Layout Plan Advice Update

[Danknight]

Hi,

 

I'm relatively new to designing and building layouts. I played with Hornby as a kid and recently got back into it as an adult. I built a very basic layout in garage and fell out with it as it was too big and I couldn't reach everything. So decided to take the plunge and actually attempt building something long term I can enjoy with the kids. 

 

I've finished building a base that utilizes the space I have available. it couldn't be massive as I need to be able to lift it to higher bracketry with another to allow the car to reside over the winter. So it sits at 6' x just shy of 10' with an off centre operating well. I've attached a picture of what I've come up with so far but before I start laying would like some feedback and advice on where I've gone wrong. 

 

Id ideally like to use setback for two reasons, I have amassed quite a bit so will keep costs down and its easier for the kids when they want to get involved. Although I have had to use flexi in a few places.

 

What I want is the ability to run two trains at the same time and maybe a 3rd shunting. on DC. Era wise, if that matters, early diesel. I like the idea of steam and diesels on the same layout.

 

Let me know your thoughts and if you feel I am going drastically wrong please let me know.

 

Thanks,

 

Dan

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 14 by Danknight

[Dungrange]

There seems to be rather a lot of sidings that will only hold a two car multiple unit or a locomotive and a single coach or a couple of wagons, but not much else.  Do you really just intend to run really short trains?

 

It looks like you've tried to fit in as much track as you can, but I can't really see the purpose of your railway?  Where are your trains running to and from and why?  There are no station platforms, it's not clear whether there is a goods yard and you seem to have several places to run round, but in each case, you can only run round a very short train (ie a single coach).

 

Such limitations don't bother young children, so if the layout is primarily being built for them, then okay, but I'd want something closer to reality if it was for myself.

 

With regards running two or three trains on DC, that's relatively simple.  You just divide the layout up into a number of different electrical sections and then use switches to set which of the controllers you want to drive the trains in that section.  This is known as 'cab control'.

Edited February 11 by Dungrange

[ELTEL]

May be worth popping along to your local model railway club and chat through your ideas.

 

If you Google UK Model Shops you will be able find Model Railway Clubs in your area.

 

Eltel 

[DavidB-AU]

There are a lot of very short sidings. Bear in mind that every set of points takes away storage space. Also avoid facing points into dead end sidings where possible.

 

I'd have some concerns about being able to reach the bit on the right in the event of a derailment.

 

Look at prototypes from that era to give you an idea of what track arrangements were in use at the time.

[The Johnster]

I get the impression that you’ve attempted to fit all the track you have into the available space to use it up, which is perhaps not the best way to develop a trackplan.  Less is more.  I recommend keeping things simple to begin with, two tracks up & down main (we ‘drive on the left’ in the UK), joined by trailing crossovers so that trains can be moved between them, a loop for each main line so that trains can overtake each other or running around movements take place so that they can change direction, a trailing goods yard off one line and a trailing factory/dairy/warehouse/wharf/whatever you fancy off the other.  Two trains running independently in opposite directions, and shunting off both tracks, up to four in action at one time, but you need four controllers.  
 

Dispensing with the short sidings, which are of limited use and, frankly, waste space, enables the operating space to be enlarged, so that all areas are within easy reach, and one side can be an ‘off stage’ fiddle yard with loops for storing trains.  The sidings you retain will now be able to accommodate full-length trains.  There will be plenty of play value for the kids and room to expand and include scenery as they get older and want it to look more realistic.  

[RobinofLoxley]

We advised another poster recently with an overcomplex layout - it happens with Anyrail or other drawing packages, and cutting back to an efficient plan is usually quite straightforward.

[RobinofLoxley]

Dan, what kind of access will you have to the right hand side of the baseboard? As drawn its pushing 4' and you wont be able to reach anywhere near the corners from the well. The practical limit is 75-80cm.

[Danknight]

Thanks for the replies everyone, I did think myself  it was getting a bit full on and was struggling to think of reasons for sidings to be where they are. 
 

access to the far right is easy as I have access to both sides of the board there. It basically takes up half the garage and I’ve built hangers for it to sit on so i can lift it up out the way when needed.

 

Im not massively concerned with it looking prototypical but if this can be achieved it would be a bonus. 
 

