Fold

1 hour ago, JDW said:

I thought the cut out problem was when the crossover was set for going from one loop to the other ('power one rail with both controllers') not causing a short when the points were set to 'normal'. If one controller were trying to make a train go one way, and the other trying to make it go the other...

I experimented with all eventualities and don't remember what precisely caused the short. But the boys are 2 and 4 so anything can and will happen. And these controllers seem very susceptible to shorting which is a real shame and the biggest issue I have with the whole setup really.

Hello everyone

I just wanted to update progress here for anyone interested. Thanks to all your help things have progressed fairly quickly (by my normal hobby standards at least!) and we now have a finished contoured baseboard and today I anticipate finishing all the cork underlay.

I'm  happy to report that aside from a small adverse camber issue (location circled in red) that was causing carriages to tip off at high speeds the rails and trains work absolutely fine over the contoured board and as for the contouring itself it was very easy to do with 9mm ply even over these quite aggressive gradients. As you can see from the image, I started with large (3/4") holes at the transition points which give the wood a lot of leeway to bend without risk of splitting.

Once screwed down to the frame wherever the board needed to be flat, I then flipped the board over and screwed in "risers" wherever they were needed for stability, spaced out across the gradients. In this way I let the plywood dictate the curve it would take between the high and low points and simply reinforced it as necessary meaning all parts of the board are strong enough to be walked over.

The adverse camber issue has since been fixed by forcing the riser underneath to correct the angle, and applying an extra layer of cork below the track which was angled with sandpaper to create an opposite camber (these "cambering" layers of cork are shown here before and after being sanded down - and in the middle of being hoovered!)

From an electrical perspective with apologies to @BroadLeaves I have decided to insulate the loops entirely with insulated joiners at both crossovers, at the cost of some flexibility. In the end I just did a few tests of what happens when you power a rail with both controllers and what happens is the controllers cut out and you have to give them some "down time" before they'll work again. This also happens sometimes when trains crash or derail so I assume this is some sort of built in "trip" feature in the controllers.  Anyway, I am keen to minimise this down time as much as possible as it leads to loss of interest from the boys, hence the decision to fully isolate the loops.

The next steps are to complete the underlay (which are just 35mm wide strips roughly cut from 1.5mm A4 cork sheet) and then ballast along the edges of these strips only, with cork I have ground up to a fine rubble in a blender.  This is my compromise between leaving the simple cork strips as is, and a proper ballast job filled in between the sleepers. The former being functional but not really satisfying the modelling itch, and the latter being scenically perfect but  which requires applying lots of glue up to the rails and around the sleepers which in my head risks electrical connectivity issues and makes it much harder to alter the layout in the future (and affects any resale value the track has). Once the cork is secured we will paint the cork and do a basic paint layer over the rest of the board so it at least isn't bare wood until we get around to the more advanced scenery.

12 hours ago, Dungrange said:

If you set the points as follows:

A - curved

B - straight

C - curved

D - curved

 

Starting at the orange feed, power will be fed through the top crossover because point A is curved.  As point B is straight no power will get to the inside rail of the inner circuit beyond this point.  However, power will get to the outside rail of the inner circuit.

 

Jumping to the other side of the layout, power from the orange controller will feed through crossover D and C in both rails, but because point C is curved, no power will flow in the outside rail of the inner circuit, but it will flow in the inner rail of the inner circuit.  Thus you have both controllers connected.  The outer rail connection is via points A and B while the inner rail connection is via points C and D.

1 hour ago, BroadLeaves said:

Ah yes - good spot! That may be the reason why I originally said that one controller had to be turned off when moving between loops, and then, like a blithering idiot, I totally forgot about that part afterwards!

Thanks for the correction.

Obviously my understanding of this isn't right then, because I drew this arrangement when trying to understand how the power flows and came up with this, which doesn't have any conflict.

Obviously my understanding of how the points work to stop or allow flow is too simplistic. Where have I gone wrong?

Thanks for the continued help everyone, I'm following along but a bit busy to craft individual responses and thank yous. A fuller response in due course!

I think I’ve come to an important realisation about why your arrangement works BroadLeaves - am I right that current never flows up a facing point? I heard this mentioned in a YouTube video yesterday and it dows seem to make everything click into place!

I'm building a small layout for my boys, 2 and 4. I have never done any model railroading before but am confident with the modelling aspect - but wiring and electrics is way out of my comfort zone.

RMweb members have been incredibly helpful in helping me design a track layout that fits my needs and providing a few different options for wiring, over on my Layout thread below. They advised me to come over to here to get my questions on power answered and arrive at a final plan for the electrics.

---

My needs are:

• Two separate controllers allowing both boys to drive trains at the same time (one on each loop).
• Safe!
• Strong preference to use the 2 basic Hornby DC controllers and plug in power feed track sections that came with the boys Percy the mailtrain sets
• Would rather avoid all wiring and soldering
• On the balance of flexibility in routes vs simplicity I favour simplicity but do want it to be possible to transfer trains from one loop to the other (otherwise, what's the point in having crossovers, right?)

@BroadLeaves was kind enough to kickstart things and after a couple of evolutions we arrived at this:

In this, blue is one power feed for the central loop and orange is the other for the outer loop. Green represents point springs - the one at the bottom to provide power to the left hand branch when the upper right curved point is set to left, and the one on the right to provide power to the kickback in the right hand branch.  Red lines represent insulated fishplates.

