The best train set layout you ever saw

[Harry2013]

I believe it was the final plan in "Track Plans" by Cyril Freezer.

 

How do I know? 'Cos I wanted one like that too!

 

Although the book goes into detail about constructing a diffferent two level figure of 8 layout it does not give any details about the track pieces used or even mention what curve radius either is based on.

 

Most of the photos in the book are B&W however between pages 48 & 49 there are 4 pages of colour plates which give a detailed explanation of scenic techniques of the layout I posted.

 

The book was published by Argus Specialist Publications (1982) they also published the magazine "Model Railways" at some stage Dave Lowery was the editor and CJ Freezer was a contributor - so the image I showed may well be derived from a 'Freezer' layout.

 

[Edit - Apparently CJF was editor of Model Railway 19878-83 so "may well be" perhaps should be read as "more than likely".]

 

I have scanned two further images from earlier stages in the construction which might help to develop a track plan.

 

If I have time I might play around with some Peco paper templates and see what I can come up with.

 

 

There are larger versions of these two images on my photobucket acc

http://s1253.photobucket.com/user/Harry-UK/library/Lowery%20Layout

Edited December 14, 2013 by Harry2013

[ThePurplePrimer]

Thanks for the info and the pictures Harry2013

 

I think I found this track plan in the current edition of the Freezer 60 plans for small spaces but the version above is a mirror of the one in the booklet.

 

I have started seeing if I can draw in up in Anyrail

[ThePurplePrimer]

This trackplan is really interesting - a lot of options in not much space

 

You get an oval for watching trains go by and testing or running in new stock

You get a 2 Lane terminus with a reverse loop

And I'm trying to change the sidings to be a full size inglenook

 

That's a lot of playability in not much space isn't it

 

My space is 7' wide so that's what I am working to

 

Here is how far I have gotten so far ( min radius 2 curves - setrack )

Edited December 14, 2013 by ThePurplePrimer

[Harry2013]

This trackplan is really interesting - a lot of options in not much space

 

You get an oval for watching trains go by and testing or running in new stock

You get a 2 Lane terminus with a reverse loop

And I'm trying to change the sidings to be a full size inglenook

 

That's a lot of playability in not much space isn't it

 

My space is 7' wide so that's what I am working to

 

Here is how far I have gotten so far ( min radius 2 curves - setrack )

 

 

 

Thank you I've been busy searching for CJ Freezer books on the usual sites and trying to decide which was the most likely as a source for a plan.

 

Just bought "60 plans for small locations" & "plans for various locations" - no doubt some duplication between the two but for a total of £6, it dosent really matter.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Harry2013

[Harry2013]

This trackplan is really interesting - a lot of options in not much space

 

You get an oval for watching trains go by and testing or running in new stock

You get a 2 Lane terminus with a reverse loop

And I'm trying to change the sidings to be a full size inglenook

 

That's a lot of playability in not much space isn't it

 

My space is 7' wide so that's what I am working to

 

Here is how far I have gotten so far ( min radius 2 curves - setrack )

 

Ive tried to figure out how the gradient between the two levels is going to work in such a tight space, without much success.

 

Unfortunately I cann't accomodate an 8 by 4 or even a 7 by 4...but I might have shot at doing the station area.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Harry2013

[ThePurplePrimer]

Well I have yet to build my first layout so of course I don't know what I'm talking about but the gradient looks like it starts just after the curved point in the bottom left hand corner so I assume that's far enough to get the height needed

 

I had better see if I can work out how much clearance is needed and how to create the gradient

[Harry2013]

Well I have yet to build my first layout so of course I don't know what I'm talking about but the gradient looks like it starts just after the curved point in the bottom left hand corner so I assume that's far enough to get the height needed

 

I had better see if I can work out how much clearance is needed and how to create the gradient

 

Also my first too.

 

I think theres a lot going on beneath the scenary to manage the track geometry.

 

This chart gives minimum height dimensions above track level as 42mm

http://www.elginmodelrailwayclub.co.uk/2010/advice/dimensions/standard-railway-modelling-dimmensions.html

 

But then you have to think about access for derailments etc. on the other hand that might not be such an issue if the scenary had an "open back".

 

So far as gradient goes I think Peco say the stepest is 1 in 36 some posts Ive read cite 1 in 40 and others as shallow as 1 in 50 (ie 2 cm per metre of track).

 

Ive seen discussions about easing gradients by having the upper track level rising and the lower one falling such that when they intersect their combined change in height makes a big enough clearance.

Whether that would work here is another question.

