Looking for feedback for my 1st layout design

[The Johnster]

My immediate concern is the tight radii of the curves.  Even with code 100 Streamline any radius below 24” must be laid with the greatest possible care, as it is all too easy even for an experienced layout builder to pull the rails out of the plastic chairs and to stress the plastic sleeper base and distort the track, resulting in potential derailments.  With code 75, everything is that bit more delicate as the rail is of finer cross-section as is the sleeper base, and you have no prior experience of laying.  Tbh, I think that you would be better advised to use setrack and setrack geometry given the restrictions of the available space; it is better to have a layout that runs reliably at the cost of the superior appearance of the code 75 track.  
 

I’m also worried about the operational aspects and general realism.  It is difficult in this restricted space to avoid a ‘train set’ scenario in which the trains simply circulate without appearing or giving the impression of coming from or going to somewhere. To use theatre as an analogy, the trains are the actors and need to come on-stage from somewhere off-stage, strut their stuff, and exuant, possibly stage left pursued by a bear…   In my view, the presence of a fiddle yard representing the rest of the entire space-time continuum is the basic difference between a train set and a model.   railway.  Nowt wrong with train sets, lotsa fun, but code 75 suggests that you care about look and detail…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DCB]

On 25/03/2024 at 11:29, 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?

That's not the issue, the unifrog is NON ISOLATING,  ( Not power routing in PecoSpeak) something which has been just about extinct since about 1955 so you either need DCC or lots of isolated sections if you want to have more than  one loco on the layout.   Even a pair forming a trailing crossover on an oval will mean both tracks will be live to the same controller all the time or both if isolators are not used.  Electrofrog would short if one was set straight and  one to cross, Insulfrog would connect both circuits if both set to cross.   

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30 by DCB

[Outrunn]

2 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

My immediate concern is the tight radii of the curves.  Even with code 100 Streamline any radius below 24” must be laid with the greatest possible care, as it is all too easy even for an experienced layout builder to pull the rails out of the plastic chairs and to stress the plastic sleeper base and distort the track, resulting in potential derailments.  With code 75, everything is that bit more delicate as the rail is of finer cross-section as is the sleeper base, and you have no prior experience of laying.  Tbh, I think that you would be better advised to use setrack and setrack geometry given the restrictions of the available space; it is better to have a layout that runs reliably at the cost of the superior appearance of the code 75 track.  
 

I’m also worried about the operational aspects and general realism.  It is difficult in this restricted space to avoid a ‘train set’ scenario in which the trains simply circulate without appearing or giving the impression of coming from or going to somewhere. To use theatre as an analogy, the trains are the actors and need to come on-stage from somewhere off-stage, strut their stuff, and exuant, possibly stage left pursued by a bear…   In my view, the presence of a fiddle yard representing the rest of the entire space-time continuum is the basic difference between a train set and a model.   railway.  Nowt wrong with train sets, lotsa fun, but code 75 suggests that you care about look and detail…

Thankyou for your feedback, Regarding the track radius yea, going by several users stating it will be tough, it seems that laying the track will be a challenge, ultimately if I'm not successful then I will resort to set track, but I will try my best, if it doesn't work, at least I will have learnt from my mistakes for the future.

 

Regarding general realism I'm not overly concerned with the trainset connotations, due to a change in living conditions its been 14 years since I've been able to run any of my trains at all outside of a static rolling road on my kitchen table, the main draw is just to be able to run my trains again. 

 

My plan for this layout is to be a kind of 'learning layout' if that makes sense, for me to try things I've always wanted to do, things like kit bashing, weathering, lighting, things like that, the code 75 is part of that 'learning layout' theme if that makes sense. -

p.s. I posted an updated version of the layout earlier tonight, do you think thats an improvement?

[ITG]

Much depends on what you’re trying to achieve. To my eye, that looks rather train-setty in appearance. Three issues for me:

1. Platform arrangement is unusual, with one track between two platforms.

2. Have you already purchased the double slips? Their usage in the plan is again unusual.

3. I still think you’ll find the sidings too short for any kind of meaningful use.

 

Not withstanding point 2 above, have you looked at the book 60 Plans for Small Railways? It’s old, and you’ll find them on eBay for a few quid, but it will give you inspiration. There are many 6’x4’ plans which you could expand slightly. Of course, the 4’ width is always going to limit your radii, and I personally would use set track for the curves, which means probably opting for code 100 throughout.