Just when I thought it was an open and shut case there were a load of alternative suggestions.

First a couple of people advocating for moving the insulated fishplates to both crossovers. There is no picture of this but you get the idea.  The idea being, I think, that the operation is simpler for the boys and, possibly, risk is reduced (though I hasten to add I get this from the subtext of the alternative suggestions - nobody has pointed out explicitly how BroadLeaves suggestion is dangerous).

Two people suggested that the blue power needs to be moved to the right of the top crossover (I don't understand why).

Then @Chimer proposed a version that sounds seductive in it's operational flexibility but sadly requiring some switches and wiring.

In my last post in the other thread, tried to summarise the pros and cons of these three broad options as far as I understand them:

• The BroadLeaves plan, which maximises flexibility of routes but, if I understand correctly, still might have the possibility of powering the same bit of track under certain configurations. As above, I'm not sure anyone has explicitly come out and said this, but there certainly seems to be an implication this could happen.
• Something with breaks at both crossovers, which eliminates all possibility of powering the same track but means a crossing train needs synced/swapped controllers, so it's less flexible. I also imagine there is an outside risk of causing a big crash and/or engine damage from one loop being set to forward and the other reverse, and the engine being driven across?  
• Something with more advanced switches and wiring such as described by @Chimer - best of both worlds (flexible routes and no chance of powering the same track) but at the cost of needing wiring and soldering. BroadLeaves is right I am very keen to avoid this as (if you couldn't tell) I have no idea what I'm doing and it means I'll probably not be able to use the kit I already have.

I am erring towards option 2. I think syncing controllers is a pretty simple operation to teach them.  I think it also keeps things neat - the bottom controller is for the inside, the top one for the outside. 

Now on to my actual questions...

1. Is my summary above right?
2. Can anyone say for sure if option 2 is safer than option 1?
3. Regardless of option 1 vs 2, why does more than one person advocate for moving the  blue controller to the right of the crossover?
4. What are the actual risks of one bit of track being controlled by two controllers?  Someone mentioned the potential disaster if one is on and the other is unplugged, that the 12v current of the first controller could be transformed back to 230v by the second controllerwhich would then be live at the loose plug of the second controller.
5. In option 1 and 2 I think there is a point in time where the pick up wheel could be touching both circuits.  Is this true? If so, what are the actual risks of this to the trains or layout if both controllers are on but not synced, say one is set to forwards and one is set to reverse?
6. And ultimately what do  you think is the best option from above, given my needs, or is there an even better one?

Many thanks in advance!

3 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

Well, you can't do without wire (you just need 8 more bits of it), there's no need for any solder (you can twist wire onto the switch tags), and all the kit you've got will work just fine.

 

But the gradients would make me nervous - I would suggest that before you start butchering the board, you put the tracks together on the flat first, operate it that way, and when you're happy that everything works and delivers enough fun, then decide if the gradients are a must.  The plywood won't flex the way the paper does when you try to raise one end of a curved section .... 

 

Best of luck, whatever way you go!

Kris used 12mm OSB to achieve a similar effect on his layout and I’ve dropped down to 9mm ply. I’m quietly confident but will certainly be following a rigid order - flat layout first and lots of testing. Then trace the track layout and from this deduce the necessary holesaw and jigsaw cuts. The actual bits being bent will be relatively narrow, which helps. I shall then begin the bending systematically working around the board but if it doesn’t work there is no reason I couldn’t get a thinner sheet of ply or just revert to flat again.  Assuming it does work, the track will then be screwed down. Looking forward to it - I admit most of the motivation for varying elevation is to maintain my own interest and give me a building challenge, but I do think the boys will appreciate some hills too.

2 hours ago, BroadLeaves said:

Don't forget to also include the height of the buildings and scenery such as trees.

Indeed. Many of these will have to be removable - the aforementioned drawers built into the frame can hold some of this (trees) once removed and the rest will just have to be placed on the lowest part of the board during downtime.

I am following this (mostly!), thanks for everyone's input. There still seems to be a wide variety of opinions which is a little worrying.  Apart from the 230v > 12v > 12v > 230v potential catastrophe (and I say that not to diminish it), what are the actual consequences of powering the same bit of track with two controllers on the running of trains or the trains themselves?

If I can attempt to boil down the varying options into 3 broad categories:

1. @BroadLeaves plan, which maximises flexibility of routes but, if I understand correctly, still might have the possibility of powering the same bit of track under certain configurations. Actually, I'm not sure anyone has explicitly come out and said this, but there certainly seems to be an implication this could happen?
2. Something with breaks at both crossovers, which eliminates all possibility of powering the same track but means a crossing train needs synced/swapped controllers, so it's less flexible. I also imagine there is an outside risk of causing a big crash and/or engine damage from one loop being set to forward and the other reverse, and the engine being driven across?  I'll call this the @RJS1977 plan.
3. Something with more advanced switches and wiring such as described by @Chimer - best of both worlds (flexible routes and no chance of powering the same track) but at the cost of needing wiring and soldering. BroadLeaves is right I am very keen to avoid this as (if you couldn't tell) I have no idea what I'm doing and it means I'll probably not be able to use the kit I already have.

