Outrunn

35 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Yep, I agree. The instructions look like a very conservative update of the previous code 75 version.

They could at least have provided separate DCC and DC instructions. I don’t think that would have been too confusing.

I 100% agree, speaking as a total beginner to me a separate DCC and a DC wiring diagram makes logical sense for someone who may not know fully what to do/ not do etc

2 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

My immediate concern is the tight radii of the curves.  Even with code 100 Streamline any radius below 24” must be laid with the greatest possible care, as it is all too easy even for an experienced layout builder to pull the rails out of the plastic chairs and to stress the plastic sleeper base and distort the track, resulting in potential derailments.  With code 75, everything is that bit more delicate as the rail is of finer cross-section as is the sleeper base, and you have no prior experience of laying.  Tbh, I think that you would be better advised to use setrack and setrack geometry given the restrictions of the available space; it is better to have a layout that runs reliably at the cost of the superior appearance of the code 75 track.  
 

I’m also worried about the operational aspects and general realism.  It is difficult in this restricted space to avoid a ‘train set’ scenario in which the trains simply circulate without appearing or giving the impression of coming from or going to somewhere. To use theatre as an analogy, the trains are the actors and need to come on-stage from somewhere off-stage, strut their stuff, and exuant, possibly stage left pursued by a bear…   In my view, the presence of a fiddle yard representing the rest of the entire space-time continuum is the basic difference between a train set and a model.   railway.  Nowt wrong with train sets, lotsa fun, but code 75 suggests that you care about look and detail…

Thankyou for your feedback, Regarding the track radius yea, going by several users stating it will be tough, it seems that laying the track will be a challenge, ultimately if I'm not successful then I will resort to set track, but I will try my best, if it doesn't work, at least I will have learnt from my mistakes for the future.

Regarding general realism I'm not overly concerned with the trainset connotations, due to a change in living conditions its been 14 years since I've been able to run any of my trains at all outside of a static rolling road on my kitchen table, the main draw is just to be able to run my trains again. 

My plan for this layout is to be a kind of 'learning layout' if that makes sense, for me to try things I've always wanted to do, things like kit bashing, weathering, lighting, things like that, the code 75 is part of that 'learning layout' theme if that makes sense. -

p.s. I posted an updated version of the layout earlier tonight, do you think thats an improvement?

19 hours ago, DCB said:

I don' think it will end well.     Those curves are mighty tight for flexi track.  I use Peco set track for anything below 20" radius to avoid kinks appearing especially at rail ends,  75 flexi might be better, but with much RTR being on the  limit on 2nd radius even when it's laid perfectly I think you are pushing your luck with running for the  sake of appearance.    The join will be between adjacent points and across 7 pieces of track several at an angle. 2 X 5 X2 and a 4X2 for the station would make assembly a lot easier.
There is nowhere for trains to go, one goes round clockwise then the other anticlockwise and then the hand descends and changes the train.  Its OK with 1960s Triang but 2000s era RTR sheds bits when treated like that. 
Rev Awdrey's Ffarquar (?) Branch layout  had a hidden fiddle yard on a similar footprint.

Thankyou for your feedback, ive done an updated layout (lots of changes, posted above in a seperate post) and I've managed to increase the minimum radius from 17.2 inches to 18 inches, as well as make several other changes. Looking at the feedback from others who have posted their thoughts it seems it will be tricky, but I will just be careful and see how it goes, if it doesn't work I will have to resort to set track.

14 hours ago, ITG said:

Those top right sidings and headshunt seem very short. By the time you allow clearance adjacent to the turnout, there’s not going to be much space for stock. The type of coupling planned may also affect space if it requires any kind of ramp, as these generally need to be on a straight, reducing useable space still further.

 

Will you have access around all 4 sides of the board, as 4’ is a long way to reach for track laying, maintenance, scenery building and re-railing?

Ian

Thankyou for your feedback, you can see ive done an updated design above,

Upon reflection I do agree the old layouts sidings were rather restrictive, I can access all 4 sides of the baseboard so track laying access wont be an issue, also the track is all on one flat plane, there is no elevation on this layout in terms of track at least.

14 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi @Outrunn,

I agree with the concerns above about the tightness of radii in Code75 bullhead but I'm sure it can be done if you're careful. You need to stagger any rail joins in the curves and hold the track securely in position so it can't develop any kinks. For that reason it might be better to glue rather than pin the track (and that saves all the anguish of trying to drive tiny pins into the baseboard).

 

The platforms set against the most tightly curving parts of the track mean that they will have to be set significantly back from the track if you intend to run any long vehicles. Might look silly.

 

One siding and the whole engine shed area have facing connections to the running line. In the steam era this would have been avoided wherever possible. In a single track line with a passing loop the connections would trail into the appropriate side of the loop. In this respect the plan would be better if it were mirrored left-right or top-bottom (but not both!) - but that would make the shed more difficult to operate so a more radical rethink might be needed.

 

To be sure you have enough room in the engine shed area it might be worth placing the required elements on the plan: Shed, ash pit, somewhere to store ash, coal stage/platform, water.

