OO Gauge 8x6

[Ben C]

Hi,

 

After a number of layouts that have started but not necessarily finished I am starting on the latest attempt. It started out as it was going to be a simple 6x4 with a couple of loops and some sidings for my daughter to run the Thomas, Percy and Emily she'll be getting for Christmas. (She's not quite 3 yet but train mad, her favourite idea of a day out is to nip across to York to the train museum).

 

Anyways, I got a bit carried away and the boards are now built to 8x6 with a 4x2 operating well in the middle and I've decided it'll mostly be for me. Oops!

 

The attached pic shows the rough idea so far. The upper hidden lines are fiddle yard, theres a twin track loop with a station (the badly drawn blue platforms) on the right with a bay platform and branchline which will lead up to an upper level over the top of the fiddle yard area.

 

My question is, I'm unsure what to do with the bottom area. I'd like to fit in a couple of shunting lines (an inglenook ideally to play with a bit of shunting) with headshunt, and a 2 road engine shed if possible.

 

Just to give an idea, in a perfect world I'd have enough space to model Alnmouth on the ECML (very close to where I grow up) as it was in the early 60's complete with branch to Alnwick so I'm aiming for at least a hint of that ECML/ North Eastern feel.

In terms of motive power there'll be the various Thomas items for my daughter, then for when it's my turn I'll be swapping between 2 periods. Early 60's, for which I have a 3MT tank and 4MT which I've had since before I decided on an area. I'll add to these with V2's and a few other appropriate steam engines for the area but also a few early BR Green diesels. On other days I'll go with the things I remember from my childhood which is Intercity 225's in Swallow livery. (I now have various bits from Ebay on their way to me to make up a 5+2 set) plus a 125 and coal sector 37's and a few others. The branchline at this point can play the part of preserved line so the steam/ green diesels can stay on there.

 

As mentioned, if anyone can give any suggestions for what to do with the a goods yard/ engine shed area it would be appreciated. The 8x2' upper level section can be planned out another day!

 

Cheers,

Ben

 

 

[Pete the Elaner]

Firstly, why have you started layouts but never finished them? I have done the same. I aborted the last one because it was not really what I wanted. I had a think about what I really wanted & found a way to build it.

I am assuming you want some scenery & not just some track.

 

You are trying to squeeze a lot into a small space. You can keep the fun factor there with a bit of work.

Must you have an Engine shed & goods yard there at the same time? Can you design it so that by changing some of the scenery, you change it from one to the other. I believe it would look better with just 1 at a time.

 

The pick up goods was scrapped in the 1960s & most yards went with it. Those which remained were either very big or dedicated to a particular company or purpose. You mentioned a coal 37; I remember a small station which had a coal distribution depot until the 1990s. Some coal staithes would look good for this & you would only need about 3-4 wagons. HEAs would be what you need with the 37. Track-wise, you would only need a couple of sidings & a head shunt.

The coaI depot I remember still had the station's old goods shed. I can't remember if it had unloading pits but you could always model these. You could swap the building out for an engine shed & the pits would be for either loco inspection or ash pits.

Whether you have a shed, depot or running Thomas, it would look better with road access & also some houses & shops to justify the station being there at all.

The alternative buildings/scenery may be small enough to fit into an old shoe box.

 

91s should need overhead catenary, but you will not want that for Thomas or in the 1960s. If you can find a non-runner class 47 then you can simulate your 91 being dragged on a diversion.

[Ben C]

Thanks for taking the time to reply Pete.

 

I suppose I've not finished layouts before as I'd started on shelf layouts due to space constraints, but my heart was never really in it as really I wanted continuous running. As mentioned before, in an ideal world I'd have enough space to model Alnmouth in its entirety complete with branch to Alnwick (a project for when I'm older perhaps, only in my 30s so plenty of time yet) but in my 8x6' I can at least get the twin track mainline with branch which is what I wanted.