 

EDIT - Ive just checked in Lowerys book on the split level plan he does describe he says he used Horby bridge piers to raise the track. Hornby says these go up to 80mm they suggest using them over 1344mm (ie 1 in 17) or over 1680mm (ie 1 in 21)

to get a gradient of 1 in 30 for 80mm clearance you'd need 2.4metre.

 

So I guess its how much clearance above the minimum is needed.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Harry2013

[gordon s]

If you are looking at 00, the minimum height clearance is 60mm, not 42mm.  Then you have to add the thickness of the baseboard material which could be anywhere between 6-12mm.  I estimate the length of run from the curved turnout is around 8' or 2438mm which divided by 66mm would be a gradient of 1:36.  You would get away with it with short trains, although diesel haulage would be better than steam.

Edited December 15, 2013 by gordon s

[Harry2013]

If you are looking at 00, the minimum height clearance is 60mm, not 42mm.  Then you have to add the thickness of the baseboard material which could be anywhere between 6-12mm.  I estimate the length of run from the curved turnout is around 8' or 2438mm which divided by 66mm would be a gradient of 1:36.  You would get away with it with short trains, although diesel haulage would be better than steam.

 

Thanks, Gordon, I misquoted the dimensions given on the page I linked to, I should have referred to dimension 'R' which has you said is 60mm.

 

In his book Lowery says the baseboard of the layout is 8 x 4ft, a gradient of 1:36 is far from ideal. 

 

A better gradient would mean a larger baseboard, or some clever baseboard constrution which allowed the upper level to be inclining and the lower level to be declining such that at the point they crossover the required clearance is achieved. In effect the total clearance is 'split' between the two.

 

This image is the closest explanation I can readily find, althought its for an N gauge layout, but the principle is the same.

http://0.tqn.com/d/modeltrains/1/0/q/0/-/-/crossover_split.png

[RJS1977]

ISTR there was a layout to a similar plan (albeit with a double track oval) in RM about 10-15 years ago.

[Harry2013]

If you are looking at 00, the minimum height clearance is 60mm, not 42mm.  Then you have to add the thickness of the baseboard material which could be anywhere between 6-12mm.  I estimate the length of run from the curved turnout is around 8' or 2438mm which divided by 66mm would be a gradient of 1:36.  You would get away with it with short trains, although diesel haulage would be better than steam.

I have been reading your Eastwood Town thread, your layout is a source of inspiration you have obviously invested a lot of time and effort in it.

[Kenton]

Looking at the plan and the images of the layout - there is little to prevent it being built on the flat (no gradients) of course maybe an extra 12-18 inches would have to be added (so 8x4 becomes 8x6) moving from double bed size to small room or shed - the open well becomes slightly larger and more useful. This remains a walk-round layout as no one can possibly reach over that distance and it wouldn't work up against a wall. This ability to reach every spot on the layout board, to built it in the first place but also to maintain and operate it, is frequently ignored by track planners, who have an eye firmly fixed on operation rather than how it can actually be built and operated.

 

As for the gradient - over 10ft, it is clearly possible (this layout has been built) - but looking at the images above I wonder how much of it was stage managed. The whole operation of the layout completely falls down if the operator has to keep running round to help push trains up the steep gradient.

[Harry2013]

Looking at the plan and the images of the layout - there is little to prevent it being built on the flat (no gradients) of course maybe an extra 12-18 inches would have to be added (so 8x4 becomes 8x6) moving from double bed size to small room or shed - the open well becomes slightly larger and more useful. This remains a walk-round layout as no one can possibly reach over that distance and it wouldn't work up against a wall. This ability to reach every spot on the layout board, to built it in the first place but also to maintain and operate it, is frequently ignored by track planners, who have an eye firmly fixed on operation rather than how it can actually be built and operated.

 

As for the gradient - over 10ft, it is clearly possible (this layout has been built) - but looking at the images above I wonder how much of it was stage managed. The whole operation of the layout completely falls down if the operator has to keep running round to help push trains up the steep gradient.

 

The layout was used in the book from which I took the image to show how scenary was developed and decorated, and I posted it 'as a layout I like'.

 

Your comments, and those of other posters, about its design limitations are entirely valid. Although I cant accomodate an 8 x 4ft layout, if I ever do have the space I would hope to try and build something like even if that meant a different sized board.

The easiest option then, would be to build it 'flat' in which case probably an operating well would to have be included. 

 

ThePurplePlanner started the thread as 'The best layout you ever saw', these posts about the Lowery layout are becoming more like a topic for 'Layout & Track Design', and I hadnt intended to hijack his original topic, so perhaps the discussion should continue there ?

