Brambleford Layout - Retaining wall

[nicolasgreenin]

Hi all,

 

I am trying to design a layout for my son and of cause me. It will be loosely based in the south-east in the mid 60's ish.

 

This will be in a garage I like a long run so I plan to go for a 4" by 10" layout it will need to be moved in a yeats time so I will have to plan for 3 section breaks somewhere.

 

See below my attempt at a design but I am not sure it works, I love the layout it is I like the different hights and what they give to a layout.

 

The issue I can see is with the branch line station higher you will not see behind it (imagine you are 7 and small) I had thought of making the outer line at the back on a viaduct higher but I would then lose the ability run back out to the outer loop and I think that will be nice?

 

 

 

Please, can I have your thoughts this is the first layout I have designed, the last layout I built was 20 years ago and it just evolved?

 

Sorry I can't show any 3d images as my scarm crashed.

Edited March 31, 2018 by nicolasgreenin

[ktundu99]

Looks quite an interesting plan. I do have a couple of thoughts/suggestions:

 

-Assume you meant 4'x10' and aren't planning on building it in T-gauge? Not sure T-gauge is terribly child-friendly...

 

-The gradient required on the red line looks like it could be rather steep to me. I'd want to test it out to make sure my locos/stock could handle it before I committed to building it.

 

-Assuming you're going to be running some steam (and not using auto-trains etc), you might want to add a loco release crossover to the branchline station. This would do double duty as one end of a loop to make it possible to remove trucks from the coal yard without requiring a pilot.

 

-The only loop you have in the mainline station cuts across both main lines. This means if a loco needs to run around a train while shunting the sidings then both main lines are blocked. This may not be an issue for you, but if you have a child who enjoys running trains as fast as possible around in circles, then this could be quite frustrating for both of you.

Edited April 21, 2017 by ktundu99

[nicolasgreenin]

Hi ktundu99,

 

Thank you for you reply yes I did mean 4 foot not 4 inches sorry I should have kept to mm.

 

As for the gradients, they were a complete guess I was going to use the woodland scenics inclines once I get to the real thing.

 

Yes, I will be running steam so the loco release is a good idea and so is the passing loop I was thinking of adding an extra section to the front to give a bit of extra room as the layout looked cramped so adding a loop in the front would be possible. See below I am not sure if this is realistic or not ?

 

 

 

I have also thought of adding a turntable but it just looks too cramped when I add it.

Edited April 21, 2017 by nicolasgreenin

[nicolasgreenin]

 

Or there is this idea but I think this is getting too busy now?

[nicolasgreenin]

Which take me back to this

 

[ktundu99]

I'd agree that adding a turntable is probably overkill - I've seen far too many layouts which are full of track with no space for anything else.

 

I'm far from the last work on realism, but the plan in post #3 definitely has too many loops - it's far more eastern European than British to my mind.

 

I think that your solution in post #5 is possibly optimal, though I could also suggest that a cut-down version of #4 may be better - if you get rid of the loop off the bottom and one of the facing crossovers. This would eliminate the need to block both mainlines between run-around maneuvers to access the sidings. The second facing crossover fulfils no useful purpose in any combination of vaguely realistic train occupancy or shunting scenrios I can think of.

[nicolasgreenin]

Hi Sam, thanks again for the help.

 

Something like this below I will think tonight...

 

[nicolasgreenin]

Ok, I think I am happy with this now

 

This was a compromise as my son wanted a fiddle yard so I have added more sidings.

 

Please share your thoughts..

 

Edited April 21, 2017 by nicolasgreenin

[nicolasgreenin]

I have decided to create a test track as I have had some issues with my Hornby insulfrog points since I have converted to DCC.

 

I also wish to test out cork vs foam underlay as well as a few other ideas I have had.

 

So I will start with the Branchline station as it is elevated and with some planning will be able to slot this on to the layout later.

 

 

 

 

[Jaggzuk]

Hi Nick

 

So glad to find another layout for a father and son, you will definatley enjoy the build and playhtime together!!

 

I think this layout plan is a great start as you have incorporated lots of interest with the three loops, tunnels, flyover, branch line and mail line station with goods sidings.  It will keep your play/running time filled with fun.

 

I have a few obs if that is OK?

 

1) The main line station is very busy trackwork wise.  There is almost no space for any platforms?  I think you could easily loose some of the crossover ladders which appear duplicated.  I would loose the middle one to start with.  I do like the location of the level crossing.  

 

2)  Move the 3 three goods sidings more towards the middle of the board and that would free up space for a platform

 

3) You may need some space to create the bay platform at the bottom?

 

Here is a modified layout as a suggestion, I have swapped some of the points around at the left-hand junction so to get longer platforms.

 

 

 

Secondly, the the branch line is very problematic in my view.  I wanted a branch line but really struggled to get one on my original plan as a 4' wide board is just too narrow, so dropped the idea.  It just never looked right with the main line track being in in a cutting and just looked too odd.  

