Festive Design Challenge 2024-25

[Harlequin]

 

 

Hi Everyone,

 

Here's a design challenge to exercise the little grey cells over the holiday period and the cold winter months.

 

Imagine you own a house with an attached empty garage. The garage has been insulated and lined so that it's warm and dry. The electrics have all been sorted out and the lighting is bright and even across the whole space. It's a perfect blank canvas ready to be filled...

 

What layout would you build?

 

The challenge is to create a layout design for this space and share it in this thread before March the 1st 2025!

 

Here are the parameters:

1. The garage is 8ft by 16ft with a door in one long side. See the detailed plan below.
2. The layout is to be permanently built-in.
3. The layout should be practical to use, easy to build and easy to maintain.
4. The design should include more than just a simple track plan - the natural landscape and the built landscape around the railway should be shown.
5. The design should represent a particular era and region and should allow for prototypically correct operations.

 

Any scale, any gauge, any country, any style.

 

 

We hope this gets your creativity going and look forward to seeing your ideas!

 

@Harlequin @Chimer @Flying Pig

 

Edited December 6, 2024 by Harlequin

[Harlequin]

Here are two PDF versions of the garage plans to a scale of 1 : 20 to make it a bit easier to get started.

 

FDC25 Garage Plan A4.pdf Simple A4 version just showing the walls and the grid.

 

 FDC25 Garage Plan A3.pdf A3 version with the grid, the walls and the text all on separate layers.

 

They can be printed out or loaded into some software packages.

 

Edited December 6, 2024 by Harlequin

[AndyB]

Hi @Harlequin thank you for proposing this competition. I think you'll get some cracking ideas offered up. Looking forward to seeing what everyone comes up with.

 

One thought...to make it completely practical...I'd suggest that people include space for a workbench. And in such a way that they can access the layout behind and to the sides of it. 

 

All the best. Andy 

[ISW]

21 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Here are two PDF versions of the garage plans to a scale of 1 : 20 to make it a bit easier to get started.

 

FDC25 Garage Plan A4.pdf Simple A4 version just showing the walls and the grid.

 

FDC25 Garage Plan A3.pdf A3 version with the grid, the walls and the text all on separate layers.

 

They can be printed out or loaded into some software packages.

 

Phil,

 

I can see that other people have downloaded the files, but when I try I get:

 

"Oops - Euston we have a problem.

We could not locate the item you are trying to view.

Error code: 2S328/2"

 

Tried it in my browser and also Chrome, with the same results. I wonder what's up?

 

[Harlequin]

10 minutes ago, ISW said:

Phil,

 

I can see that other people have downloaded the files, but when I try I get:

 

"Oops - Euston we have a problem.

We could not locate the item you are trying to view.

Error code: 2S328/2"

 

Tried it in my browser and also Chrome, with the same results. I wonder what's up?

 

Hi Ian,

 

Hmmm, I got the same thing. No idea why so I have simply uploaded them again.

 

Try now.

 

[Flanged Wheel]

Works for me now. Thanks for setting this up - it’s a fun idea!

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Excellent idea Phil @Harlequin (I note Chris @Chimer and Simon @Flying Pig are name-checked too).  I’ve not been paying close attention, but I don’t think there have been many of these thought ideas / discussions recently.

 

I’d echo @AndyB’s comment about a workbench if a scheme is to be practical - something I’m sure I’ve seen on some of @Harlequin’s plans over time too.

 

I realise this is a bit of fun, so there is some flexibility, but as we’re told the garage is insulated and lined (you’re too kind), I wonder if it may help if contributors specify if their ‘up and over’ garage door has been sealed off - in which case everything has to come in and out of the garage through the standard looking (30” to 33” ?) door from the house.  Mainly relevant for anyone proposing a transportable / exhibition layout I guess.  Just a thought.  Hope that’s OK, Keith.

 

(An advantage of sealing off the main garage door is it can prevent other household / garden stuff being shoved in too!)   

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Excellent idea Phil @Harlequin (I note Chris @Chimer and Simon @Flying Pig are name-checked too).  I’ve not been paying close attention, but I don’t think there have been many of these thought ideas / discussions recently.