 

Will you rely on those modeltech rail aligners to align the boards, not just the rails? They don't look very strong and since they will overhang the edge of the boards, especially where track crosses the "fold" at an angle, they will be prone to damage. The traditional solution of board aligners and flush cut track seems safer to me.

 

Unifrog turnouts on DCC: No need for any insulating joiners. Just remember to take the frog wire down through the baseboard when you lay them and then you can decide on/implement the frog switching later. Remember that Cobalt point motors will require some depth of framing below the board surface to protect them.

 

BTW: Did you notice there's a subforum specifically for this sort of question? https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/forum/66-layout-track-design/ Ah well, never mind.

 

Thankyou for the suggestions, ive done an updated design (posted above) which will hopefully address most of the concerns (sadly i will have to still use 18inch radius curves for the branch line still), but your ideas about gluing the ends should help.

The updated layout will now have the platforms on the straight rather than the curve, the platform and engine shed area are now separate, I've also made the layout 2 full loops.

The modeltech rail aligners are only for the straight track, the board has its own aligning dome things so the rail aligners wont be under any major stress, I will also be use wiring connection blocks underneath the baseboard for any track that is on an angle at the fold point.

The point wiring I need to do more research on but thankyou for that, i think it will be best to practice that beforehand before i add the points to the layout.

Also i had no idea there was a subforum for this sort of question sorry about that

1 hour ago, ISW said:

As this is your first layout, I'd recommend a 'test plank' so you can practice all the key elements, and make all your mistakes on that instead of your actual layout.

 

Here's the one I built before I started on my layout.

 

Track view:

 

Underside view:

 

It's nothing complicated, but did teach me how to join baseboards, wire up turnouts (Code-100) for DCC,  make my own point motor assemblies, and practice my plans for wiring using PCB connectors. There were many lessons learnt that I was able to correct / avoid on the actual layout.

 

Ian

 

thats a good idea as i do need to practice point wiring, i will keep that in mind thankyou!

Thankyou everyone for your feedback so far, i have done an updated design and ive tried to incorporate as much of your suggestions so far to help the layout,  ive also learned some new features of SCARM which helped. (Ive also changed the dimensions to inches rather than mm)

It seems i will have to keep the 18 inch radius for the branch line, so I will just have to be careful when laying the branch line. Ive also labelled  everything better to give you all a better idea of how the folding baseboard/ track will work 

26 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I’m assuming you’re doing this properly “live frog”, in which case, if you consult the instructions in the pack, there is a diagram of where the rail-breaks need to be. Peco recommend insulated rail joiners, but to me their standard plastic joiner seems unduly crude for this scale (except the gauge) track, so I’ve simply left tiny gaps, hopefully big enough not to get bridged due to heat expansion of the rail.

 

The other thing to think about is how you will secure the rail ends at the baseboard joint, if you’ve never done that before. There are as many options as there are people who do it, and I think DCC Concepts sell a pre-made thingamajig for the job. If you wade though the lower thread linked below my signature, you’ll see how I’ve done it this time round, which seems robust (although I completely messed one up this morning!), and could be made very neat by someone with better close-work skills than mine.

As far as im aware all of the points im going to use are Unifrog points, ( i think that means they can be electrofrog and insulfrog?)  but i still need to do more research on how they work as point wiring is something i still need to improve my knowledge on

Regarding joining the rail ends to the baseboard joint, im planning to use these https://www.marks-trains.co.uk/shop/layout-accessories/modeltech-ho-oo-protrack-rail-aligner-standard/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwnv-vBhBdEiwABCYQA8ZnAQTw3GRFVAuuutO8KcVNPnweHu-zbbkq3lGV8SoBfSMDZhIRahoCBNkQAvD_BwE

I need to double check i have enough of those actually now that you mention it though, i think i might only have 2.

I have fine files and a very small hand drill/ drill bit set for the pilot holes, what size hole is best for the code 75 bullhead track pins?

@NearholmerForgot to mention i have all the necessary tools, 

Hammer, Track pins, Track cutting pliers/ Track cutting hand saw, pliers, soldering Iron, bus wire & normal wires, the point motors (DCC concepts Cobalt iP Digital), Tracksetta track settings guides Drill & Drillbits/ screw driver, as various other DIY/ Hobby tools. Anything important i might have forgotten?

@richard i The catch points are a good idea, but sadly as far as im aware Peco dont make a Code 75 Bullhead version.

Regarding the double line into one single line I pictured how a lot of Heritage Railways work with mostly single track and then double track when they get to a station if that makes sense, plus if change my mind as some point, the two inner sidings can be made into a second full loop, I already checked that and they should be fine turning radius wise

@Nearholmer Regarding laying the curves, I have several sizes of  tracksetta to help with the curves as well as the straight track.
What would you suggest regarding wiring  the double slip points/ normal points? Wiring around points is a weak point of mine so i definitely have things to learn in that regard.

The fold line is vertical down the middle of the images, i took care to avoid any points near the middle line so that shouldnt be an issue.

scenery wise I haven't decided yet besides the station/ engine shed area, for now my main concern is just regarding the track itself/ wiring

Hi, I'm looking for constructive feedback on my proposed 00 gauge layout design that I'm hoping to assemble over Easter.