I am erring towards option 2. I think syncing controllers is a pretty simple operation to teach them.  It also keeps things neat - the bottom controller is for the inside, the top one for the outside. 

---

On 25/01/2022 at 10:19, Andy Hayter said:

A dust cover may well help but it may make some items on the layout vulnerable to being damaged as the cover is placed and removed.  

With  2 and 4 year old the layout has bigger issues to contend with than a dust sheet. Everything is going to need to be very robust or very cheap and easy to replace!

On 25/01/2022 at 17:57, RJS1977 said:

Before we go too much further with the wiring - I'd suggest reversing the left hand siding so that the point is at the top of the board rather than the bottom. This is because as drawn, a train proceeding around the outer loop in an anti-clockwise direction will go straight into the siding and the loco will be trapped at the wrong end. Reversing the siding means the train will set back into it, then the loco can be uncoupled and go off and do something else.

 

The right hand siding (with the kickback) should stay as it is.

 

Two other advantages of this are:

 

1)  Apart from the crossover by the blue arrow, all the points are on one side of the baseboard (so easier to reach).

2)   This removes the need for the point clips at the bottom of the plan.

Thanks for the ideas but like BroadLeaves I struggle to see the difference - whichever way I put it, unless trains reverse in they will end up with with the loco at the wrong end.  The boys will also have 360 degree access to the board and adding some point clips seems pretty trivial, so I'll keep the layout as is.

---

While the debate on the best electrical setup rages, I'm making progress on the simpler stuff.  In my hobby I'm notorious for planning projects and never starting them or starting them incredibly slowly. I'm keen to avoid this fate and so I've been ordering materials left right and centre and plowing in to construction. The base board is cut and construction of the framing is well underway.  

I made a simple maquette to get it clear in my head where I would need to raise/lower the underlying framing and cut the base board to achieve the contours.

And today me and the boys tested out Thomas and Percy on varying gradients, up, down, forwards and reverse, with varying train lengths.  Happily it seems these little engines are on the powerful end of the spectrum and I won't have to worry about gradients as some of you have warned about. Percy was comfortable at 7% and topped out at 8% (just about making it to the top but with plenty of wheel spin). For his part, Thomas managed a mighty 16% while pulling the mail truck and two wagons. In reality, 7% is more than enough for me as it would allow a theoretical 7cm rise from the lowest point (north side of the board) to the south side , and then another 10cm again to the raised goods yard. And I don't actually have that much space under the bed once the depth of the baseboard, framework and castors is accounted for. I'll probably go with something like 3% and 5%, for a ~10cm total rise. This will be more than enough for the planned road tunnel under the goods yard too, without needing to notch out the frame below.

11 hours ago, Kris said:

You can splice in extra wires or you could use something like these https://uk.Hornby.com/products/digital-electric-point-clips-pack-20-r8232 but don't use these, they are just very expensive sprung wire. 

11 hours ago, BroadLeaves said:

Having said that, I'd forgotten about point clips and @Kris is correct in that they are just an expensive way to buy some short bits of sprung metal, but by the time you've bought the cabling (and maybe power clips), drilled the holes in the baseboard, soldered it all to the sides of the rails and so on, it may well be a better option. If you use the point clips, you would put two in the point to the elevated goods yard and two in the point on the right hand dock siding. You wouldn't then need any supplemental feeds at all. Just connect the two controllers to the left hand curves of the loops as per the orange and blue arrows.

Thanks for the tips - this seems much simpler and, ease trumps cost in this case - I'd also need to buy or rent a soldering iron anyway.

11 hours ago, BroadLeaves said:

and you probably have one of these in the set. For your layout, there's no easy way to use that for the outer loop. You could use it for the inner loop and put it as the bottom left hand straight on the inner loop. For the outer loop, you can either solder to the rails or use power clips

I have one in each set yes and was hoping to use both. Why do you say the power could be moved to the straight section of track on the inner loop, but not for the outer loop? If the top section of long straight track on the outer loop were swapped for two shorts, could one of these shorts not be the power feed section?

11 hours ago, ITG said:

Many modellers report on this forum that set track curved points are more prone to derailments than straight ones, although some of that issue may be due to running larger locos and/or bogie coaches - thus may not wholly apply to your stock.

Equally, many modellers would opt to use set track curves on such tight radii, rather than flexi. It can be tricky to bend flexi in a smooth curve when so tight a radii.

This is useful to know thanks, particularly the difficulty of bending flexitrack on the tighter radii - I'll look at the relative cost of buying curves instead of flexitrack especially for the inner loop.

11 hours ago, ITG said:

I echo comments above about small sidings and lack of space/clearance for platforms.

Even on BroadLeaves modified version?

2 hours ago, ITG said:

11 hours ago, BroadLeaves said:

Not necessarily. I think the scheme I outlined will avoid short circuits and allows a train to be driven all the way over a crossover without stopping.

Well, maybe so, but surely the position at which the loco passes over the rail break (your red lines), effectively means stopping it, switching that controller off, and turning on the other controller. Messy, especially if both boys are playing in any way other than each keeping to their own loop.

I'm a bit confused now!  BroadLeaves said that with both crossovers switched to straight, the inner loop controller controls the entire inner loop, but ITG you are suggesting that this isn't the case?