 

I’d echo @AndyB’s comment about a workbench if a scheme is to be practical - something I’m sure I’ve seen on some of @Harlequin’s plans over time too.

 

I realise this is a bit of fun, so there is some flexibility, but as we’re told the garage is insulated and lined (you’re too kind), I wonder if it may help if contributors specify if their ‘up and over’ garage door has been sealed off - in which case everything has to come in and out of the garage through the standard looking (30” to 33” ?) door from the house.  Mainly relevant for anyone proposing a transportable / exhibition layout I guess.  Just a thought.  Hope that’s OK, Keith.

 

(An advantage of sealing off the main garage door is it can prevent other household / garden stuff being shoved in too!)   

 

Thanks Keith.

 

Yes, the garage up and over door has been fixed in place, sealed off and insulated. The door to the house is drawn as a standard 30" wide door but you can have a 33" door if it helps. 😉

 

Parameter 2 says that the layout will be permanently fixed in the room. That means we don't have to worry about moving delicate boards through the house to go to shows! (And designs don't need to worry about baseboard joins so much.)

 

Providing a workbench or not is entirely up to the designer. It's perfectly reasonable to say that there's a workbench in another part of the imaginary house. 😁

 

Edited December 6, 2024 by Harlequin

[Chimer]

As my name's on this thread along with Phil and Simon , I thought I would state my intentions ..... As the chosen space is just 2' longer than I hope to have available for my "last great project" in 00, it would be horribly frustrating to design the perfect layout which I could never build - as we all know, all you ever need to perfect a design is just 6" more, so given 2' it would obviously be doubly perfect!  I am therefore going to do something in N and let my imagination rip.  But as I'm set up to do track design using 00 Streamline, I'm going to stick to that and double the dimensions, using 2' grid squares.

 

I'm hoping participants will show us early iterations of their plans so everyone can chip in with ideas for improvement (or just to confuse 😛).  That'll keep the thread alive.  Although obviously if people would rather keep things close to their chest, that's perfectly fine too.

[Flying Pig]

48 minutes ago, Chimer said:

But as I'm set up to do track design using 00 Streamline, I'm going to stick to that and double the dimensions, using 2' grid squares.

 

Can't you swap the track library?  I know it's only a bit of fun, but Peco Streamline N is not the same geometry as 00.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, Chimer said:

I'm hoping participants will show us early iterations of their plans so everyone can chip in with ideas for improvement (or just to confuse 😛).  That'll keep the thread alive.  Although obviously if people would rather keep things close to their chest, that's perfectly fine too.

 

Hi Chris @Chimer, the challenge has caught my attention after something of a quiet period for layout design, I must say, but it's unlikely I'll get anything down on paper this side of Christmas (the March 1st deadline is very generous - though do remind me I said this come late February!).  My own ideas and interests have evolved quite considerably over the past couple of years, during which time I've considered a number of different projects.

 

As such, I've already been thinking about the following:

 

1.  Fairford in TT:120 (inspired by the first thread I saw when I joined RMweb in 2018, this one by @Harlequin).  Given the calculation that Fairford needed 20' to be laid out in full for OO (1:76), then 16' should be plenty long enough in 1:120.  At the moment though buildings and rolling stock (except for a few PO's) would be the project.

 

2.  A modular, station by station build for the Ashburton Branch (GWR) - either in N or OO.  Taking parameter 3 for an easy, phased build, the idea would be to start with Ashburton + Fiddle Yard, then add Buckfastleigh at stage 2 and Staverton Bridge as Stage 3, each time moving the generic fiddle yard on and reusing it.  It was an idea I thought about when I briefly considered a cellar layout in our previous house (here), but issues with the cellar meant the idea never got far enough to appear on RMweb.  There is a Ratio kit for the trainshed at Ashburton in N, but for OO I think it would be a scratchbuild (not too tricky though).

 

3.  Having the garage fully lined and insulated (and the door sealed) leads me to consider Z scale for a "watching the trains go by" layout, as dust should become manageable.  A collection of rolling stock in either Continental or North American outline could be put together: 16' works out at exactly 2/3rds of a mile, making this tempting.