 

The three main issues for the branch I see are:  

 

a) You have used R1 curves, a big no no really.  You will just find they are too tight and will seriously limit what rolling stock can use it, plus, added to a steep gradient this will cause real running issues - tight curves on a gradient limit the load haul capacity of a loco significantly

 

b) Currently you only have 50mm clearance between the track at the branch buffers and the line that runs underneath in the tunnel. You will need a minimum of say 75mm.  I have 70mm rail to rail at my flyover and have found out that the Hornby Railroad crane jib when at rest hits the bridge!!

 

c) The gradient to achieve 75mm clearance would now be greater that 3%. Again, if you go too steep, you will find running issues with some trains.

 

 

If you can work with Peco Medium radius points as the minimum rather then Hornby/Peco Setrack as these have a gentler radius and your rolling stock will derail less.  I have used Peco Setrack in my goos yard and have found some Railroad freight stock constantly derails on the Vs.

 

General rules I suggest to follow for the type of layout you are building:

 

 1. No gradient greater then 3% - it can help to spilt your gradients so that the main station is at say +40 and then you have both an incline to +80 and an decline to zero thus achieving 80mm at the flyover in half the distance

2. No curve tighter than R2.

3. Medium radius points or better.

4. 75-80mm track to track clearance or better.

5. Less is more.

6. Leave some space for town buildings around the main line station.

 

PM me your SCARM plan if you want, I will send you mine.

 

Really looking forward to watching your progress!

 

Kind regards

 

Paul

[nicolasgreenin]

Thank you, Paul

 

I have sent you the latest copy of the design.

[nicolasgreenin]

Last night I made a start on the test track. I have amended the design to use all the available space 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The next challenge is how to transfer the plan to the baseboard?

 

I will be using cork underlay at the top and foam on the 2 curved sections.

 

I am going to be testing Seep PM1 point motors and maybe Cobalt iP Digital Point Motors and it will be a test bed for the signalling and any other accessories.

 

Please share your knowledge of how to get the track plan and underlay margins onto the board.

 

 

 

[Jaggzuk]

Hi Nick

 

To mark out the plan I just cut slots at regular intervals and then marked using black felt tip, a bit laborious, but it did the job.  If using flexi track, I just increased the frequency of the marks.

 

[nicolasgreenin]

That looks like a great idea I was thinking of marking through the paper with a Stanley knife but cutting the slots looks better.

 

While I was making the plan I was going to drill the holes for the dropper wires and point motors I have ordered some 18AWG wire for the droppers and have some 240 flex for the DCC bus

 

I was going to drill 10mm holes for the point motor.

 

I was also planning to solder the dropper wires to fishplates rather than the track line the peco pl-80.

[Ian Smeeton]

You could always drop the branch BELOW the main line, rather than over it.

 

Longer trains on the Main Line woukld not be affected by a change in grade, and the branch, being mainly shorter trains, would not have such  a problem witn the gradient.

 

Swappping the platform to the other side on the branch, or swapping the orientation of the points would allow the carriage to be at the platform while the loco runs round rather than having tobe shunted to the other side to allow the run round to take place.

 

Regards

 

Ian

[nicolasgreenin]

Hi All,

 

Slight change in design for the test track as I only had 2 R8073 points so I have modified the plan also adding a couple of short straights to the middle.

 

 

 

 

I have now drilled the holes for the point motors, the dropper cables and now glued the corking down.

 

 

I made a start on a control board with the track plan so I can add some leds and switches which will go where the big hole is.

 

The top layer of ply was lifting so I have glued it down hence the clamps.

[ktundu99]

Looks good fun to me

 

Not sure I share jaggzuk's scepticism of 1st radius curves though - when I was a lad in the 90s with my Hornby trainset on the living room carpet, I'd have all sorts of things running perfectly happily around 1st radius curves and points. Trying to run something with a long wheelbase (like a GWR King) too quickly would inevitably lead to a derailment, but that's clearly operator fault. I'd avoid tight curves where trains may be long/fast (like the main circuits), but I'd be perfectly happy with them on the branch or on sidings. My own layout (a 5' long shunting plank) is packed with 1st radius pointwork to fit it all in, and I've never had any issues! That said, I never had any gradients to contend with...

[Jaggzuk]

Its not so much that first radius curves are not to be considered, it is more that I was suggesting a rule that would help the layout to be future proof and would not create running frustration/disappointment.  Combining first radius and a steep gradient, will significantly reduce loco hauling capability.

 

From person experience for example, I found that some of my old Replica coaching kept derailing on my 2nd radius.  When inspected close up I found that due to the coupling types on the bogies that the buffers were binding on the inside of the curve and causing the coach to tilt and derail.  So these would have been even worse on 1st radius.  I had to modify the couplings to solve the problem.

 

It is also wise to consider what new modern rolling stock might be bought in the future and the numbers of wheels/arrangement vs the minimum radius these can negotiate. 

 

I think with the test board is a good idea to check this out on.

[Jaggzuk]

Hi All,

 

Slight change in design for the test track as I only had 2 R8073 points so I have modified the plan also adding a couple of short straights to the middle.

 

 

 

Exciting progress Nick.

[nicolasgreenin]

I have purchased a few things a new soldering iron I have now soldered all the dropper wires.

