Small layout plan help.

[br2975]

For a real limited space layout I think you're better looking at an urban setting where space would be restricted in reality, and there would be 'view-blocks' you could use to conceal the minimal space - whereas rural settings are generally spread out, and surrounded with open countryside, fields etc.

 

Take a look here ......

.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/album/421-lesspoint/

.

If you are using an auto train, and a 'bubble' you could get by with this.

.

If it grabs you, try and fit an engine release cross over between the one platform road and the siding.

.

Brian R

[hartleymartin]

Whoopee

.

At last I know I'm not alone.

.

I was beginning to think there was something wrong with me because I don't use some form of CAD, but my 40yrs old drafting equipment and templates.

.

Brian R

 

I'm 28, trained in CAD, but much prefer to use paper templates. Even with 3D versions, it doesn't really give you a proper perspective on how everything will look. I much prefer to use a mock-up in full size because it gives you a much better sense of what is going on.

[Dannyboy2891]

Hi Brian R

 

It's not normal for me to disagree with other modellers, but in this occasion I do think that you may have overlooked Andrew P & George T epic layout "Trebudoc". This layout offers fantastic Gwr practices of running and plenty of scope for operational interest.. Plus delivering all this in just 10', to which maybe in keeping with Scott's original style or concept he was looking at modelling.

 

Now please don't get me/quote me wrong there are some amazing urban or quayside micro layouts out there of all different types/sizes (most of which are of Paul Lunn designs), to which deserve all the credit given

 

Please I mean No offence by this post, but just merely different side or point of view.

 

Kindest Regards

Dan

[Dannyboy2891]

Hi hartleymartin

 

I could not agree more with yours and Brian R posts, I too used C.a.d designs quite often.. but like you enjoy nothing more that to crack out templates and a roll of lining paper, what better way to spend an evening or couple of days.

 

No offence meant to those who do favour c.a.d design processes, but unfortunately a computer only caters for certain things like : perfect measurements, straights, curves, inclines, cuttings and that you have a perfectly level floor to which the layout stands on.  

 

My point I am trying to put over in the kindest and fairest way is that a computer does not take into account knots in timber or modellers/human errors - that being a computer assumes that the modeller can cut in perfectly straight lines or curves all the time every time, can make perfectly square baseboards and most of all can lay/ballast in perfectly straight and parallel railway lines

.. Am I barking up the wrong tree, or merely stating that we all have our strengths and weaknesses as modellers?

 

Kind Regards

Dan

[alant]

I tend to use wallpaper end rolls to plot out my track layouts and find it helps to work out clearances when drawing out full size.

[br2975]

Hi Brian R

 

It's not normal for me to disagree with other modellers, but in this occasion I do think that you may have overlooked Andrew P & George T epic layout "Trebudoc".

I did overlook this layout - primarily because I've never heard of it.

.

It may even be on this site.

.

It may well be a wonderful layout.

.

But I can't mention (or recommend) something of which I have no knowledge.

.

I provided my rationale for urban based minimum spaced layouts - I don't expect everyone to agree, but the OP sought advice and opinion.

.

The most operationally satisfying layout I ever built was in 7mm and was 7'4" x 1'6".

.

It was based upon an urban industrial setting, based upon John Allen's Timesaver concept

[81A Oldoak]

I'm a paper and pencil type when it comes to planning. It is far quicker and easier than faffing about with CAD programmes of which I have quite enough with the design of Ixion and Minerva locomotives.

 

The Trebuco layout is very good and I have seen it in action in the flesh. However, I try as far as possible to have a loop fully visible for the complete run-round movement. That said, if space doesn't allow then other expedients must be used. The most important point of all to be remembered by all people at all times and in all places is this: a layout is better than no layout.

 

Regards,

 

Chris

[chaz]

Whoopee

.

At last I know I'm not alone.

.

I was beginning to think there was something wrong with me because I don't use some form of CAD, but my 40yrs old drafting equipment and templates.

.

Brian R

 

Stick with something your happy with or try something new? That's always a dilemma when you actually make something. Never trying anything new is rather limiting but sometimes it's more efficient to go with what you know.

 

There are times when railway modelling can be a bit of a chore (ballasting?) but usually I'd say go with the method that works well and that you enjoy. As Chris Klein says "I'm a paper and pencil type when it comes to planning. It is far quicker and easier than faffing about with CAD programmes". There will be others who would naturally turn to a computer to help them design, nothing wrong with that - chacun a son goute. (Yer actual french!).