I wanted to try and incorporate a fiddle yard into the layout scenery so I could take locomotives from their storage yards to areas where carriages and freight were stored and take them on a jolly around the board haha.

 

Ill try and get back on and simplify the layout design a chunk after work and report back.

 

Dan

[Chimer]

Leaving aside the track plan for now, are you saying you have successfully built a 10' x 6' baseboard that you and one other person can raise to above the height of a car in a single lift?  I just can't believe this can be done with a board strong enough and braced heavily enough not to twist in three dimensions and fall apart in the process.

[Danknight]

The frame work is 50x100 cls, braced accordingly and topped with good grade 9mm plywood. Cross mounted on 2x4 timber which mount to brackets mounted on the wall. It’s solid enough for me to sit on and I can easily lift one side of it with one arm. Unless track and scenery add more weight then I’ve planned for I’m hoping it will be fine.

[RobinofLoxley]

Just one thing then, presumably you are ging to operate the points manually, just pushing the tie bars across by hand? If they would be motor operated then a plan of the position of the cross bracing etc is needed so that it can be avoided on the track plan. They can be motor operated  on the board as well of course.

[The Johnster]

The lift, on pulleys, could be accomplished with the aid of counterweights.  These don't need to be anything complicated, plastic containers full of water will do.  I'm a bit worried about the garage location in general, though, having had a garage layout in my early teens built by Buffalo Bill Enterprises PLC, aka my old man.  His concept of heating the garage was one of those little UFO paraffin heaters, which stunk and led to condensation everywhere, not to mention being a fire risk if it was accidentally kicked over...  A layout in a space that is too cold to use in winter is no fun at all (and we had proper winters in those pre-global warming days).

 

When Buffalo bought a bigger car, and the 8x4 baseboard which folded up against the wall when not in use did not allow clearance for it, he moved me into the attic.  He put down insulation on the attic floor and laid planks, not even proper floorboards, over the joists to walk on, but neglected to provide any insulation in the actual roof.  This meant that I now had a layout that was not only unusable because it froze in the winter, but was unusable because the space was like an oven if the sun was out even in winter on windless days, and stifling in summer.  Relief sometimes came from gales of wind howling through between the eaves, which resulted in dust storms, and I had my own private ski slopes up there when it snowed.  The track tore itself to bits from expansion and contraction. 

 

Ever since, I have taken the viewpoint that if I can't have a layout in the heated and ventilated part of my home, I can't have a layout, and never regretted it.  Cwmdimbath is in the bedroom of my two-room rented flat, and is in use most days, an ideal situation as far as I am concerned.  I cannot overstress the importance of your general comfort in your layout space; it encourages better modelling and more frequent use of the layout as well as the obvious health benefits.  Your garage may need quite a bit of insulation work before it is suitable for layout use, and don't forget there is a security aspect to consider; there will be valuable models stored outside your main property, which probably means that they will be uninsured. 

[RobinofLoxley]

1 hour ago, Chimer said:

Leaving aside the track plan for now, are you saying you have successfully built a 10' x 6' baseboard that you and one other person can raise to above the height of a car in a single lift?  I just can't believe this can be done with a board strong enough and braced heavily enough not to twist in three dimensions and fall apart in the process.

Crossed my mind as well.

[D9020 Nimbus]

I'd suggest perhaps having a look at a book of track plans before committing yourself. If you're using set track, I'd suggest having a look at the Peco Setrack OO gauge plan book. The plans were created by Paul Lunn, a well known designer who often works with set track.

 

I'm struck by one thing in particular: you have an awful lot of "kick-back" sidings. These can be difficult to work and you are going to need a lot of power feeds. And like several other posters, this looks like a very complex plan for someone with relatively little experience.

[Danknight]

The garage is part of the house so it’s pretty well insulated, it gets nippy in the winter but never freezing or anywhere close. Being a plumber by trade I have toyed with fitting a radiator and running it off the main house heating circuit when I had cars stored in there but never did due to it not really needing it.

 

Ill have a look at the Peco set track options, I more then agree with it being too complicated. I feel I kinda got carried away with if there is space fill it with track. I shall make amendments tonight and see how I get on.