 

4.  I wondered about an American HO switching layout, but the heavy lifting has been done here by @fulton using a 16'8" length and I wouldn't come up with anything better just to save 8." 

 

I did have some ideas for a spare room American HO Branch Line I could revisit though.

 

5.  H0m also appeals (Swiss Narrow Gauge, mainly by Bemo).  An RhB layout that appeared at the BRM / Warners NEC exhibition last month was @warbonnetuk's very nice Santa Maria.  At 13' long it could fit nicely into the space, though this means it's another plan I'd be more tempted to copy than change if the space was available.

 

6.  I tried and failed a couple of time to fit Continental H0 Standard Gauge (German or Austrian) into a spare room space when I had it, but I'd be tempted to try again in a garage - perhaps using a Minories-style design for a terminus to fiddle yard scheme?  A key consideration is radius for running 26.4m coaches (303mm long in H0), as trials I did suggest 2'6" looks tight. 3' is possible, but 4' would be preferable - though just too big for the 8' width:

 

2'6" and 3' curves (note: SBB coaches on 2'6" curve are 1:93.5 scale length, OBB coaches on 3' curve are 1:87)

 

 

4' Radius:

 

 

7.  If I turn to Narrow Gauge in 009 / H0e / HOn30 (or NG7 / O-16.5 / On30 for that matter), there are plenty of options, and this may well be where I land after Christmas - there are too many possibles to even summarise!

 

8.  Finally however, the very first layout idea that came to my mind could be considered quite left field in a design competition (but has been built).  There's a YouTube channel dedicated to "Gottfrieds Modellbahn," a scenically majestic Austrian Mountain line in H0, which is actually 'just' a single line between two helixes:

 

 

Whether or not that would be considered an 'easy build' might be a question to put to @MAP66, currently building the second helix for his own layout (see here).  The finished layout is, I think, quite stunning.

 

...and those are just my initial reactions and thoughts!   Hope that's OK, Keith. 

[D9020 Nimbus]

Minories is a suburban terminus. Before the Silberlingen and the similarly sized Mitteleinstegwagen which preceded them, coaches were a lot shorter — and 4- and 6-wheel coaches were often used (indeed, the former were used in Austria until well into the 1970s). 
 

I'm not sure how plausible the Minories plan would be in such a context. You'd need to allow for right-hand running (in Germany, at any rate).  I believe there was a terminus station in Vienna in a suburban setting which was quite compact and served by quite short trains. 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

29 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Minories is a suburban terminus. Before the Silberlingen and the similarly sized Mitteleinstegwagen which preceded them, coaches were a lot shorter — and 4- and 6-wheel coaches were often used (indeed, the former were used in Austria until well into the 1970s). 
 

I'm not sure how plausible the Minories plan would be in such a context. You'd need to allow for right-hand running (in Germany, at any rate).  I believe there was a terminus station in Vienna in a suburban setting which was quite compact and served by quite short trains. 

 

Agreed - the wide variety of stock that could appear side by side is appealing, helped as you indicate by the longevity of 4- and 6- wheel coaches (I’m thinking Umbauwagen).  One option for a station to model in H0 would be to take a “bitsa” approach, and just include some of the platforms.  Any excuse to build this really…

 

 

An alternative would be to swap to TT, N, or Z to include more of a bigger station.

 

Keith.

 

Edited December 9, 2024 by Keith Addenbrooke

[ColinK]

That space is almost the same as my railway room.  I’m planning to build a 00 blue diesel layout in it soon, so I will be very interested to see what people come up with.

 

I’ve actually got double deck baseboard supports, the lower level already has a fully sceniced G scale layout on it.  You can’t get much in that space in G. It’s done one exhibition so far, but hard work to move 8 baseboards and the very large stock.

 

 

[Chimer]

5 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Can't you swap the track library?  I know it's only a bit of fun, but Peco Streamline N is not the same geometry as 00.

 

I'll have a look at how much of a pita swapping back and forth is.  But if the answer is "a big one" .....  I'm pretty sure XTrackCad can't handle me running two copies with different libraries, which would be fine.