 

Chaz

[Dannyboy2891]

Hi Brian R   

 

I truly meant No offence by my posting, like yours I tried to put over a different point of view - thus aiming towards the same goal for Scott.

 

Indeed Trebudoc is on rm web and its earlier posts are way back in the early roots of the project and began as a shunting freight yard theme. Yeh I totally agree that urban based layouts are awesome and truly deliver a fab operational interesting layout to operate  

 

I must confess that I had overlooked the concept of a shunting timesaver layout, my apologies

I have never heard of John Allen, so might go off and take a peak myself.

 

Many thanks and kindest regards

Dan

[Dannyboy2891]

Hi Chris  

 

I could not agree more with you, when it comes to having a layout .. rather than not.

Having been in that very position for past year or so myself

 

Best wishes

Dan

[81A Oldoak]

Hi Chris

 

I could not agree more with you, when it comes to having a layout .. rather than not.

Having been in that very position for past year or so myself

 

Best wishes

Dan

Sounds like cold turkey. V unpleasant indeed.

 

Chris

[Dannyboy2891]

Think you maybe rite on that one Chris, but I am rectifying this problem by having an OO gauge light railway shunting puzzle under construction and now after a Fab impulse buy of the Dapol O gauge Stroudly Terrier..

 

Its now two projects on the go, as well as enjoying my evenings on this Awesome modelling forums. Cant decide if I am mad or just a glutten for punishment (open to criticism, please be gentle).

 

Kind Regards

Dan

[Simond]

Just to put an alternative point of view, I'm 57, I'm a professional Engineer, I have had 2D CAD for modelling and domestic purposes for years, and have used it a bit for concept development at work, I got Templot as a Christmas present lots of years ago when it was paid for, and in February this year, I had the opportunity to get training in a professional 3D CAD package.

 

It's utterly brilliant! I'm still learning, and it's occasionally extremely frustrating, as it's like trying to speak a new foreign language, you know what you want to say, but not how to say it, but it's like having just grown an extra pair of hands! I wish I'd done it years ago!

 

Yes, I still sketch on scraps of paper, and guess I always will, but when things get a bit more concrete, CAD is the way to go.

 

Other views exist....

Simon

[chaz]

Just to put an alternative point of view, I'm 57, I'm a professional Engineer, I have had 2D CAD for modelling and domestic purposes for years, and have used it a bit for concept development at work, I got Templot as a Christmas present lots of years ago when it was paid for, and in February this year, I had the opportunity to get training in a professional 3D CAD package.

 

It's utterly brilliant! I'm still learning, and it's occasionally extremely frustrating, as it's like trying to speak a new foreign language, you know what you want to say, but not how to say it, but it's like having just grown an extra pair of hands! I wish I'd done it years ago!

 

Yes, I still sketch on scraps of paper, and guess I always will, but when things get a bit more concrete, CAD is the way to go.

 

Other views exist....

Simon

 

Yours is a perfectly valid approach and the benefits of being able to do CAD must be huge. I do like to see people express their enthusiasm for a technique whilst allowing that alternatives are there to be used.

 

Chaz

[Simond]

I think it's "horses for courses", as there's a spectrum of design complexity from something very simple, for which a "fag packet sketch" would be excessive, to the other end of the scale where nothing less than CAD accuracy will suffice.

 

And of course, the other benefits of computer-based working, including record keeping, replication, easy transmission of data, collaboration and so on, would drive almost any commercial enterprise to that solution, probably supported by specialised Product Lifecycle Management systems, though most of these features are of little relevance to modellers.

 

And, of course, many of us are modelling relatively complex mechanical & structural assemblies which predate the mouse & laptop by a century or more, and which were created by armies of draughtsmen, using a different set of skills, and many ships, bridges, stations, buildings, cranes & planes were designed with nothing more complex than a slide rule, a set square, a protractor and some sharp pencils. (I did start with a set square on a drawing board - still have most of the instruments I got whilst at university - but I was never a "tidy draughtsman" )

 

But turning to modelling - it's pretty much possible to be anywhere on the spectrum that you feel comfortable, and still produce models that please. I guess that the more tools you've got, the easier it is.