[RobinofLoxley]

Ive done a doodle - I see these things as being like puzzles, how to get the right bits in the right places. You need a station to provide a focus, its asking a lot in the plan size to have a fiddle yard as well. (May as well confess i'm not a fan, I like to have stock on the layout). There are two ways to go here, either just suggest alterations to the originalplan, or table a different alternative in order to produce new ideas. The odd shaping bottom right is to try and take the form of the layout away from having four right angled corners. With Setrack this tends to introduce issues of alignment, which you can see on the plan.

 

Its designed to run two trains with the possibility to operate the storage yards independently.

 

I couldnt verify the size of the operating well, that may mean tweaks are needed.

[Danknight]

That looks really good.  Ill reply better tomorrow as its been manic. Attached is a slight tweak of what i did with some labels to show what stuff is as might make it a bit less confusing.

 

Thanks 

[ITG]

9 hours ago, Danknight said:

That looks really good.  Ill reply better tomorrow as its been manic. Attached is a slight tweak of what i did with some labels to show what stuff is as might make it a bit less confusing.

 

Thanks 

I’m afraid that’s not much better than your original stab. It all looks too random with little purpose, almost as though the track has been thrown up in the air and landed there - sorry! But it’s best to get it right at this stage, rather than regret and lots of wasted time later. The goods yard area is very unusual - not easy to shunt. The carriage sidings are not long enough to hold a rake of any reasonable length. It looks odd having the appearance of a twin main line in the station, but that which is then diluted to look anything but across the lower part of the plan. From a realism perspective, how will fuel, drivers, etc reach the diesel depot - it’s completely cut off by track?

I’m guessing you’ve already purchased the numerous turnouts, and the plan feels like you’re determined to use them all? Less would be more. There’s just too much going on in here. As others have said, try to get hold of some track plans books, and adapt  smaller ideas to your dimensions. Keep at it - it will come right.

Ian

[Danknight]

So I've taken on board the advice given and had a quick attempt. I looked into the peco set track book and used the following layout as a guide but made it slightly bigger and with a second loop. Is this kind of going along the right path? Let me know your thoughts.

 

I also decreased the length of the the board a tad to make it fit better

 

 

 

 

Edited February 13 by Danknight

[MichaelE]

About all I can add, is that you are going to have a rat's nest of wiring if you use DC and cab control. Operating the railroad will be much more straightforward and simpler if you use DCC.

 

You need wires for each isolated block all running to a switch box with a switch for each block and each cab. I wired up a 4x8 Atlas layout 40 years ago that was a nightmare. And I forgot to mention three wires for every turnout, plus the power wire for the machines. DCC hadn't been invented back then but I sure wish it had been.

[Dungrange]

48 minutes ago, Danknight said:

Is this kind of going along the right path? Let me know your thoughts.

 

As a small child's trainset, it's definitely an improvement, but if you're looking to build a model of a railway, you've still got a long way to go.  What you've drawn up looks nothing like the real railway.

 

Most railway lines comprise pairs of tracks: an 'up' line and a 'down' line.  In the UK, trains drive on the left.  That means that when creating a model like you're imagining, trains on your outer circuit should travel in a clockwise direction and trains on your inside track should travel in an anti-clockwise direction.  These two tracks are normally separated by what is referred to as 'the six foot', because that is the minimum spacing between two adjacent tracks.  In 4mm scale (1:76) that equates to 45mm between the track centrelines.  However, because of our overtight model curves, that needs to be increased to 51mm (if using Streamline) or 67mm (if using Set-track).  However, it would be normal for these two circuits to be parallel with a constant spacing: yours vary all over the place.

 

Your 'fuel stop' and 'diesel shed' sit between the 'up' and 'down' lines, which is not prototypical.  Such facilities would be created to one or other side of the main running lines (ie your two circuits).

 

Your 'loading area' is unworkable if the train on your inner circuit is travelling in the correct anticlockwise direction.  It would only be possible to work this facility if you were representing a country where trains drive on the right (such as the USA).

 

Your 'station' looks like it can only be used by trains on the inner (anticlockwise) circuit.  Most stations would have two platforms, so that they can serve traffic travelling in both directions.  There is no point in a passenger travelling to your station if they can't get a train home again.

 

I suspect that the arrangement with the diamond crossing between your 'goods shed' and 'lumber yard' isn't particularly common on the prototype.  I've no idea how such an arrangement would be signalled in the prototype (if such a layout exists).