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Chimer said:

 

I'll have a look at how much of a pita swapping back and forth is.  But if the answer is "a big one" .....  I'm pretty sure XTrackCad can't handle me running two copies with different libraries, which would be fine.

 

See: https://sourceforge.net/p/xtrkcad-fork/wiki/FirstLayout/

 

It looks like you have to set the scale under Options>Layout, then choose track libraries from File>Parameter Files.

[JohnR]

I dont have this space, but it will be interesting to see what's possible. I'm thinking of doing something a little outside my comfort zone (but not too much). I'm going to look at doing a Cornish Main Line layout in TT120, set in the 1970/80s. 

 

Hornby have the HST, 50, and 08. The 37 is on the way, 47 and 31 soon after. Ideally we'd need a 1st Gen DMU and a 25 too.

 

I'm thinking of something a bit like Par, with a branch swinging out and then under a viaduct to terminate in a low level terminus. A freightliner depot alongside  the mainline (using Hornby's IFA wagons). Might have room for another branch from the main line to a China Clay dry too. 

 

A garage can fit in a reasonable double track main line in OO, so there should be plenty of space for it in TT120. Just have to see if I can get the gradients right, and also what space is available for a fiddle yard. 

[Chimer]

14 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

I'll have a look at how much of a pita swapping back and forth is.  But if the answer is "a big one" .....  I'm pretty sure XTrackCad can't handle me running two copies with different libraries, which would be fine.

 

Turns out to involve no pain at all, so anticipated fudges unnecessary.  Switches scale libraries as I switch between designs. Thanks for the shove @Flying Pig !

[AndyB]

@Keith Addenbrooke you'll have your work cut out running up all those ideas!! 😁

 

But I recall a OO scheme by David Jenkins (?) with Fairford, Bampton and Witney which if transposed in to N gauge would be a delight of railway in a landscape.

 

One of my first layouts was a BR blue era, OO scheme in a garage space very similar to that specified. It had a Minories terminus, hard to access hidden sidings under the terminus, continuous and out and back run.

Track everywhere. Never again!

[Keith Addenbrooke]

41 minutes ago, AndyB said:

@Keith Addenbrooke you'll have your work cut out running up all those ideas!! 😁

 

But I recall a OO scheme by David Jenkins (?) with Fairford, Bampton and Witney which if transposed in to N gauge would be a delight of railway in a landscape.

 

One of my first layouts was a BR blue era, OO scheme in a garage space very similar to that specified. It had a Minories terminus, hard to access hidden sidings under the terminus, continuous and out and back run.

Track everywhere. Never again!

 

For those with access to Railway Modeller Archives, the plan @AndyB refers to is from the Aug 1976 RM ("Adapting a Prototype").  It was an out-and-back layout designed for a 15' x 8' space so ideal for a garage, but with large duckunders.  Confession: I only know this because we've discussed it elsewhere.

 

In his book on Model Railway Operation, Cyril Freezer also offered an idea for a garage-sized 'system' layout.  His followed a freelance out and back branchline theme, again with duckunders (if I remember correctly).

 

Although they're the sort of designs I grew up with, I know my own ideas have moved on (as has the state of my knees).  I'd now start by looking at around the walls / walk-in or shelf layout designs first.

_________________________________________

 

In terms of trackwork / train length (in OO / HO scales or larger), it won't take much to fill the 16' x 8' space.  But for benchwork and scenery the same space can seem quite large.  The room has a perimeter of 48'.  Adopt an 18" shelf width and there's 66 sq. ft. to play with - quite a lot to cover.  I know for me this would be a big space.  I'd agree with @Chimer this could easily make for a "last great project" - something to bear in mind.  Keith.

 

[Flying Pig]

8 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

For those with access to Railway Modeller Archives, the plan @AndyB refers to is from the Aug 1976 RM ("Adapting a Prototype").  It was an out-and-back layout designed for a 15' x 8' space so ideal for a garage, but with large duckunders.  Confession: I only know this because we've discussed it elsewhere.