This will go on a folding 7x4 foot baseboard

The track is Peco code 75 Bullhead track

This will be a DCC layout only, I want the whole track to be live at all times, points included.

I've included the SCRAM layout sketch, 3d model view for a better representation as well as the parts list created by SCARM.

This is my very first layout that I will be assembling myself, I have purchased all the track already, including track pins etc.

Its entirely possible there are things I have overlooked, so any feedback is useful thankyou.

Edit - the Fold line is straight down the middle of the layout vertically, as far as im aware no points are near the fold line.

48 minutes ago, Legend said:

I thought overall it lacked the punch of previous years  but is still quite interesting 

 

The Titfield thing is incredible . Quite why they felt they needed to bring announcements forward from 10 to 7 and then back to 8 given that really they were announcing the “inspired by” thing anyway and presumably think Rapido agreement is of no relevance to their own actions , was beyond me . Made them look stupid and reactive.

 

Reactive: well the Black 5 was on the cards . Everyone says it needs an upgrade . They had to do it or have it snatched away, they still might !  Turbomotive again highly tipped as was Coronation stock . I actually predicted the Flirt last year but forgot about it this time round! Again 31 in blue long called out for. And the VEP. People on here have been saying they are going for a fortune on eBay , so it looks like they listened .  I have to laugh at Simon Kohler emphasising at the end of every video that people should write with ideas . Is that because he is running out of them , or doesn’t really have much of an idea on more recent motive power ? 
 

I suppose the steam is innovative but I’m DC so won’t apply to me 

 

there’s a lot of interest this year but no real ooh I fancy that items for me . Might still be interested in 5 car APT with the black window surrounds .

 

The major reaction I see on YouTube is on pricing . I know the reasons they are going up but I think the issue is there now really is a ceiling which has been breached 

For me the price is a deal breaker for a lot of these loco's, The Turbomotive is nice but i simply cannot justify buying it at the price it is if i want the DCC version. I will likely get the Prince of Wales smoke version as i had the regular one anyway on preorder, but it wont be a regular thing at that price. i could get 3 great loco's for that price. 
Sadly for me the pricing has jumped the shark this year, which is a shame

4 hours ago, Johan DC said:

If I am not mistaken, on social media, I have seen lots of requests for both the Coronation and the Coronation Scot.

And since the later sold out, why not make a second set? I'm sure the Coronation will sell out as well, one coming my way.

I'm also not impressed with their freight range, but that is not a new one. 

Each year they bring out more that I would like than I can afford, and I'm a third generation modeltrain enthousiast, who runs his trains.

I'm sorry if there is nothing in it for you, but for me, who prefers pre-war LMS and LNER, I can not complain.

For the collectors and merchandise stock, I think these are the items that pay for the more exotic ones (W1, Turbomotive?)

 

 

Johan

 

 

personally i was hoping for non Coronation LMS pre war rolling stock in typical LMS colours, i recently got the Princess Elizebth & Duchess of Hamilton, both amazing loco's, and the only suitable rolling stock from Hornby is a very far cry from their range of LNER Teak Coaches, its not even close. 
While the coronation coaches are nice, they only fit the blue Coronation Class loco's, nothing else.

1 hour ago, mdvle said:

 

Families don't seem to have any problem spending £450 on a new games console, and then £50 or more for games.

 

Or £500 or more for an iPad

 

Things today cost what they cost, and families seem to find a way to generally afford them.

 

 

the difference is games consoles & ipads are one off purchases, made one every few years. Model loco's are meant to be items that you buy a few of every year, not spending almost £1000 on 3 locos, which you could actually do with some of these new loco's, which is insane. 

9 hours ago, JSpencer said:

So will we ever see an Ivatt Caprotti black 5 (with smoke generator)? I'm holding my breath between waiting or chipping in for a Turbomotive (which I already have built as a kit).

 

 

Then again, maybe I don't need a second Turbolocomotive... 

im new to this website, you built that as a kit!? thats awesome! who makes the kit?

Hi, im new here so apologise if this is the wrong section.

Im looking to create my first model railway (last one i had was the one my dad built for me as a child),
This will be for a 00 gauge/4mm scale Railway, i have sections of 2 feet/4feet sections of wood ready cut for the baseboard but not assembled yet to the frame. I want this to be modular as i dont have the space for it to be up full time, i have no issues regarding the assembling the actual baseboard itself, but the bit that concerns me is what to do for the legs, should i use some 90 degree self latching hinge, a wooden trestle, i found this if this is any good - https://www.homebase.co.uk/pine-wood-trestle-leg/12807536.html?switchcurrency=GBP&shippingcountry=GB&utm_source=AWin-176013&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=AffiliateWin|Feed&affil=awin&utm_content=RedBrain&utm_term=Comparison+Shopping+Service+(CSS)&utm_source=AWin-176013&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=AffiliateWin&awc=22367_1640037767_c4ceba77553cd15badf155004d324951 
Or I could try and make a custom one myself, any recommendations will be most welcome, thankyou for reading and have a merry christmas