There will indeed be scenery and a road leading in to the area in question. I'll upload an amended plan with a few more of my scribbles when I get the chance.

 

Looking at my copy of "The Alnwick Branch" which covers Alnmouth as well, it seems the exchange sidings/ goods yard and 2 road engine shed were there until about '65/66 so for my early 60s BR Green period this works fine.

I appreciate your point about squeezing too much in though. For me I'd prefer to keep the goods yard and could leave off the engine shed. I could always incorporate this in to the branchline part which will eventually cover the upper part of the layout.

 

As you say, the 91 would really need catenary. Having thought about it more I'll be concentrating predominantly on the 60s so the layout will reflect that. The 225 will just be to humour a childish whim. I had one as a 10 year old and I want one again to run occasionally just for fun, so no overhead lines needed.

[Pete the Elaner]

Making the wrong compromises is what made me abort previous projects too. In an ideal world I would like to model Crewe in 4mm but how big would that be?

I tried other things which I thought I would be happy with but, like you, I aborted them because my heart was not really in any of them.

I am lucky in that I have found a station on the WCML which I can model in a scenic area of 7x3 in 4mm with very few compromises.

 

Alnmouth looks a bit straight & open so some compromises will be required. I have only looked at the google earth view, so do not know where the yard would have been in the 1960s. I am guessing on the east side where the car park is now? I can see where the branch line to Alnwick was though. You can use the road bridge as a scenic break. & shorten the station.

One thing which may appeal to you is to scratch build the station building. If you can make a reasonable job then it should help to make the layout look like what you want. You could always re-use the building on a future layout.

It sounds like a priority right now is to get it running. This always invigorates your modelling mojo & I am sure your daughter will appreciate it too.

[ejstubbs]

Alnmouth looks a bit straight & open so some compromises will be required. I have only looked at the google earth view, so do not know where the yard would have been in the 1960s. I am guessing on the east side where the car park is now?

 

That area was always the access road and yard for the passenger station.  There was a goods yard on the east side of the main line, but it was on the other side of the road that crosses the line:

 

 

I'm not sure what the short spur on the platform side of the bridge, to the east of the main line, was for.

 

You can also see on the above map - dated 1959 - that there were additional platforms to the west of the main line for the Alnwick branch.  There was a two-road shed beyond those additional platforms, which I'm told was an engine shed although it seems a bit big just for the Alnwick branch.  The Alnwick branch closed in 1968 so I suppose how much of Alnmouth station you choose to model would depend on when in the 1960s you are aiming to portray.

[halsey]

you dont say if you can access all parts of the layout from the outside or just the well?

 

beware of areas that are harder to reach which you might designate to be done later as it gets harder and you get more precious as you complete the sections that will be in the way!

 

my current hobby horse - "paint all the boards/frames first"

 

have fun

[Jaggzuk]

Hi Ben

 

Great to see another layout on the design path, especially one born out of something for the kids, even if it ends up being a bit more for you in then long term ;-)

 

Getting the plan right I believe is key, not just from the track plan perspective, but more from the build-ability. If you do want your daughter to join in the build and play time,  then build speed is key. You need to get to the point fast where trains can be run on track.

 

I decided to build my two boys an small 8x4 layout and put my big layout plan on a the back burner. I went for a fictional multi loop layout, that at its heart offered at least two train running capability, multiple shunting opportunities and offered lots of play fun. I kept all radii to 2nd or above and used both Setrack & medium radius points.

 

I used SCARM track planning software to design the layout and this worked really well; from first concept to final design it took about 3 weeks of time along with the help of guys here on RMWeb http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/104302-a-new-family-8x4-layout/

 

The key I found to maintaining my boys enthusiasm was to build the land mass and track as quick as I could as they originally had a simple twin loop of track and so during the early build they lost this.