Ian

[Harlequin]

19 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

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).

 

 

 

Sorry but I don't understand what you're driving at. The frogs are isolated in the double-slips in the same way and are the only parts that need to change "polarity". All the outgoing rails are permanently wired.

 

Obviously if the frogs are wired up and switched they will be at different "polarities" to the some of the adjacent rails but the routes set by the points will have the correct "polarity" throughout.

 

This is getting a bit Off Topic and DCB's notes about wiring up Unifrog turnouts for DC might confuse the OP.

 

[Harlequin]

9 hours ago, Outrunn said:

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 

 

That's a backwards step, I think, but hey it's a step in the process.

 

The formation at the bottom doesn't look realistic. The sidings are still too short. The tracks bottom right are too close together so that long vehicles will hit each other. The platforms are a bit odd because the island gives you two platform faces so what does the third, inner one do?

 

When you say "fold line" are you thinking about the two boards being hinged in some way?

 

Have a look at "GW Adventure" in my track plans album because it's similar to what you're trying to do and might give you some ideas. There's a tree-line ridge along the centre to create two different scenes and give trains somewhere to go to and come from, as someone talked about above. It could be done in Code75 but not bullhead because it uses curved and short turnouts.

 

[Paul the painter]

That's quite  a lot for a 7x4?, and you're first layout don't make the mistakes I made trying to cram as much in trackside as possible?, golden rules are:

1 keep it simple,ie maybe a branch line single track with a nice terminus on one straight side? With bay platform, small goods yard, 

2 if you use peco unifrog points  no need for wiring the frog points are already dcc friendly!!, believe me you don't want the headache of over complicated wiring??, keep this simple too?

3 try and make the railway look like it was laid in the landscape ,not the land around it?

4 make sure you wire every piece of track to the dcc bus under you're layout that way no problems with trains stalling ?, 

4 and finally buy a nice simple dcc controller set which hasn't got complicated function systems for getting the blumin locos to do anything!!?, lenz l101 is a good entry level set nice and simple to use and made by the Germans!!, so their instruction manual is easy to follow?, after all they invented the hand book!!, 

5 and finally don't rush it ?, glue your track down not pin it?, and happy modelling!!? 

[Nearholmer]

Back to “live frogging” the double-slips for a moment:

 

This is the diagram provided by Peco (including typo that says it’s a single-slip!):

 

 

I think the need to insulate all the rails must be dictated by how the various bits of metalwork in the centre of the assembly are fed, and the need to avoid passing short-circuits between wing-rails and opposite polarity running rails being caused by wheels, but I’ll have to peer at it, and draw a diagram, to be sure.

 

If what Peco are instructing is truly necessary, and not a bit of excess caution on their part, the insulating gaps/joiners need to go in at track-laying stage if future “live frogging” is contemplated.

[Geep7]

Having laid and wired a few double / single slips now, of both insulfrog and electrofrog variety, it's safe enough to only put insulating rail joiners on the frog rails. It's always wise though to add feed wires as suggested by Peco on the outer 2 rails of the slips. Never rely on the rail joiners to do their job of conducting electricity forever, especially if you spray paint your track.

 

I can honestly say that switching the frogs on slips is pretty much essential, and will avoid ever using an insulfrog variety. It's just one of those items of pointwork that really needs as much juice given to it as possible, if you want to avoid stalling.

[Nearholmer]

TBH, I would always ensure that “frogs” are live, and switched via proper contacts, not fortuitous contact at switchblades, on all point-work. It’s not difficult to achieve, and it puts one more thing in the finely-poised balance in favour of the trains doing what you want them to do, when you want them to do it!

[Harlequin]

4 hours ago, Geep7 said:

Having laid and wired a few double / single slips now, of both insulfrog and electrofrog variety, it's safe enough to only put insulating rail joiners on the frog rails. It's always wise though to add feed wires as suggested by Peco on the outer 2 rails of the slips. Never rely on the rail joiners to do their job of conducting electricity forever, especially if you spray paint your track.