To be clear @ITG the only modification you're suggesting is that insulated fishplates are put between both sets of crossover points? I can see that this literally makes the loops completely separate at all times. How does switching track work in this scenario?  I'm guessing, to go from the inner to outer, say:

1. the outer loop controller is turned off
2. the points are switched
3. the inner loop controller drives the engine to the point where it just about crosses the point before it loses power
4. the inner loop controller is turned off and the outer is turned on
5. the outer loop controller drives the train across the point
6. the point is switched back to straight

11 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

One thing that has not been mentioned but which you should at least think about:

The underside of beds and the floor beneath have a nasty habit of attracting dust.  Dust and model railways will create disappointment as it will get into point blades and into the electrical pick ups on the engines and stop the electricity flowing which means the trains will not run or will stutter around the layout.  

 

I would suggest you think about some form of dust protection when the layout is in storage and it is probably easier to think about it now than after the event.

Thanks Andy. Perhaps a simple dust sheet can be found in a relevant size. How bad are we talking about though? Would a regular hoover of the points also work? I could ask the cleaners to incorporate it into their weekly routine which might keep everything ship shape. As for the locos and other removable items that are too tall to fit under the bed (trees, cranky the crane etc...), I am thinking of building some drawers into the underside of the base board which would also keep everything clean.

Legend. I'm going to print a label with those instructions to transfer between loops so it can be stuck to the side of the layout for future reference!

3 hours ago, BroadLeaves said:

The orange controller always controls the outer loop, the elevated goods yard and the dock. The blue controller always controls the left-hand half of the inner loop, the inner station, the engine shed and inner siding.

I'm probably missing something but which one controls the right hand half of the inner loop? This seems conspiciously absent in your  list!

3 hours ago, BroadLeaves said:

When connecting the two supplementary feeds, you'll need to make sure that you connect "same rail to same rail", to avoid a short circuit. The easiest way to do this is to note which wire connects at the main connection and then just follow the rail round with your finger!

As in, both the supplementary feeds need to connect to the same rail as each other, or to the same rail as the orange controller connects to?

For context the controllers that come with Percy are the attached. The pins plug in to a special port on a short straight.

Assuming these are usable, will I need to splice additional wires from one or both of the wires?

As I thought then - I'll work on the assumption of no points and siding in the goods yard, and as you say, something else interesting could go up there (my eldest says it will be where all the snow and Santa's workshop is... so that might be a thing that's happening!)

I'll also bear in mind a removable hill top when I start getting to grips with building this thing.  It seems like it would be fairly straightforward to manufacture and would free the scenery from practical board edge constraints. I migth also move the train tunnel to the bottom left of the track so the incine goes through a tunnel - since that part of the board has relatively little going on.

So the only question now is the one about insulated track/fishplates, if anyone can help?

Thanks again @BroadLeaves!

Thanks both.  That diagram is spot on. Yes I had wondered about the radius of the inner part of the curved point and also the accuracy of my hacked track layout programme!  I like this plan a lot and think it's pretty much there.  The only thing I may do is move the south platform and switching point left to allow more space for the hill and tunnel, and specifically for the full length of the tunnel to be closer to the bottom board edge to address the point I made earlier about the "access window" (is there a commonly accepted name for these?)

On the point about the raised ground and road tunnel, I was taking a cue from Kris' layout where he has a combination of a modestly raised goods yard and a lowered ground level on that side of the board, making a combined apparent height difference more than the goods yard gradient alone.  It's hard to tell by the photos but it looks like a hot wheels sized tunnel isn't far off fitting on Kelgh.  But if that doesn't suffice, I could also notch out a road width from the underlying frame (I'm going to use 97mm timber so there is plenty of depth to mess around with) and install a separate, lower base board just for the road, in order to set the tunnel road well below the level of the base board as a whole, and have it sloping up towards the bridge over the gorge

I think the points and siding in the upper goods yard are probably complicating the rise since that part (the points) presumably can't go on a transition of elevation, meaning all the height needs to have been gained before the point?  In which case, I could probably sacrifice the point and siding and this would allow the track to continue rising another 25cm or so (based on my diagram and assuming a ~25cm flat bit for the goods yard itself). 

To be fair it was already looking a bit of a stretch to fit in a modelled bank, tunnel entrance, and stream/gorge with road bridge between the goods yard siding and the level crossing (even though your proper plan increases the distance to the level crossing by a track width or so) so this might be for the best anyway, and should push the yard up closer to 4cm in height, measured from the start of the curve). 

I reckon I would then "only" need to find another 3 cm between notching the frame and lowering the north side of the board wholesale to fit my tunnel in.

Thanks for the hints about the curved level crossing chaps.

Heavily influenced by the layout that @Kris has made (sadly the thread now seems to have disappeared?) I've now evolved towards what I hope is a final-ish layout (final enough to begin building anyway - I imagine "no plan survives contact with the enemy" is as relevant in model railways as anywhere else) and would like to get some more feedback before I take the plunge and order track (base board and timber is being delivered tomorrow).

I have taken @BroadLeaves advice and put the four points in to allow switching between the loops in both directions (the annotations though assume traffic is clockwise). There are two versions here. The only differences are the location of the hill and consequently the location of the points that allow the boys to switch between inner and outer loops. Essentially I became concerned that the northernmost entrance to the tunnels in the first version would be difficult to reach from an access "window" made along the board edge, necessitating extending that access window into the actual docks, which would ruin the scenery in the docks.  So hence the second version, with a tunnel that is at most ~20cm from the edge which should mean an access window along the board edge only suffices.   But as a consequence I had to move the inner to outer switch onto the curved ends of the track, which seems like it would work using curved points but is one of my questions that follow.