 

I find the best way to think about these plans is to trace your finger around the tracks to imagine how it would be operated.

 

Whilst I agree that DCC wiring would be simpler than wiring for DC, I think the priority should be to get a good workable track plan first. 

[RobinofLoxley]

Conceptually this is much better, compared to where you started, but still has problems, mostly derived from the track plan, although to be fair the plan is a bit of fun, per the nuclear waste sidings.

 

The trouble is with Setrack, it is designed as @dungrange says for a constant gauge, but as soon as any tiny bit of non-linear is introduced it all falls down, into a heap, rapidly. But that doesnt mean you cant do it, its not one of the ten commandments. What is important is that reasonable railway operations can take place otherwise whats the point?

 

Otherwise, this is just two concentric loops with sidings off each. I think the station/goods shed/lumber yard area needs work, as does the Diesel TMD area. But does it meet your original criteria Dan?

 

And @MichaelE, I'm sure you are right about wiring for Cab Control (I have no experience), or powered turnouts, but the OP didnt say he wanted to, it was another poster. The proposal can run with two power feeds, one per loop, with some sections having isolation switches, and interior sidings such as the loading area requiring an auxiliary power feed from either loop or a third DC controller.

[Danknight]

@Dungrange thank you for that information. I’m slowly learning the ins and out of how railways work and there’s a chunk of info there I didn’t know!

 

@RobinofLoxley My original criteria was two loops and trains running in opposite directions, but i realised fast that this was quite boring long term. So I’ve been trying to come up with something where I can have that and have some fun things to do like picking carriages up and taking them places. It just seems very tricky to get it all in place and workable.

 

i feel like it’s moving in a positive way though which is good

[Chimer]

@Dungrange is basing his criticisms on seeing your plan as a conventional double track main line.  I saw it instead as two separate single tracks, which gives a lot more freedom of manoeuvre, e.g. trains can go in both directions on both circuits without upsetting anyone.  And you've got a couple of ways to get from one circuit to the other and back again.  This illusion works best if the two circuits are kept as far apart as possible, and don't run parallel to one another.

 

Re  "picking them up and taking them places", this is the definition of a steam era trip freight working.  So you'd have a goods train wandering round the layout picking up trucks from one location and dropping them off at another, possibly controlled by throwing a dice or something similar to tell you a particular wagon has to move from A to B.  Doesn't work particularly well if you designate A as something as specific as (say) a lumber yard, as your lumber wagons wouldn't want to go anywhere else, but this can be worked on.

 

Your passenger train on the other hand will probably always be the same coaches, but pulled by different locos.  And you might also have a DMU or similar for variety.

 

Things become interesting when you want to get your goods train from one circuit to the other.  You need to park the passenger somewhere - the loop line in the station will do the job.

 

I think there's the basis for something interesting here.  But not yet got the best arrangement of sidings for operational interest.

 

(And I still don't think you'll be able to lift it!! 🙂)

[DCB]

3 hours ago, Danknight said:

My original criteria was two loops and trains running in opposite directions, but i realised fast that this was quite boring long term. So I’ve been trying to come up with something where I can have that and have some fun things to do like picking carriages up and taking them places. It just seems very tricky to get it all in place and workable.

i feel like it’s moving in a positive way though which is good

Nothing wrong with two loops and trains running in opposite directions, two running the same direction is more fun, formula 0-4-0 racing with Hornby starter set locos, great fun.   Picking carriages up and taking them places is a bit ambitious, with UK RTR couplings it means uncoupling at uncoupling ramps on straight track and not being able to couple up again on the ramp.
Go back 40 years and with simple modifications you could have multiple electro magnets and uncouple at multiple locations and couple back up at the same places, now you need Kadees which are plug and play on most 2020 era stuff but hacksaw and superglue on 1950- 2010 era   Basically shunting short sidings just is not practical with modern RTR, unless you are happy to do it by hand.    I would  mirror image the plan complete the inner circle a a shunting line and probably not bother with half the sidings.  That way tree trains can circulate an a fast over take a slow one, always good to watch.    DC cab or DCC,  DC cab control  needs logic and complicated switching, but makes fault finding simple, DCC is very simple two wires, except some people end up with several hundred droppers soldered to the two wires and everything stops when there is a fault not just one loop