x 5' layouts in plan books, because there are a lot of hand drawn or sketched plans out there that claim that the layout can be built on an 8' x 5' board, but in reality it can't (unless you're happy for some of the track to hang off the edge of the baseboard).

 

In terms of the two yards, the points controlling entry to the yard need to be the other side of the points that make up your crossover, so that a train exiting from the yard can cross over onto the clockwise circuit immediately rather than having to run halfway round the layout to use a crossover on the other side.

[Dungrange]

2 hours ago, Cliff M said:

Any comments are as always, very welcome

 What we really need is @Chimer to find this topic.  He usually has plenty of ideas for plans.

 

On 18/12/2023 at 15:34, Cliff M said:

Are the Metcalf card kits any good?

 

I've seen plenty of well made Metcalf kits, although my preference would be for either plastic kits or laser cut Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF).  However, these are obviously less suitable if you're looking to avoid painting.  If card kits is the most likely approach, I'd advise you to start with something like the Small Goods Store from Scalescenes, which is available as a free download.  Print it off and try assembling as many times as you need to perfect the technique and if card modelling is for you, then download some of their other products or pick one of the Metcalf kits.  If you find you don't get on with card, then we can explore the alternatives with you. 

 

https://scalescenes.com/product/r002-small-goods-store/

Edited December 24, 2023 by Dungrange
Added URL