 

 

Stanley C. Jenkins was the author.  The concept is interesting.  It's a high level branch terminus to return loop, with staging on the return loop hidden away under the terminus and a connection for continuous running on the low level.  The return loop crosses the diagonal of the garage and inevitably divides the operating space in two.  An intermediate station on the diagonal with a large goods yard means that one of the resulting wells is pretty tight.

 

You'd either need to do a lot of ducking or have at least one slender friend to operate it, I think.  The hidden storage loops would be a pain in case of derailment, but it shouldn't need much actual fiddling.  It's designed for operation as a home layout and not as a clone of the big loop with giant fiddle yard style of exhibition layout, which is a big plus for me.

 

[F-UnitMad]

20 hours ago, ColinK said:

That space is almost the same as my railway room.

It's a foot shorter than my space. I've fitted American O Scale in to 17ft x 8ft, with a very simple plan which most would dismiss as looking too boring - and there's no hidden staging so it needs a little bit more imagination than usual.

Top of the plan is an Industrial Park served by 3 spurs, at the bottom of the plan is the exchange yard & branch junction - a rather grand description for a siding & spur - or loop and siding in English!! This is where the Class 1 railroad exchanges freight cars with the local Short Line. Trains are simply staged on the main line in front of the Industrial Park; I saw no reason to hide any track as I would be under no illusions where the train has actually come from regardless of if the track was hidden or not. As you can only face one side of the layout at a time what happens on the other side of the room at that moment is really immaterial.

Two train operation, plenty of switching (shunting), a continuous run for racking up the miles, and the most fun you can have with only 5 switches (points, turnouts, whatever)....

I thought long & hard when designing this layout, I'm very happy with the result, & I commend it to The House.... 😁👍

[Flying Pig]

3 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

It's a foot shorter than my space. I've fitted American O Scale in to 17ft x 8ft, with a very simple plan which most would dismiss as looking too boring - and there's no hidden staging so it needs a little bit more imagination than usual.

Top of the plan is an Industrial Park served by 3 spurs, at the bottom of the plan is the exchange yard & branch junction - a rather grand description for a siding & spur - or loop and siding in English!! This is where the Class 1 railroad exchanges freight cars with the local Short Line. Trains are simply staged on the main line in front of the Industrial Park; I saw no reason to hide any track as I would be under no illusions where the train has actually come from regardless of if the track was hidden or not. As you can only face one side of the layout at a time what happens on the other side of the room at that moment is really immaterial.

Two train operation, plenty of switching (shunting), a continuous run for racking up the miles, and the most fun you can have with only 5 switches (points, turnouts, whatever)....

I thought long & hard when designing this layout, I'm very happy with the result, & I commend it to The House.... 😁👍

 

I like that very much, particularly the simplicity.

[AndyB]

16 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Stanley C. Jenkins was the author.  The concept is interesting.  It's a high level branch terminus to return loop, with staging on the return loop hidden away under the terminus and a connection for continuous running on the low level.  The return loop crosses the diagonal of the garage and inevitably divides the operating space in two.  An intermediate station on the diagonal with a large goods yard means that one of the resulting wells is pretty tight.

 

You'd either need to do a lot of ducking or have at least one slender friend to operate it, I think.  The hidden storage loops would be a pain in case of derailment, but it shouldn't need much actual fiddling.  It's designed for operation as a home layout and not as a clone of the big loop with giant fiddle yard style of exhibition layout, which is a big plus for me.

 

 

Thanks FP, it was Stanley, not David. 

 

Yep, in OO IMHO the layout isn't ideal as the 2nd well is small. But I was wondering if the general concept could be tackled in N gauge with, say, Witney goods shoved to the edge of the layout. 

Another challenge in N would be gradients, perhaps. 

And as a GWR layout I feel I've shown how open minded I can be. 😁

 

But I do like layouts in a landscape...so with this kind of space I'd favour designs where trains can stretch their legs. 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

22 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I like that very much, particularly the simplicity.

 

Agreed.  As @F-UnitMad’s layout is in the loft there is no duck-under: access is through the hatch in the centre of the space.  Just need to be careful when stepping backwards from the layout I guess, Keith.