Charwelton in N

[Hector Lawn]

Having already decided that I should build a model of the GCR Charwelton station I set about designing my layout within the constraints of the 14’ x 5’ room available. Due to the thin width of the room, plus the fact that I wanted the widest variety of trains possible, the space available behind the scenic section for a fiddle yard was going to be insufficient, not to mention totally accessible as it would be behind the backscene and up against the wall. I therefore decided to utilise the area underneath the entire scenic section and build the layout on two levels. Due to the shallow depth between top and bottom boards to limit the gradients, this means that the sidings will be more of a set of storage sidings rather than a fiddle yard.

 

Having armed myself with a copy of Xtrcad and gone through sufficient tutorials to be able to cover all the basic requirements to construct a layout I began designing the track layout. The scenic section was fairly easy as I only needed to follow the plan of the original station. I did initially try extending the station to accommodate 7-coach trains, but this seemed a step too far away from the prototype and so the standard length platform was retained instead. The full length of the line from Bridge 489 to the south portal of Catesby tunnel should cover approximately 15’ in N and so some compression has been required, with this section being only one third of the original length while the section from bridge 490 at the south end of the station to bridge 489 is only 40% of its prototypical length and has also had to be placed on a curve to enable the trains to access the storage roads below.

 

Charwelton - scenic plan:

 

 

When I originally designed the storage lines, I wanted trains to be able to go somewhere and then come back in the opposite direction and so I designed the whole layout as a very folded dog bone with some form of gradient or helix at either end to get up to the scenic section above.

 

Charwelton: storage yard version 1:

 

 

However, to run the line prototypically required the Annesley-Woodford ‘Windcutter’ freights to travel south with loaded wagons and return north with the empties. I therefore redesigned the first siding of each end to bypass its return path and instead carry on in a full loop, thereby allowing the train using this siding to move through Charwelton in one direction only. Was this going to meet my requirements? – no.

 

Charwelton: storage yard version 2:

 

 

 

My plans changed again while researching the line when a study of the timetable revealed that sometimes multiple trains would pass in one direction before anything came the other way. The design of the current yard would severely limit the number of trains running in the same direction before the number of free sidings ran out at their destination end. Version 3 solved this as now all trains face the same way within the storage yard (initially travelling up and right as you look at the plan) but now have the option of travelling in the up or down direction through the station before returning to their own storage line in the same facing direction as it left.

 

Charwelton: storage yard final version:

 

 

 This is the final version and is more of a (very) folded loop but with return loops provided to enable trains to access the helix/gradient at the other end and therefore take an alternative direction through the station. It does have a downside in that the number of storage lines has gone down from 20 to 18. I could have designed it with the original 20 but I wanted to ensure that the majority of the lines would hold a 7-coach rake of Mk1’s plus loco. Some other small mods have also since taken place during actual construction, such as limiting curves to 12” radius and trying to ensure that gradients are more like 1 in 36 rather than the 1 in 25 which would have resulted from sticking rigidly to the plan. However, so pleased am I with this design that I am contemplating on using it in any future layouts that may be built and require bi-directional working of  trains on a through station. I have some concerns about steam loco’s and the gradients but still have a few ideas to fall back on should testing prove that they are still too steep.  It has been planned from the beginning to be DCC.

 

Hector

 

 

 

 

[Kris]

Wow, complex fiddle yard. I hope that you are going to leave lots of room between the layout and that to ensure you have easy access to it all for cleaning.

[Guest bri.s]

That's some plan looks awesome cant wait to see it progress

Bri.s

[definate maybe]

woozer! the scenic trackplan looks like a lovely plan. The hidden sidings looks blinking complicated!

[Tricky-CRS]

Looks interesting good luck

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Good to see someone making use of the folded or multilevel dogbone concept. Something you may want to consider is more plain track mileage in the gradient stages to drop the storage roads further below the layout, allowing more room for occasional 'hand of God' manipulation should that prove necessary; and also track cleaning especially if thinking of traction tyres.

[gordon s]

Your plan is certainly impressive Hector, but as someone who has tried to build layouts with differing levels, I wonder if I may offer some pointers to help you avoid making the same mistakes I have done over the past few years.

 

Access and gradients are the two real issues.  I see from your plan you have many turnouts in 'hidden' areas.  If anything is going to fail or cause derailments it will be in the most inaccessible place, so try to leave access points to get to pointwork, should there be a problem.  Track cleaning is also something that is often overlooked in hidden areas.

 

I may have missed it, but didn't see a figure for separation between the two levels.  Of course this directly impacts any gradients, but you will need sufficient space to clearly see which roads are vacant and those that already have trains in situ.  Alternatively you could consider some form of electrical/infra red sensors to serve the same purpose.

 

I'm fairly conversant with 4mm gradients and have had to redesign several versions of my own layout, Eastwood Town, where steam locos would not be able to pull 7/8 coaches up a 1:50 gradient.  Diesels will generally fare a lot better as they are usually heavier and have more driven wheels.

 

I wish you well with your plan.  It looks quite a challenge, so I will follow your build with interest. 

[Southernboy]

An interesting plan and one into which you have obviously put a great deal of thought, particularly with regard to train movements / storage sidings.

 

Good luck with the litmus testing of steam locomotives as I guess this determines the success or otherwise of the plan.

 

The one thing I'm curious about (and sorry if I missed this) is the difference in height between low level storage sidings and scenic level boards ...

ie 'how much room is there to get your hands in for track cleaning etc'?

 

Also, you've given the size of the room as 14' x 5' - but what size is the layout (again, sorry if I missed that)

 

Either way, I look forward to reading more about this as work progresses

[shanks522]

This is right up my street, Very impressive plans indeed, will be following with great interest.