[RJS1977]

All I will say about the design itself is that my father's layout has a 1:20 gradient on it (albeit mostly straight) and our locos have no trouble pulling 3 bogie coaches up it, which looks to be about the limit for that terminus anyway. So 1:36 shouldn't be a problem, unless the haulage capabilities of modern locos are less than their earlier counterparts which we run.

[Kenton]

 

ThePurplePlanner started the thread as 'The best layout you ever saw', these posts about the Lowery layout are becoming more like a topic for 'Layout & Track Design', and I hadnt intended to hijack his original topic, so perhaps the discussion should continue there ?

Hey ho! All topics evolve as subject matter appears.

 

This layout still qualifies and despite some critical comments shows that even the "best" can be further developed and evolved into something even better.

 

The problem, as so very often the case, is that we impose a space even more restrictive on an already cramped layout - especially true for the roundy-roundy where trainset curves have to be resorted to, curves that much of the modern stock struggle with. The trouble is that we don't do any better with near unlimited space, just have this unrealistic drive to cram more and more track in the space available.

 

There is still a lot to be said in praise of the pure circle of track on the living room floor. Simple effective, one loco (any speed), simple to wire, no fancy scenicing, add RTP station and a signal to stop at, what more is there to it?

[alfsboy]

Nothing beat the Gamages layout in my opinion. Strange that there is very little online about that shop though.

 

Stewart

Me too .it made me dream on Pennsy GG1's and US layouts .it was incredible .That and Hamleys when it was a really good shop  and sold proper toy soldiers .

[Harry2013]

  Hey ho! All topics evolve as subject matter appears.

 

This layout still qualifies and despite some critical comments shows that even the "best" can be further developed and evolved into something even better.

 

The problem, as so very often the case, is that we impose a space even more restrictive on an already cramped layout - especially true for the roundy-roundy where trainset curves have to be resorted to, curves that much of the modern stock struggle with. The trouble is that we don't do any better with near unlimited space, just have this unrealistic drive to cram more and more track in the space available.

 

There is still a lot to be said in praise of the pure circle of track on the living room floor. Simple effective, one loco (any speed), simple to wire, no fancy scenicing, add RTP station and a signal to stop at, what more is there to it?

 

The space thing is a burden most have face.....I guess even those with a whole loft space to play with feel they just need a tad more.

 

Model railroading has so many aspects, so KISS (keep it simple) is definitely a good idea.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Harry2013

[ThePurplePrimer]

I am quite happy for this thread to evolve as it sees fit - when you get lucky you often get ideas thrown up by others you never considered when you asked the initial question that can lead in interesting directions

[C&WR]

Sorry, posted this before on RMWeb.  However I think I was pretty absorbed by this one:

 

 

I'm immediately to Rev WA's left, must have been distracted by seeing a camera!

[ThePurplePrimer]

Great picture

 

But I need to know - what was in the 'surprise packet' ?

[RJS1977]

Sorry, posted this before on RMWeb.  However I think I was pretty absorbed by this one:

 

 

I'm immediately to Rev WA's left, must have been distracted by seeing a camera!

 

Just so you can see it working again:

 

[RJS1977]

Great picture

 

But I need to know - what was in the 'surprise packet' ?

http://www.pegnsean.net/~railwayseries/surprisepacket.pdf

[gordon s]

Some fascinating bits and pieces in the 'Surprise Packet' that would have kept any fan of Thomas occupied for hours.  I was amazed just how much was in there...

 

Funny seeing 'cotton reel tanks' featured as the basis for a cut out steam loco.  Well over 55 years since we made those as kids at school….

[ThePurplePrimer]

Thanks for posting the Surprise Packet it's really great isn't it

 

Hornby should produce a version of that - fun and informative

[C&WR]

Great picture

 

But I need to know - what was in the 'surprise packet' ?

 

Afraid times were 'ard - Railway Civil Engineers didn't earn a lot so I didn't get the surprise packet.  Will someone please turn off that blasted New World Symphony?

 

Thank you.  I did get the first Thomas book in hardback, signed, and this has been passed on to The Small Controller.

 

http://www.pegnsean.net/~railwayseries/surprisepacket.pdf

 

Aha, more than thirty years on I get to see the contents!  Thank you, I think I will try & print this out for The Small Controller.

 

Some fascinating bits and pieces in the 'Surprise Packet' that would have kept any fan of Thomas occupied for hours.  I was amazed just how much was in there...

 

Funny seeing 'cotton reel tanks' featured as the basis for a cut out steam loco.  Well over 55 years since we made those as kids at school….

 

I especially like the Apprentice Rivet Counter section on page 17