I've kept the board to 95cm wide but expanded to 180 long just to give a bit more breathing room at the docks and goods yard. While I've kept the radius colour coding I now assume I will use flexible track for pretty much everything apart from the points.

The level crossing is sited where it is because I hope to build a road tunnel accessing the board from the top left under the raised goods yard, the road will then cross a small bridge over the gorge and hence to the level crossing.

In addition to general opinions I have a few specific questions:

1. Is there any issue using curved points as I have done?
2. Is there anything more interesting you think I could be doing with the tracks at the docks? Right now it just has a sort of storage siding for unused trucks.
3. Likewise is there anything more interesting I could do with the loco shed?
4. Most crucially of all, where and how do I need to use insulated rail sections or fishplates to make the two loops individually controllable? 

1 hour ago, Kris said:

 

There is no special track used for the transitions between the angles of incline, they are very gentle so you don't notice them.

 

 

The layout is 123cm wide. As I said I have made a shelf to sit beside the bed to give the extra width. It's very handy for keeping soft friends on! This shelf is 25cm wide. If I didn't have the turnout heading up to the top yard I could have saved 4.5cm. If you were prepared to cut down the level crossing you could save a little more. Having the extra space does allow for cars to be waiting at the level crossing which is very important for one of my sons who is car mad.

 

 

 

Yep, it is all one baseboard with the board being forced up and down to fit the gradients required. When I planned it I placed all of the track on the board and drew round this. Doing this allowed me to establish where I needed to cut the board. I then created a frame to go under the board and put appropriate risers in place to support the track bed and roads. The first part to be screwed into place was the goods yard. This had to be flat as you don't want the wagons rolling about when uncoupled. The station is about 3cm lower than this (doesn't sound a lot but it is quite a fierce gradient and train lengths are limited by it which is no bad thing on a small layout). The track starts falling just after the level crossing in one direction and after the set of points accessing the goods yard in the other direction. The track rising to the upper yard is fractionally steeper than the main line and the transition is not as smooth which does cause a few problems with some pieces of rolling stock that have been purchased since the layout was begun. This track gains nearly 4cm by the time it reaches the set of points at the top. 

 

I could have just as easily built the layout without any gradients and my children would have been just as happy with it. It would have been far easier to construct. I like gradients however, they add visual interest and make it more interesting driving trains.  

Great info thanks.

Does this method (single base board) offer much more than the alternative of adding slopes on top of an uncut base board? I first thought about using 3mm MDF on a series of supports. I can imagine that a single base board creates more natural inclines though.

I definitely want to have a level crossing but would move it to one of the short edges, saving the width, which means it will go over curved tracks - probably precluding the use of any commercially available kit, but making one from scratch with plasticard doesn't seem like it would be too difficult.

I like  your shelf idea and will bear it in mind should it prove too difficult to squeeze everything into 97cm.

10 hours ago, BroadLeaves said:

It would work, but to get "clean" joints between the sections (important to avoid derailments when Gordon is racing James at top speed) you're going to have to have some flexible track in there too. The other thing I think you should consider is some way to link the two loops. Two completely separate loops is simpler from an electrical angle, but it's also simpler from a "playability value" angle.

 

Okay, that doesn’t seem too arduous? Although I’ll definitely consider if the small variation from a standard oval really makes enough of a difference to justify the complication.

yes I’m definitely interested in the ability to switch tracks, I didn’t draw that as I was only getting the basics down and because it’s much more difficult to draw smooth s bends in PowerPoint than simple curves!

9 hours ago, PaulaDoesTrains said:

If you want to be able to easily take up track for future re-jigging the I recommend using track screws rather than track pins. I doubt your children will be bothered whether or not the track is ballasted. A simple and cheap compromise is to glue down shed roofing felt and lay the track on top of that. Rather than under the bed, could the layout be stored on edge somewhere when not in use?

Right, track screws it is, perfect!

you’re probably right about the ballast. In this case I think I’ll use painted/washed 1 or 2mm cork for the ballast - giving the track a little height and satisfying a little of my modelling desire while keeping all track removable.

10 hours ago, Kris said:

Take a look at what I have done for my 2 boys. When I started they were a similar age to yours. I built a narrow shelf at the rear of the bed to give me the extra width I needed to ensure I could use 2nd and 3rd radius curves. 

 

 

 

Ha! Amazing. You’ve pretty much already done what I imagined! Thanks so much for the link - I’ll be reading through it carefully.

Do you use standard track to do the inclines (specifically the transitions between two angles of incline) or is there some special type that must be bought?

How wide is it and if you didn’t have the turnout on the long edge that necessitates widening the board, how wide would it be?

Studying the slopes it looks like the approach is actually partially cutting and forcibly changing the elevation of parts of the same base board? Is this how you went about it - mount the entire baseboard on a slope from the engine shed side towards the station. Then cut and raise the goods yard branch, and cut and raise or layer a piece to bring the central sidings back to level. 

