Looking for feedback for my 1st layout design

[Outrunn]

Hi, I'm looking for constructive feedback on my proposed 00 gauge layout design that I'm hoping to assemble over Easter.

 

This will go on a folding 7x4 foot baseboard

The track is Peco code 75 Bullhead track

This will be a DCC layout only, I want the whole track to be live at all times, points included.

I've included the SCRAM layout sketch, 3d model view for a better representation as well as the parts list created by SCARM.

 

This is my very first layout that I will be assembling myself, I have purchased all the track already, including track pins etc.

 

Its entirely possible there are things I have overlooked, so any feedback is useful thankyou.

 

Edit - the Fold line is straight down the middle of the layout vertically, as far as im aware no points are near the fold line.

Edited March 24 by Outrunn
added context

[Outrunn]

scenery wise I haven't decided yet besides the station/ engine shed area, for now my main concern is just regarding the track itself/ wiring

[richard i]

For realism you would need to make sure sidings going straight on to the main lines have a catch point or a headshunt.

 

i have to admit I have never understood layouts that are double most of the way but then single for a little bit. For me one or the other. However, it is your plan not mine.

richard 

[Nearholmer]

If you’ve never laid track before, you’ll definitely need to take this slowly and steadily, because the Code 75 BH is quite delicate stuff. By choosing that, you aren’t exactly diving in at the deep end, but certainly aren’t in the paddling pool.

 

Do you have the necessary tools?

 

The curves are quite tight, and I’d very definitely want to be using templates (Tracksetta or similar) to avoid kinks, and you’ll have some decisions to make about how to deal with the insulating gaps/joints around those double slips.

 

PS: where is the fold line in this board?

 

 

 

 

Edited March 24 by Nearholmer

[Outrunn]

@Nearholmer Regarding laying the curves, I have several sizes of  tracksetta to help with the curves as well as the straight track.
What would you suggest regarding wiring  the double slip points/ normal points? Wiring around points is a weak point of mine so i definitely have things to learn in that regard.

The fold line is vertical down the middle of the images, i took care to avoid any points near the middle line so that shouldnt be an issue.

[Outrunn]

@richard i The catch points are a good idea, but sadly as far as im aware Peco dont make a Code 75 Bullhead version.

 

Regarding the double line into one single line I pictured how a lot of Heritage Railways work with mostly single track and then double track when they get to a station if that makes sense, plus if change my mind as some point, the two inner sidings can be made into a second full loop, I already checked that and they should be fine turning radius wise

[Outrunn]

@NearholmerForgot to mention i have all the necessary tools, 

Hammer, Track pins, Track cutting pliers/ Track cutting hand saw, pliers, soldering Iron, bus wire & normal wires, the point motors (DCC concepts Cobalt iP Digital), Tracksetta track settings guides Drill & Drillbits/ screw driver, as various other DIY/ Hobby tools. Anything important i might have forgotten?

Edited March 24 by Outrunn

[Nearholmer]

I’m assuming you’re doing this properly “live frog”, in which case, if you consult the instructions in the pack, there is a diagram of where the rail-breaks need to be. Peco recommend insulated rail joiners, but to me their standard plastic joiner seems unduly crude for this scale (except the gauge) track, so I’ve simply left tiny gaps, hopefully big enough not to get bridged due to heat expansion of the rail.

 

The other thing to think about is how you will secure the rail ends at the baseboard joint, if you’ve never done that before. There are as many options as there are people who do it, and I think DCC Concepts sell a pre-made thingamajig for the job. If you wade though the lower thread linked below my signature, you’ll see how I’ve done it this time round, which seems robust (although I completely messed one up this morning!), and could be made very neat by someone with better close-work skills than mine.

[Nearholmer]

4 minutes ago, Outrunn said:

Anything important i might have forgotten?

Fine file for dressing rail ends?

 

Very fine drill bit for making pilot holes for track pins?

[Nearholmer]

17 minutes ago, Outrunn said:

Peco dont make a Code 75 Bullhead version.

I’m going to make a cosmetic (i.e. non-working) trap on mine next week at some stage, so when I’ve done that you will be able to see it and laugh/take inspiration.