 

 

 

The point motors and CDA have arrived

 

 

The keen eyed of you might notice that the dropper wires are Back and Blue, I had ordered Red and Black but I was sent Black and Blue so I emailed the shop and they sent a new Red but when it arrived it was a 20awg black! So I gave up and just used the blue.

[nicolasgreenin]

Its not so much that first radius curves are not to be considered, it is more that I was suggesting a rule that would help the layout to be future proof and would not create running frustration/disappointment.  Combining first radius and a steep gradient, will significantly reduce loco hauling capability.

 

From person experience for example, I found that some of my old Replica coaching kept derailing on my 2nd radius.  When inspected close up I found that due to the coupling types on the bogies that the buffers were binding on the inside of the curve and causing the coach to tilt and derail.  So these would have been even worse on 1st radius.  I had to modify the couplings to solve the problem.

 

It is also wise to consider what new modern rolling stock might be bought in the future and the numbers of wheels/arrangement vs the minimum radius these can negotiate. 

 

I think with the test board is a good idea to check this out on.

We have been running rolling stock over the Radius 1 Curves and points with some issues I will be using the medium Radius points on the main lines. I agree that the Radius 1 Curves and gradients I think further testing will be required.

 

I have been think of close coupling but due to the kids wanting to swap a lot I am going to keep the standard couplings for now.

[nicolasgreenin]

Managed to spend a morning on the layout with my son yesterday and we got quite a bit done.

 

All the dropper wires are in and the track is now pinned down this was not without issues.

 

I had carefully measured the holes for the dropper cables under the track joints and soldered the wires to the fishplates, I had drilled 3 mm holes for the 18awg cables but to get the track to lay flat I had to enlarge them to 8mm as they were not all 100% aligned. We then pinned the track down which my son loved mainly because he got to hit my fingers with a hammer...

 

The joy was short-lived as when we tried to fit the first point motor I noticed that all the holes were about 3mm off the centre of the 10mm holes I had drilled so out the pin came and I enlarged the holes a little.

 

This shot looks very dull but I am very happy with how the track is sitting

 

 

 

All the droppers wired to the bus

 

  

 

Since this, I have installed the 5 point motors and wired 2 of point motor back to the control board LEDs but I left my phone in the house and didn't get a photo.

 

I am still waiting for the on off on stitches and some more cables t wire up the point motors fingers crossed these will arrive today.

 

This has been a great process and I am glad we started small, I now have a lot more knowledge and confidence for the main track.

 

Although it has its own problems I prefer the cork underlay to the foam...

 

[Jaggzuk]

Managed to spend a morning on the layout with my son yesterday and we got quite a bit done.

 

All the dropper wires are in and the track is now pinned down this was not without issues.

 

I had carefully measured the holes for the dropper cables under the track joints and soldered the wires to the fishplates, I had drilled 3 mm holes for the 18awg cables but to get the track to lay flat I had to enlarge them to 8mm as they were not all 100% aligned. We then pinned the track down which my son loved mainly because he got to hit my fingers with a hammer...

 

...

 

Although it has its own problems I prefer the cork underlay to the foam...

 

 

Nice progress Nick

 

Do you think the soldering  the droppers to the fish plates is worth the effort vs just soldering to the side of the rail once the track is fixed in place?  I read about 'invisible' dropper connection to the underside or rails, but to be honest I cannot see any of my connections now I have weathered the track.  Also, you may find you have more flexibility of wire location soldering once the track is fixed.

 

Ah, you did not apply the golden rule, the Chainlad holds the the pin the Engineer uses the hammer ;-)  I heard a story when started out in Civil engineering where an Engineer was doing some setting out with his Chainlad and was eyeing in a line of  steel pins for a road kerbline.  When he had got is right and still holding the pin he said to the Chainlad "Ok, hit it", so the lad swung the sledge hammer and hit the pin, but the Engineer had forgotten to remove his thumb from the top of the pin!!!

 

Do you intend to ballast over the Peco foam underlay?  I think there are three main issues with it.  Firstly you cannot hammer track pins full down otherwise you end up with lots of depressions in the track, secondly it just looks naff (IMPO) if no ballast is used. and finally not sure what its life span is before it breaks down, see this chaps experience http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/106980-model-railway-restoration-rebuilding-the-yard/page-1  But on the plus side, I think it will have great sound deadening properties?

[nicolasgreenin]

Hi Paul,

 

Thanks yes the old I nod my head and you hit trick...

 

I think the the sound deadening is negated as soon as you pin the track down.

 

I don't entend to ballast all the test track but I will use it to test out ballast colours so I expect I will leave the foam.

 

As for soldering the fishplates the main reason I did it this way on the test track was so I could reuse the track with out having to unsolder etc. No I don't think it is worth the extra effort.

 

The switches have arrived so I will wire a few later and let you know the progress.

 

I did also splash out on a dcc concepts AD-S2fx point controller which allows a switch and DCC control

[nicolasgreenin]

Ok so apart from initially wiring the wrong point I think I have managed to wire up a few points.