58 minutes ago, ITG said:

Depends what you mean.  All DC controllers are basically mains in, 12v DC out (some do have added refinements but whether that’s your custom wiring I don’t know)

 

That does simplify things but do you mean they should be interconnected by a crossover? If so, that’s where you need to be careful with switching to prevent 2 controllers powering same piece of track. If not, it’s straightforward.

 

Most likely cause of this is either expansion/contraction caused by temperature variation (unlikely in a bedroom ) or movement caused by the board being shifted about or handled clumsily. The more rigid you can make the board the better, with ample bracing. What you must avoid is warping or flexing in the board.

Thanks. I reckon connection of the two circuits would be fun. Will cross the isolation bridge closer to the time.

In the room it varies between around 16 to 21 in the winter and perhaps 20 and 23 degrees in the summer. Not sure if thats a lot of variation or not?

27 minutes ago, peach james said:

Once on a time, say, about 1988-93, I used to exhibit a Thomas layout.  It was 4x6, (or 1200x2400mm) which exceeds your space by quite a bit.  Later on, I moved on to building my own, which sits on 60x60" (actually, 60.25x60.25").   I can confirm that the Hornby Thomas, Percy, Duck, James, Bill, Ben, Oliver will all comfortably run around 15" curves, because that's what is on it.  

(Strangely, I don't think I have any photos...certainly not many...)

So, building a layout that sits in 90 cm wide is practical.  I used Peco turnouts- I think a mixture of setrack small turnouts, and one curved one, which might be Hornby rather than Peco (it certainly isn't the long radius Peco curved turnout...).  In 60x60, I had 5 loops in the back, and a passing loop on the front, with Faller road on it.  (and it was all automated, with Lego Mindstorms RCX's (x3) to run it automatically...not DCC).

 

If I was going for a layout for kids, I would try to make it so they can configure it- it's a pain in the buttocks in some ways, but good in others.  

I would look at KATO Unitrack, or Bachmann EZ Track (yes, spelled like that...), and go from there- both of them are designed to be taken apart and put back together many times, whereas the UK systems (Hornby and Peco) are not as good for that.  If you want to attach the track to something for now, that would make sense, just do it in a way that you can recover the track later for them to have at it on their own, would be my suggestion.  (use white glue, something that water will remove ?  Or over here, draft stop calking, which can be peeled off when they get to wanting to "change" the layout on their own...)

My (then 8 year old- now 11 !) has a Kato N gauge loop in the bedroom in OO9 (N gauge, OO scale) that he occasionally plays with- both of my minions are far more about the easy to use than the more traditional, as my 16 year old dragged out the box of wooden railway and it's currently set up all over the living room floor.
  
(both my two children are autistic- and killing a childhood by saying no, you are too old for that seems like a daft thing for someone with 450 000 pieces of lego to try to do !).  

So, I would say stay DC with a single controller for now, and that yes, a loop that goes away under the bed is perfectly practical.  I would use a non traditional baseboard material (some form of plastic) for the top surface to allow to remove the track in 2-4 years, and my preference would be Unitrack.  It is not cheap, but there are a couple of advantages that I can see for a kids layout over the traditional track- 1:  it has built in ballast for laying onto the floor (if carpeted) 2: it is fairly easy to connect/disconnect 3: it is engineered to be connected/disconnected 4: resale is likely possible if they decide to get out of it, probably at 1/4 of what was paid in.  

https://www.gaugemasterretail.com/magento/catalogsearch/result/?q=kato+unitrack+2-260

or Bachmann EZ track- Rails carry it:
https://railsofsheffield.com/products/Bachmann-trains-44505-e-z-track-15-radius-curved-track-4card?_pos=1&_sid=427bef5c0&_ss=r


I hope you get enough info to help you- remember that asking for opinions on here, you are likely to get at least 1 more than posters !

 

James
 

Nice one James - good to know from someone who's done it that I'm not barking up the wrong tree. I take it buying in to those track "systems" precludes using any of the existing? I'd have to think carefully about it, looking at those two links it looks like full layout, even a small one, would rapidly get expensive. And if it proves the kids want to experiment more I'm not averse to ripping up the layout and letting them do a new one - with new track if needs be.  Would pinning with small tacks as per the official Hornby starter video work, as that seems the easiest way to make it removable? Though it precludes my idea of realistic looking ballast - I shall have to live without!

15 minutes ago, BroadLeaves said:

I've just created this in AnyRail (www.anyrail.com) 



The white baseboard is 170 cm x 95cm and the two loops are first and second radius Hornby SetTrack curves with two crossovers. As you can see, it's a bit tight for width, but it does fit. Anything using third radius curves will be outside of the available space.

The above layout can be made to work with two independent controllers, with one for each loop. The key is to use self-isolating points and either an explicit insulating rail section or insulated fish plates, but the relative positioning of them is important. Once that's in place, one boy who was controlling the outer loop could set one crossover to "cross", drive the train from the outer loop to the inner, all under his control and then stop the train (he would control it from the points to the insulation break). He then sets both points back to "straight" and now the inside loop is all under control of the second boy who has the second controller. You don't need all four points, but with four, you can always switch between tracks, no matter if the train is going clockwise or counter-clockwise. With two sets, you can also have some route variation in that once train can do a loop that is half inner and half-outer.

Amazing thanks!  And your properly done version tells me my hacked together one (posted at almost the same time) wasn't too far off.

Those operations sound too complex but I assume in a couple of years it would be more realistic to expect them to be able to pull it off.