Edited March 24 by Nearholmer

[Outrunn]

26 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I’m assuming you’re doing this properly “live frog”, in which case, if you consult the instructions in the pack, there is a diagram of where the rail-breaks need to be. Peco recommend insulated rail joiners, but to me their standard plastic joiner seems unduly crude for this scale (except the gauge) track, so I’ve simply left tiny gaps, hopefully big enough not to get bridged due to heat expansion of the rail.

 

The other thing to think about is how you will secure the rail ends at the baseboard joint, if you’ve never done that before. There are as many options as there are people who do it, and I think DCC Concepts sell a pre-made thingamajig for the job. If you wade though the lower thread linked below my signature, you’ll see how I’ve done it this time round, which seems robust (although I completely messed one up this morning!), and could be made very neat by someone with better close-work skills than mine.

As far as im aware all of the points im going to use are Unifrog points, ( i think that means they can be electrofrog and insulfrog?)  but i still need to do more research on how they work as point wiring is something i still need to improve my knowledge on

 

Regarding joining the rail ends to the baseboard joint, im planning to use these https://www.marks-trains.co.uk/shop/layout-accessories/modeltech-ho-oo-protrack-rail-aligner-standard/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwnv-vBhBdEiwABCYQA8ZnAQTw3GRFVAuuutO8KcVNPnweHu-zbbkq3lGV8SoBfSMDZhIRahoCBNkQAvD_BwE

I need to double check i have enough of those actually now that you mention it though, i think i might only have 2.

I have fine files and a very small hand drill/ drill bit set for the pilot holes, what size hole is best for the code 75 bullhead track pins?

[Nearholmer]

Ah, those are the things I saw in the shop; I thought they were by DCC Concepts.

 

Drill bit? 0.75mm I think is what I’ve been using.

[DCB]

I don' think it will end well.     Those curves are mighty tight for flexi track.  I use Peco set track for anything below 20" radius to avoid kinks appearing especially at rail ends,  75 flexi might be better, but with much RTR being on the  limit on 2nd radius even when it's laid perfectly I think you are pushing your luck with running for the  sake of appearance.    The join will be between adjacent points and across 7 pieces of track several at an angle. 2 X 5 X2 and a 4X2 for the station would make assembly a lot easier.
There is nowhere for trains to go, one goes round clockwise then the other anticlockwise and then the hand descends and changes the train.  Its OK with 1960s Triang but 2000s era RTR sheds bits when treated like that. 
Rev Awdrey's Ffarquar (?) Branch layout  had a hidden fiddle yard on a similar footprint.

Edited March 25 by DCB

[zarniwhoop]

7 hours ago, Outrunn said:

@Nearholmer Regarding laying the curves, I have several sizes of  tracksetta to help with the curves as well as the straight track.

Tracksetta are good, but they limit you to set track distance between tracks. Fine if you want to model the empire based at Paddington (as an enthusiast for the Southern I tend to use a more derogatory phrase for it). But in 7ft by 4ft you don't have a lot of choice. And laying even code 75 Streamline on 18" radius for my test track was still "interesting" so you do need to take care with the apparently more fragile Bullhead track.

 

Good luck!

Edited March 25 by zarniwhoop
I can't type!

[ITG]

Those top right sidings and headshunt seem very short. By the time you allow clearance adjacent to the turnout, there’s not going to be much space for stock. The type of coupling planned may also affect space if it requires any kind of ramp, as these generally need to be on a straight, reducing useable space still further.

 

Will you have access around all 4 sides of the board, as 4’ is a long way to reach for track laying, maintenance, scenery building and re-railing?

Ian

[Harlequin]

Hi @Outrunn,

I agree with the concerns above about the tightness of radii in Code75 bullhead but I'm sure it can be done if you're careful. You need to stagger any rail joins in the curves and hold the track securely in position so it can't develop any kinks. For that reason it might be better to glue rather than pin the track (and that saves all the anguish of trying to drive tiny pins into the baseboard).

 

The platforms set against the most tightly curving parts of the track mean that they will have to be set significantly back from the track if you intend to run any long vehicles. Might look silly.