 

The other important aspect I decided on was to get it wired up for DCC. In my view DCC was a fundamental part of the design so that the layout could be operated by both my boys (and me) at the same time with 2 separate DCC handhelds.  Plus it meant no complicate wiring or switches for controller sections and isolation breaks as with DC analogue.

 

You have a good sized layout and having a central operating hole is really nice. I would perhaps plan the layout in be built in two stages.  A quick build aspect and a long term extension part.  Personally I like multi levels so your idea of a high level branch is good, but I would seriously consider what you hide underneath, the fiddle yard will not be much of a "fiddle" if not accessible.

 

The other important design aspect is gradients.  I would not go steeper than 2% otherwise it look very unrealistic and limit what can go up it train length/weight wise.  A cleaver trick when using gradients, as suggests to me during my design phase, is to split your rises.  Rather than just rising up from ground zero to the max height above your lower level track, you build your ground zero actually at 50% of your max rise height.  You then have both a rise up and a descend down under.  What this does is it hales the distance required for a full gradient up to your upper level.  It also adds scenic variet  with cuttings and embankments. This was my land mass build http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/106602-family-8x4-oo-layout-hanging-basket-liner-grass/?p=2146885

 

Anyway really looking forward to seeing your design unfold.  Do post some photos of the baseboard and your railway space, we love to see things like that :-)  And keep us updated with plans, we are here to help.

 

All the best  and njoy the build, Paul

[The Johnster]

Agree with Jaggzuk about the 'split' gradients; for serious running you need to keep these to a minimum just like real railways have to.  But on a 'play value' layout for kids there is some merit in having them steep enough to give the locos a few problems, not overdoing it but enough that they have to be driven with a little care to get a train up without slipping, or down without shooting into orbit at the next bend (have a hill here for them to crash into...).  This will teach the kids basic driving skills, and get them thinking about loads, momentum, coefficients of friction and all sorts of concepts that will tease their little minds and make playing trains much more fun.  How many troublesome trucks can Thomas pull up the hill?  Can he pull more than Percy? Why?  What happens if we fill the trucks with Lego?

 

Your child will be a skilled engineer and mathematician long before he/she/it goes to school...

[DCB]

Coming to this rather late, it seems you have a few issues with this plan.

 4X2 access operating hole is a bit small, even for 1 operator, I would go for an extra 6 inches all round, angle the corners 45 degrees if necessary.

The Terminus over is great for Thomas the Tank, great form 1960s Hornby Dublo or Magnadhesion Triang, probably not of for 2000s "Serious" models which are nothing like as good hill climbers as the prototype.  I think a King was allowed 10 coaches up a 1 in 36 in the 1950s, the 2014 Hornby versions struggles with half that.

With a 2% (1 in 50) gradient your 9 feet climb is only going to get you 2" and you need a lot more than that to put a second level.   maybe 4% (1 in 25) but you could be down to 2 or 3 coaches.

With isolating points 6" gap is a good practical minimum, that is track to framing, I have squeezed one track under another at 3" give or take but that was just in one spot,  No reason the framing has to be much much lower than the upper track though.  With proper DCC droppers, non isolating points etc you really need to be able to see the trains otherwise you will spend more time sorting out crashes than operating, so a High level terminus should really be in front of or behind the loops not directly over.

Operationally Thomas can take Clarrie and Annabel from the bay but coming back how does he run round?  Convert Clarrie to a Push Pull trailer.  It needs some form of run round.

I think the way to get satisfaction from a small layout is to run small locos and short trains, Oxford Rail Dean Goods or Adams, Bachmann Midland 3Fs Suburban coaches etc rather than try to run "The Royal Scot" or full length HST., 

The double track is good. Racing Thomas against devious diesel is great fun and the kids enjoy it too. 

[JDW]

I've only read through the thread quickly so apologies if I missed it already mentioned, but remember that with your platforms on a curve, the end throw of longer coaches like Mk3s/Mk4s on the outside is huge on tight curves, as it the cut-in on the inside, which will mean you need to leave a huge gap between train and platform.