What do  you think of my version that mixes some 3rd with 1st to achieve the same total radius of two 2nds? Is that a thing that can be done?

I don't have (and can't install - work laptop) a proper track design programme so I tried to replicate the standard OO curves in powerpoint and proceeded to lay out a very simple track from there just to see what sort of basic loops we're talking about if there are to be two (once again I emphasise that I have zero expertise in doing this so I just put stuff kind of randomly.

I am starting to see the limitations of the size available. The board seemed bigger in my head!

Two separate tracks certainly limits possibilities. It seems to me that the bigger station definitely needs to go on the short side, the outer loop would have the dock and the inner could more easily have a smaller station and a more elaborate shed. 

1 hour ago, BroadLeaves said:

It's the number of wheels the engine has, split into driven and non-driven. For X-Y-Z

X: The number of non-driven wheels at the front
Y: The number of driven wheels in the middle
Z: The number of non-driven wheels at the rear

So this https://uk.Hornby.com/products/br-class-264-pug-0-4-0st-56025-smokey-joe-era-45-r3064 is an 0-4-0 but this https://uk.Hornby.com/products/br-a3-class-4-6-2-60103-flying-scotsman-era-4-r3627 is a 4-6-2.
 

cheers. Okay so they are definitely 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 engines, good to know!

19 minutes ago, ITG said:

I mention the following, in case your reference to ‘replacing the power unit’ is because you’d heard of DCC. I suspect your 2 locos are 12v DC as opposed to DCC. The distinction is that DC powers the track, and that in turn moves the loco. But that means 2 locos on, say, a single track circuit will both move with just one controller. To separate the 2 locos for independent control your circuit would need to be split into 2 electrically isolated sections, with a controller powering each section (obviously this is only an example, as if the track layout was a single circuit, the 2 locos would physically crash into each other!). Note when you start using two controllers it is important the two can never simultaneously power the same piece of track…… smoke will result!
 

DCC works differently, in that a decoder in each loco has a unique address, so a single DCC controller (or indeed two) can independently control the 2 locos on the same track, as each controller can ‘speak’ to each loco independently, and vice versa.
 

But if you are using Hornby track, the points (turnouts) are self isolating, meaning the power only flows the way in which the point is set. This means that for DC it may mean that a loco could be isolated on a siding, so would not move if the controller was activated. The same may be true for DCC, but having a loco isolated would be a disadvantage because you have loco-specific control without that isolation.

 

If your two boys wish to each drive a loco simultaneously, then you either need…..

1. two completely independent DC sections of track (maybe 2 circles of track) and two controllers, or, 

2. a DCC power unit with two throttle controllers, and the locos converted to have decoders

 

Note that using isolating rail joiners is an alternative/additional way of isolating sections, and in fact, are likely to be needed alongside self-isolating points (if the two track circuits are connected)

Many folk successfully run layouts with single power feeds but ‘good practice’ is considered by many others to be powering every individual track section. The former seems easier….. until you get a poor connection and the loco stalls. Then the latter seems a good idea.

 

 

I wasn’t referring to DCC (which I think I have read enough about to know it’s not something I’m interested in or really need to explore) but the fact that the controllers supplied with the Henry kit might be too “basic” to allow custom wiring. But that might also be my complete lack of electronics knowledge speaking!

In any case after the various replies received so far I am definitely erring towards the idea of two separate circuits so that both boys can drive at the same time and would like to explore a layout that allows this.

as for single vs multiple feeds, I just get the sense that the track will probably fail and that will be a recipe for disaster once the track is stuck/nailed down. Furthermore I like the idea of balasting after laying track with the glue soaking method and as I understand it that will put the normal track joins even more at risk of non conductivity.

1 hour ago, Coombe Vale said:

As you are building for two lads, have you considered having two loops? Thomas and Percy will negotiate first and second radius curves with no problems. If you could increase the width of your baseboard to four feet, (i.e. another 25cm approx), you would be able to fit in a station with platforms on either side of the running lines on one side of the board as well as giving both boys their own circuit. I realise you intend to store the layout under their beds, but could you not pull the beds away from the wall slightly, (about ten inches),  in order to "conceal" the layout when not in use? (Apologies for using both imperial and metric measurements, it's an age thing in my case!)

Also, have you given any consideration yet to what material to use for the baseboard? If you are going to mount it on castors you will need something that will not flex between the wheel sets. (Sorry if I'm stating the obvious.) I would suggest something like 12mm chipboard which would probably remove the need for underboard bracing, (others may disagree). 

I must agree with ITG with regard to gradients; it will be difficult to incorporate them successfully in such a limited space especially as they will have to be, at least partially, on a curve which as ITG said increases the friction quite considerably. (I learnt this the hard way myself!) It can be done, but modern locomotives seem to have limited haulage power on inclines.

 

Thanks for the input!

I don’t think I could get away with pulling the bed out a foot, but I do love the idea of there being two independent circuits. I’d like to explore if this is possible even without extending the board - if the big station were on a short edge presumably it would be possible without extending the board.

I was thinking 18mm ply, or 6mm MDF but braced underneath with timber. I’ll have to review what I have in the attic when it comes to it but the reminder about stability is useful.

Cheers ITG!

I have seen reference to figures such as 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 but don't understad them What do these refer to? Percy and Thomas are certainly short but I don't yet know if they fall into that specific bucket of loco. They do have rims on the centre wheels which I understand limits their ability to chuff around curves.