 

Graham.

[Hector Lawn]

Hi! Thanks for your comments everyone. Yes, quite an elaborate plan I'll agree but one which has gradually developed over time as I had plenty of time to think about my design before starting to build. I don't expect to get everything right first time but I am trying!

 

To answer your queries, the layout is 14' x 2.5'. There will only be 88mm between the upper and lower levels to keep the gradients between them as low as possible but this still means a ratio of 1 in 36 (approximately). This allows for the tops which are made of 4mm ply, the frame of the upper board of 42mm plus 42mm gap between the upper frame and the lower board. I know 1 in 36 is still a bit steep, especially for steamers, but I have been encouraged by a post on another forum from soemone who claims that their Farish Flying Scotsman will pull 10 pullman coaches up a 1 in 25 gradient on a 12" radius curve (albeit with some slippage)! If the gradient proves too steep for 7 coach rakes, many of the semi-fast and local services on the GCR ran with 5 or less coaches prior to the line closing, so I have some leeway here.

 

The upper 4 boards will be hinged at the rear, enabling me to lift up an upper section for access to derailments and for maintenance. The challenge here will be to try and disguise the board joins on the scenic section.

 

To get from the lower to upper layers, these are the circular lines (i.e. a one and a half turn helix) at the right hand end of the plan and the snake-like feature at the left hand end of the storage boards.

 

I am planning to use Heathcote Electronics infra-red sensors to tell me when trains are in position at the end of their run (more wiring!), although I am wiring the layout so that at some point in the future I can use train-controller software to designate where trains stop without too much modification to the wiring.

 

Thanks for the comments everyone, they are very encouraging! More detail may be revealed when I post the 'construction to date' in the layout section.

 

Hector

[Southernboy]

"The upper 4 boards will be hinged at the rear, enabling me to lift up an upper section for access to derailments and for maintenance."

 

That's interesting - I've had that in my own mind as a practical feature for a future layout: My thinking is that if boards are hinged directly to the wall, then some sort of prop or hook will be needed to stop them falling back down from 90º, whereas if there's a shallow shelf built out from the wall, to which the hinged section is attached, the shelf will naturally lay back against the wall - and make things like attending to under-board wiring and motors much easier. The width of the shelf would be determined by the height of permanent scenics (such as hills) but buildings/trees etc could be removable.

 

So I'm just curious to know your thinking / planning in this respect.

 

Thanks for filling-in above the other details I was curious about The more I look at your plan the more I like it.

[locoworks]

Hi! Thanks for your comments everyone. Yes, quite an elaborate plan I'll agree but one which has gradually developed over time as I had plenty of time to think about my design before starting to build. I don't expect to get everything right first time but I am trying!

 

To answer your queries, the layout is 14' x 2.5'. There will only be 88mm between the upper and lower levels to keep the gradients between them as low as possible but this still means a ratio of 1 in 36 (approximately). This allows for the tops which are made of 4mm ply, the frame of the upper board of 42mm plus 42mm gap between the upper frame and the lower board. I know 1 in 36 is still a bit steep, especially for steamers, but I have been encouraged by a post on another forum from soemone who claims that their Farish Flying Scotsman will pull 10 pullman coaches up a 1 in 25 gradient on a 12" radius curve (albeit with some slippage)! If the gradient proves too steep for 7 coach rakes, many of the semi-fast and local services on the GCR ran with 5 or less coaches prior to the line closing, so I have some leeway here.

 

The upper 4 boards will be hinged at the rear, enabling me to lift up an upper section for access to derailments and for maintenance. The challenge here will be to try and disguise the board joins on the scenic section.

 

To get from the lower to upper layers, these are the circular lines (i.e. a one and a half turn helix) at the right hand end of the plan and the snake-like feature at the left hand end of the storage boards.

 

I am planning to use Heathcote Electronics infra-red sensors to tell me when trains are in position at the end of their run (more wiring!), although I am wiring the layout so that at some point in the future I can use train-controller software to designate where trains stop without too much modification to the wiring.

 

Thanks for the comments everyone, they are very encouraging! More detail may be revealed when I post the 'construction to date' in the layout section.

 

Hector

 

 

if you have a helix arrangement to get between levels you just need to include a few more turns and you can have plenty of room between levels to leave space for cleaning without the need to hinge up the baseboards, it won't change the angle of the inclines, just make them longer.

 

 

if you wanted to keep the style of storage you have underneath it would work better if the layout appeared at the back of the board on the left, so angle the entire track plan up on the left as it is drawn, you could then loose that return 'S' arrangement and have the helix exit straight onto the scenic part.  another option, which would be easier as there are only 2 lines to consider, is that you could angle the whole track plan the other way and mirror the storage sidings .

[Hector Lawn]

Southernboy wrote "The width of the shelf would be determined by the height of permanent scenics (such as hills) but buildings/trees etc could be removable.

So I'm just curious to know your thinking / planning in this respect".

 

The top boards are not as wide as the bottom, the 4' boards are only 2' wide and the 3' boards even thinner at 18", thereby leaving plenty of room at the back if the board is lifted at the front. The only limitation will be the height of the backscene.

 

Locoworks, with regards to the height of the helix/ angle of the scenic section, I wanted to keep the distance between the upper and lower boards to a minmum as the layout has been designed from the start to be at least dismantleable if not portable. A high helix would make transportation difficult. I did think about angling the scenic section but I wanted the line to run parallel to the front to give the effect of standing at the lineside spotting trains!

 

Thanks for the suggestions. I should have put my plans up a bit earlier for the valuable input I am receiving. However, its all a bit late now as the build is already in progress.

 

Hector