 

I can honestly say that switching the frogs on slips is pretty much essential, and will avoid ever using an insulfrog variety. It's just one of those items of pointwork that really needs as much juice given to it as possible, if you want to avoid stalling.

The discussion here is specifically about unifrog slips and whether they can be laid with metal joiners before you have decided whether to power the frogs or not.

The big advantage of unifrog turnouts is that they can be laid in that way and I’m a bit suspicious of Peco’s diagram above because it doesn’t show the electrical breaks within the part which are fundamental to the unifrog concept.

[Geep7]

20 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

The discussion here is specifically about unifrog slips and whether they can be laid with metal joiners before you have decided whether to power the frogs or not.

The big advantage of unifrog turnouts is that they can be laid in that way and I’m a bit suspicious of Peco’s diagram above because it doesn’t show the electrical breaks within the part which are fundamental to the unifrog concept.

Sorry, yes, now I look, that's supposed to be a unifrog diagram, but it looks no different to the diagram for an electrofrog.

 

Apologies for straying from the unifrog discussion, I just thought it might help.

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

I’m a bit suspicious of Peco’s diagram

TBH, having slavishly followed it, I’m becoming suspicious of Peco’s diagram myself now!

 

I’ve  fixed the unifrog double-slip down, so can’t look at the underside to see whether that offers any useful clues, but viewing it from above, thinking what must be connected to what, and “dabbing out” with a continuity tester, which confirms my thinking, I now can’t see why all, indeed any of, those rail-breaks are necessary for “live frog operation”, any more than they are for “dead frog”.

 

The only reason I can see for having rail-breaks is for sectionalisation if using straight DC with more than one controller in use on the layout (e.g. Up and Down Road controllers on a double-track circuit), and even more so if “cab control” is being used to switch sections between controllers, and I’m beginning to think that Peco have given instructions based on that case, just in case that is what someone is doing, rather than a long list of ifs, buts and maybes that could lead to confusion ….. it seems to be a sort of worst-case wiring diagram.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Edited March 27 by Nearholmer

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

TBH, having slavishly followed it, I’m becoming suspicious of Peco’s diagram myself now!

 

I’ve  fixed the unifrog double-slip down, so can’t look at the underside to see whether that offers any useful clues, but viewing it from above, thinking what must be connected to what, and “dabbing out” with a continuity tester, which confirms my thinking, I now can’t see why all, indeed any of, those rail-breaks are necessary for “live frog operation”, any more than they are for “dead frog”.

 

The only reason I can see for having rail-breaks is for sectionalisation if using straight DC with more than one controller in use on the layout (e.g. Up and Down Road controllers on a double-track circuit), and even more so if “cab control” is being used to switch sections between controllers, and I’m beginning to think that Peco have given instructions based on that case, just in case that is what someone is doing, rather than a long list of ifs, buts and maybes that could lead to confusion ….. it seems to be a sort of worst-case wiring diagram.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Yep, I agree. The instructions look like a very conservative update of the previous code 75 version.

They could at least have provided separate DCC and DC instructions. I don’t think that would have been too confusing.

[Outrunn]

35 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Yep, I agree. The instructions look like a very conservative update of the previous code 75 version.

They could at least have provided separate DCC and DC instructions. I don’t think that would have been too confusing.

I 100% agree, speaking as a total beginner to me a separate DCC and a DC wiring diagram makes logical sense for someone who may not know fully what to do/ not do etc

[Trainnoob]

 

On 24/03/2024 at 23:02, Outrunn said:

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.

It looks like you have a headshunt on this track plan if so make sure your headshunt is big enough to fit your longest loco + one wagon, it makes shunting more effective.

Edited March 28 by Trainnoob

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, Trainnoob said:

so make sure your headshunt is big enough to fit your longest loco + one wagon,

 

Your longest loco + your longest wagon.

[Trainnoob]

On 28/03/2024 at 17:52, The Johnster said:

 

Your longest loco + your longest wagon.

This. 👆

 

Though if you want to be technical I would say longest loco + your longest wagon your going to have using that shunting yard.