 

One siding and the whole engine shed area have facing connections to the running line. In the steam era this would have been avoided wherever possible. In a single track line with a passing loop the connections would trail into the appropriate side of the loop. In this respect the plan would be better if it were mirrored left-right or top-bottom (but not both!) - but that would make the shed more difficult to operate so a more radical rethink might be needed.

 

To be sure you have enough room in the engine shed area it might be worth placing the required elements on the plan: Shed, ash pit, somewhere to store ash, coal stage/platform, water.

 

Will you rely on those modeltech rail aligners to align the boards, not just the rails? They don't look very strong and since they will overhang the edge of the boards, especially where track crosses the "fold" at an angle, they will be prone to damage. The traditional solution of board aligners and flush cut track seems safer to me.

 

Unifrog turnouts on DCC: No need for any insulating joiners. Just remember to take the frog wire down through the baseboard when you lay them and then you can decide on/implement the frog switching later. Remember that Cobalt point motors will require some depth of framing below the board surface to protect them.

 

BTW: Did you notice there's a subforum specifically for this sort of question? https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/forum/66-layout-track-design/ Ah well, never mind.

 

Edited March 25 by Harlequin

[Nearholmer]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Unifrog turnouts on DCC: No need for any insulating joiners. Just remember to take the frog wire down through the baseboard when you lay them and then you can decide on/implement the frog switching later

Just for education, since I’m not a DCC user: how does that work? Surely if you don’t leave the rail-breaks, then at a later stage implement switching of the feeds to the frogs, that will create short-circuits?

[Harlequin]

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Just for education, since I’m not a DCC user: how does that work? Surely if you don’t leave the rail-breaks, then at a later stage implement switching of the feeds to the frogs, that will create short-circuits?

 

The rail breaks are built into the turnout. The frog and the wing rails are isolated from the main rails:

 

 

So out of the packet there's a very short un-powered section a bit like Insulfrog but it's metal and can be switched via the attached dropper lead.

 

[Nearholmer]

That I get. But, if you connect them to the rest of the railway, no insulating gaps, and then later implement “frog switching”, won’t conditions exist where the section of rail adjacent to the frog ends up at the wrong polarity.

 

I’m not at home at the moment, so can’t study the turnouts or the instructions to be certain, so I’ll look closely later. It’s the double-slip that I’m thinking of particularly, but the concern may apply to all (no, it doesn’t apply to all, only the slip).

 

 

Edited March 25 by Nearholmer

[ISW]

23 hours ago, Outrunn said:

Its entirely possible there are things I have overlooked, so any feedback is useful thankyou.

As this is your first layout, I'd recommend a 'test plank' so you can practice all the key elements, and make all your mistakes on that instead of your actual layout.

 

Here's the one I built before I started on my layout.

 

Track view:

 

Underside view:

 

It's nothing complicated, but did teach me how to join baseboards, wire up turnouts (Code-100) for DCC,  make my own point motor assemblies, and practice my plans for wiring using PCB connectors. There were many lessons learnt that I was able to correct / avoid on the actual layout.

 

Ian

 

[Outrunn]

Thankyou everyone for your feedback so far, i have done an updated design and ive tried to incorporate as much of your suggestions so far to help the layout,  ive also learned some new features of SCARM which helped. (Ive also changed the dimensions to inches rather than mm)

It seems i will have to keep the 18 inch radius for the branch line, so I will just have to be careful when laying the branch line. Ive also labelled  everything better to give you all a better idea of how the folding baseboard/ track will work 

[Outrunn]

1 hour ago, ISW said:

As this is your first layout, I'd recommend a 'test plank' so you can practice all the key elements, and make all your mistakes on that instead of your actual layout.

 

Here's the one I built before I started on my layout.

 

Track view:

 

Underside view:

 

It's nothing complicated, but did teach me how to join baseboards, wire up turnouts (Code-100) for DCC,  make my own point motor assemblies, and practice my plans for wiring using PCB connectors. There were many lessons learnt that I was able to correct / avoid on the actual layout.

 

Ian

 

thats a good idea as i do need to practice point wiring, i will keep that in mind thankyou!