 

I'm not sure I'd be buying myself a personal licence for this particular system - it's a couple of thousand pounds per year. Happily, I can use it for fun when I'm not working (though I haven't, because I haven't yet needed to and I don't particularly want to do in my spare time things I have been doing at work...).

 

I would say that the purchase of "TurboCAD" about 20 years ago, for about £20 has more than paid for itself. I'd recommend it to anyone who plans to do drawings to scale. And Templot is simply brilliant, even if it has a bit of a learning curve.

 

Ho hum, off to the office...

Simon

[81A Oldoak]

I have liked these three small layout plans since I first saw them in "Designs for Urban Layouts" by Iain Rice. The concept was for three small 4mm scale wall-mounted industrial layouts stacked one above another that represented an industrial line from exchange with the mainline to final destination. They are linked by a portable cassette. Each board is 4'5" x 10" maximimum and provide much inspiration for up-sizing.  They scale up to approximately 7'11" x 1'6" for 7mm scale excluding storage.

 

If I were pursuing this, I would probably take the exchange siding scheme and widen the board to put in a second loop with a small platform on the arrival line like Old Ynysbwl. I've scratched out my idea in red on the second image. You have 2'1" left for a traverser or cassette, which will take a Lionheart 64xx and auto-coach. Freight would be short with an 0-6-0T, two 4 wheel wagons and a brake van. With a bit of tweaking you could probably trim 6" from the right-hand end of the scenic board to fit an extra wagon to the freight train. A short siding off the the passenger loop just below the words "Traffic Office" is feasible.  I would also try to run the crossover from the arrival line to the private line down a short gradient to achieve some separation of levels. Even a lowering of 5mm can make a significant difference to the appearance of the layout. 

 

Regards,

 

Chris

 

PS the amendment to the plan took less than 30 seconds with a red pencil.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I have liked these three small layout plans since I first saw them in "Designs for Urban Layouts" by Iain Rice. The concept was for three small 4mm scale wall-mounted industrial layouts stacked one above another that represented an industrial line from exchange with the mainline to final destination. They are linked by a portable cassette. Each board is 4'5" x 10" maximimum and provide much inspiration for up-sizing.  They scale up to approximately 7'11" x 1'6" for 7mm scale excluding storage.

 

If I were pursuing this, I would probably take the exchange siding scheme and widen the board to put in a second loop with a small platform on the arrival line like Old Ynysbwl. I've scratched out my idea in red on the second image. You have 2'1" left for a traverser or cassette, which will take a Lionheart 64xx and auto-coach. Freight would be short with an 0-6-0T, two 4 wheel wagons and a brake van. With a bit of tweaking you could probably trim 6" from the right-hand end of the scenic board to fit an extra wagon to the freight train. A short siding off the the passenger loop just below the words "Traffic Office" is feasible.  I would also try to run the crossover from the arrival line to the private line down a short gradient to achieve some separation of levels. Even a lowering of 5mm can make a significant difference to the appearance of the layout. 

 

Regards,

 

Chris

 

PS the amendment to the plan took less than 30 seconds with a red pencil.

 

Even by Iain Rice standards, that is an ingenious idea for those of us (so many) with limited space. To make it work well though one might want some sort of mechanism to raise/lower the cassette.

 

Edit: Doh! I have not thought that through. Has to be fully manual because cassette needs to be turned as the train runs "uphill"/"downhill". Still love it though. Ideal for those recent industrials in O from Ixion/Minerva and the DJM Austerity.

[BG John]

Even by Iain Rice standards, that is an ingenious idea for those of us (so many) with limited space. To make it work well though one might want some sort of mechanism to raise/lower the cassette.

 

Edit: Doh! I have not thought that through. Has to be fully manual because cassette needs to be turned as the train runs "uphill"/"downhill". Still love it though. Ideal for those recent industrials in O from Ixion/Minerva.

I'd be worried about dropping the cassette, or rather the content of the cassette (!), as it would need turning and raising/lowering so often

[Joseph_Pestell]

I'd be worried about dropping the cassette, or rather the content of the cassette (!), as it would need turning and raising/lowering so often

 

That is the big downside of cassettes. Fairly safe though so long as no more than 4' long. I do know of one HO layout that has much longer cassettes and that is scary.

 

In this case though, it is not just the cassettes that present a risk. When you remove a cassette there are long drops down from the end of each sub-layout. One would need to have some sort of electrical interlocking so that trains could only move on that level with cassettes in place. That could be done either by feeding the current through the cassettes or, better, with microswitches activated by the cassette being put in place.