They will be able to pull it out to sit around the entire thing yes, so reach into platforms and bits of track on the inside of the main loop isn't a concern, or alternatively (and what I'd do at their age) perch on the lower bunk to get a good birds eye view and take advantage of the relative comfort of a mattress, from where they would also be able to easily reach features located on that side of the board but further in to the centre. Presumably some featurs could be on the outside still - albeit on the short edge where fitting track into the available dimension isn't such a big issue. E.g. the dock could be on a short edge.

3m is a very long way and clearly not feasible here, so I will experiment to see what these engines can climb up. I'm not sure how one transitions from flat to gradient - certainly not with the Hornby track supplied in the set, but I assume there are specialist tracks that can bend in the vertical plane as well as those that can curve horizontally.  I can test the straight gradient bit and then perhaps someone could advise on the additional distance needed to transition at each end.  I am sensing though that this idea (multiple levels) might not be feasible. Unless they are two completely separate tracks (which is always a possibility I suppose!)

As you say reliability is key, and a subject I intend to cross once I establish if a decent enough layout is even possible.  From what I gather this may mean soldering power to every piece of track, and possibly replacing the power unit that comes with the set. Wiring is not something I look forward to but hey ho!

My boys (2 and 4) received a “Percy & The Mail Train” Hornby kit for Christmas (actually 2 – one proved to have a fault in it’s controller so a replacement was sourced) along with a Thomas loco and a few additional carriages and trucks. Unpacking it I first thought the relative finesse needed to run this (especially getting the stock correctly on the track and the fiddly coupling and uncoupling) would mean this would quickly end up in the attic as a "potential toy of the future" but to my surprise they’ve both taken to it quite well aided by the youngest being quite into Thomas on TV and the oldest enjoying hands on and technical stuff

Now, I’m not a train enthusiast but I am a wargamer and hobbyist (more hobbyist than gamer) so I get a lot of enjoyment from building things and of course from scenic modelling, and I’ve been known to read the odd model railway magazine just for the spectacle and the modelling bits. So seeing their early enthusiasm my thoughts have naturally turned to making a scenic layout with some of the contents. Starting to research the ins and outs of doing this have led me to this forum.

The only place we have that this would fit is under their bunk bed. I’d stick it on castors and they could roll it out and have a play whenever they want. This would look far nicer and I think give them much more enjoyment. Crucially it would save Dad from unpacking, connecting, disconnecting and repacking the track whenever the mood takes them, and hopefully provide more than the current 20 minutes of peace and quiet afforded by the limited appeal of a basic oval circuit set up on the living room floor.

I quickly established that the curves in the kit (which I think must be 3rd radius) make this impossible, being as the oval you build from the box is way wider than the ~3 foot width of a single bed.  So as far as I understand it, the layout would have to be formed from a mixture of some of the 3rd radius stuff and then some 2nd and perhaps even 1st radius to negotiate the narrow board.

If have researched correctly the next challenge is – will Thomas and Percy run on those radiuses (radii?)?

And then, assuming this is even possible, the next question is what the layout should look like.  Now, I appreciate that Thomas the Tank Engine may not be the most thrilling subject for experienced enthusiasts but in the course of reading a bunch of threads here I have noticed there seem to many people more than willing to help out newcomers or otherwise uncertain modellers with track layouts so thought I would chance my luck and see if anyone can help me with a layout, given I know next to nothing about laying out track or running trains.

My thoughts on the restrictions/requirements here:

• 95-97cm wide – I’d like it to sit back slightly from the plane created by the edge of the bed which would be 95cm. If essential I could build the actual board surface above the level of the skirting board the bed sits against, which would gain an additional 2cm in width.
• Up to around 170cm long. The length is flexible, the longer it becomes the more unwieldy it is of course.
• Needs to have “roundy roundy”. As you can imagine the boys haven’t yet gained an appreciation for the finer arts of shunting things around (even if Dad finds that sort of thing quite appealing) and their immediate desire is simply to turn the speed up the max and watch Thomas or Percy race around… usually both with the intention to see who catches who and then what carnage ensues when they do!
• For similar reasons prototypical operation, layout accuracy (if there even is such a thing on Sodor) or realistic scale between locations is obviously not important.
• I imagine something with 1 “main” station with a couple of platforms and a shed, 1 smaller country station with 1 platform and then a representation of Brendam docks where they can imagine loading and unloading cargo on to some boats.  I’ll probably model a lowered water section for them to put some toy boats on.
• The rest to be filled in with countryside, buildings, whatever lie ins/passing sidings you’d deem suitable, and a few roads to allow them to mix in some hot wheels and other toy cars (I know… the scale differences!)
• I’d like to use as much of the existing track as possible, though I know I won’t be able to use it all.  That’s something like 16 double curves (again I assume are 3rd radius), 2 single curves (unsure of radius), 6 single straights, 6 double straights and 1 set of points (one set is missing its points)
• I like the idea of multiple levels and I think I’m up for the modelling challenge. Might this allow more track to be packed in if e.g. one line runs under a hill (with a cutout access for the inevitable derailments) while the other goes over it?

Aside from this I’m sure there are tonnes of things I haven’t thought about so I am all ears!  Thanks in advance for reading and any advice