[Outrunn]

14 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi @Outrunn,

I agree with the concerns above about the tightness of radii in Code75 bullhead but I'm sure it can be done if you're careful. You need to stagger any rail joins in the curves and hold the track securely in position so it can't develop any kinks. For that reason it might be better to glue rather than pin the track (and that saves all the anguish of trying to drive tiny pins into the baseboard).

 

The platforms set against the most tightly curving parts of the track mean that they will have to be set significantly back from the track if you intend to run any long vehicles. Might look silly.

 

One siding and the whole engine shed area have facing connections to the running line. In the steam era this would have been avoided wherever possible. In a single track line with a passing loop the connections would trail into the appropriate side of the loop. In this respect the plan would be better if it were mirrored left-right or top-bottom (but not both!) - but that would make the shed more difficult to operate so a more radical rethink might be needed.

 

To be sure you have enough room in the engine shed area it might be worth placing the required elements on the plan: Shed, ash pit, somewhere to store ash, coal stage/platform, water.

 

Will you rely on those modeltech rail aligners to align the boards, not just the rails? They don't look very strong and since they will overhang the edge of the boards, especially where track crosses the "fold" at an angle, they will be prone to damage. The traditional solution of board aligners and flush cut track seems safer to me.

 

Unifrog turnouts on DCC: No need for any insulating joiners. Just remember to take the frog wire down through the baseboard when you lay them and then you can decide on/implement the frog switching later. Remember that Cobalt point motors will require some depth of framing below the board surface to protect them.

 

BTW: Did you notice there's a subforum specifically for this sort of question? https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/forum/66-layout-track-design/ Ah well, never mind.

 

Thankyou for the suggestions, ive done an updated design (posted above) which will hopefully address most of the concerns (sadly i will have to still use 18inch radius curves for the branch line still), but your ideas about gluing the ends should help.

 

The updated layout will now have the platforms on the straight rather than the curve, the platform and engine shed area are now separate, I've also made the layout 2 full loops.

 

The modeltech rail aligners are only for the straight track, the board has its own aligning dome things so the rail aligners wont be under any major stress, I will also be use wiring connection blocks underneath the baseboard for any track that is on an angle at the fold point.

 

The point wiring I need to do more research on but thankyou for that, i think it will be best to practice that beforehand before i add the points to the layout.

 

Also i had no idea there was a subforum for this sort of question sorry about that

[Outrunn]

14 hours ago, ITG said:

Those top right sidings and headshunt seem very short. By the time you allow clearance adjacent to the turnout, there’s not going to be much space for stock. The type of coupling planned may also affect space if it requires any kind of ramp, as these generally need to be on a straight, reducing useable space still further.

 

Will you have access around all 4 sides of the board, as 4’ is a long way to reach for track laying, maintenance, scenery building and re-railing?

Ian

Thankyou for your feedback, you can see ive done an updated design above,

Upon reflection I do agree the old layouts sidings were rather restrictive, I can access all 4 sides of the baseboard so track laying access wont be an issue, also the track is all on one flat plane, there is no elevation on this layout in terms of track at least.

[Outrunn]

19 hours ago, DCB said:

I don' think it will end well.     Those curves are mighty tight for flexi track.  I use Peco set track for anything below 20" radius to avoid kinks appearing especially at rail ends,  75 flexi might be better, but with much RTR being on the  limit on 2nd radius even when it's laid perfectly I think you are pushing your luck with running for the  sake of appearance.    The join will be between adjacent points and across 7 pieces of track several at an angle. 2 X 5 X2 and a 4X2 for the station would make assembly a lot easier.
There is nowhere for trains to go, one goes round clockwise then the other anticlockwise and then the hand descends and changes the train.  Its OK with 1960s Triang but 2000s era RTR sheds bits when treated like that. 
Rev Awdrey's Ffarquar (?) Branch layout  had a hidden fiddle yard on a similar footprint.

Thankyou for your feedback, ive done an updated layout (lots of changes, posted above in a seperate post) and I've managed to increase the minimum radius from 17.2 inches to 18 inches, as well as make several other changes. Looking at the feedback from others who have posted their thoughts it seems it will be tricky, but I will just be careful and see how it goes, if it doesn't work I will have to resort to set track.