[chaz]

I'd be worried about dropping the cassette, or rather the content of the cassette (!), as it would need turning and raising/lowering so often

 

Dock Green is operated (at shows) with cassettes which are moved from the layout to a table top or vice versa. each train arriving or departing usually needs three cassettes to be placed or removed. These same cassettes are used to transport (most of) the stock to and from the shows. So far we haven't dropped one!   You do tend to be very careful when you know the value in both time and money of the contents.    Providing there are secure places for the cassettes to sit and they are not too long (the longest ones on DG are 26 inches) the risk is minimal. Indeed I would argue that stock is less likely to be damaged in a cassette than it would be if it were repeatedly handled directly.

 

We don't usually turn cassettes but if we did I would do it on a table top where there would be no risk of a whoops.

 

Hope that's reassuring.....

 

Chaz

[81A Oldoak]

Dock Green is operated (at shows) with cassettes which are moved from the layout to a table top or vice versa. each train arriving or departing usually needs three cassettes to be placed or removed. These same cassettes are used to transport (most of) the stock to and from the shows. So far we haven't dropped one!   You do tend to be very careful when you know the value in both time and money of the contents.    Providing there are secure places for the cassettes to sit and they are not too long (the longest ones on DG are 26 inches) the risk is minimal. Indeed I would argue that stock is less likely to be damaged in a cassette than it would be if it were repeatedly handled directly.

 

We don't usually turn cassettes but if we did I would do it on a table top where there would be no risk of a whoops.

 

Hope that's reassuring.....

 

Chaz

I've helped to operate Dock Green and the cassette set-up is very good. The system comprises small cassettes that are clip together to create formations as required by the operting schedule so there is no one trying to swing a 3 or 4 foot casstte through 180 degrees.

More specifically, I'm not proposing a three-level layout. Instead,  I am suggesting that each of the sub-layouts would make a fine stand-alone layout in its own right in 7mm scale. I would probably use a traveser. On Cwm Bach I have a sector-plate because it is quicker and simpler to make, thus appealing to my innate laziness.

[BG John]

More specifically, I'm not proposing a three-level layout. Instead,  I am suggesting that each of the sub-layouts would make a fine stand-alone layout in its own right in 7mm scale. I would probably use a traveser.

A fixed fiddle yard, with the layouts as cassettes!!!

[swampy]

Looking at the Bottom Level original Iain Rice plan, shouldn't the entry into the yard from the mainline connection be trailing instead of facing (or a scissors as on the amended plan)? Otherwise the industrial loco will have go "off limits" through the gate onto BR metals to use the mainline as a headshunt to retrieve the incoming wagons.

 

On the Mid-Level plan, the loading shed line will have to be cleared to allow entry from the exchange sidings. One could assume a type of "Y" junction with the Middle level at the bottom of the "Y, and with the "higher works" cassette being used for both Bottom and Top level feeds, Then the exchange siding cassette entry becomes another siding. Or again a scissor crossover could be used.. 

 

It could be intended as one of IAR's deliberately awkward shunting layouts though.

 

Just a thought.

[81A Oldoak]

Looking at the Bottom Level original Iain Rice plan, shouldn't the entry into the yard from the mainline connection be trailing instead of facing (or a scissors as on the amended plan)? Otherwise the industrial loco will have go "off limits" through the gate onto BR metals to use the mainline as a headshunt to retrieve the incoming wagons.

 

On the Mid-Level plan, the loading shed line will have to be cleared to allow entry from the exchange sidings. One could assume a type of "Y" junction with the Middle level at the bottom of the "Y, and with the "higher works" cassette being used for both Bottom and Top level feeds, Then the exchange siding cassette entry becomes another siding. Or again a scissor crossover could be used.. 

 

It could be intended as one of IAR's deliberately awkward shunting layouts though.

 

Just a thought.

In the bottom level I would trail the crossover off the exchange siding. However, some privately owned industrial locomotives had running rights on limited parts of the main-line. Such locos carried a special brass plate showing they were authorised.

[chaz]

....some privately owned industrial locomotives had running rights on limited parts of the main-line. Such locos carried a special brass plate showing they were authorised.

 

Would that include the apocryphal "rescue" of a stranded slip-coach by the Wantage Tramway 0-4-0T? (and said 0-4-0T entirely innocent of the vacuum brake).