Fluo66

Track laying All trackwork and points in the visible area are Peco code 75 with concrete sleepers. I did not want to mix concrete and wooden sleepers in the visible area even if this is partly prototypically. For the hidden (tunnel) area I used Peco code 100 (mixed Setrack and Streamline). The main reason for this were the curved points. Otherwise I could not build the crossovers to connect the fiddle yards later. Yes I know they can cause problems but fingers crossed. I made some test runs with my rolling stock and had no problems at all. The transition between code 75 and code 100 track was built with Peco's transition tracks. I extended the sleeper spacing by cutting the sleeper webbing. The sleepers were aligned roughly after cutting and then again while glueing the tracks down. This was a very boring and time consuming job but it was worth the effort. Respect to everyone who has done this on a large layout! The 180° curve was laid as super elevated track with 2mm stripes of cork under the outer rail but the transition was too short and caused some derailments. So I decided to remove the track and lay it again without super elevation. Reliability is much more important to me than visual effects.

This is my first layout thread here and hopefully my first working layout. The OO gauge layout is based on a fictional location named “Barrwick” in southern Scotland near Edinburgh. The time frame is 2010 to present. The size of the layout is 3.2 x 1.2 m. This is much smaller than my last unfinished layout. That took years to build and has never seen a proper running session for some reasons. Due to the smaller size of the layout I hope I can achieve visible results in a short timeline (months instead of years). Less is more... Initially I started a thread in “Layout Track & Design” to discuss my track plan. After that I decided to reduce the track plan. The planned TMD was replaced with a pure scenic/countryside part. I was inspired by the Youtube channel of Mouldy Raspberry with his layout “Yorkshire Dales” where the trains are running through a beautiful landscape. Otherwise on my last layout the Metcalfe viaduct was one of my favourites and my wish was to have a viaduct again on the new layout. A TMD can be added easily on top or instead of a fiddle yard later but not a scenic area with a through line. Here is the revised track plan: The layout is divided in two halves: the station area and the scenic area. A backscene in the middle of the layout will be added later. The construction started 6 weeks ago in mid-November 2018 after I dismantled the old layout. This is the empty room: It is a bit difficult to capture the whole room with my camera. Baseboard construction The frames were constructed from 60x15mm softwood, the legs are 45x45mm softwood and the surface is 9mm poplar plywood. All was glued and screwed together. The dimension of the rectangular boards is 1300x600mm. For the semi circle board I have built a special frame. The legs have a length of 900mm - a very comfortable height for me. The old layout was just 800mm high and this is a massive difference. To test the track plan I have printed it on A4 sheets and layed it down to the baseboards and placed some of my rolling stock on it: Nearly the complete layout was then covered with a layer of 2mm cork. For the tracks I added an extra layer of 2mm.

Those ladders may fit your needs: https://www.scalemodelscenery.co.uk/lx199-oo-locomotive-access-ladders---long-pack-of-4-oo4mm176-7152-p.asp https://www.scalemodelscenery.co.uk/lx198-oo-locomotive-access-ladders---short-pack-of-4-oo4mm176-7145-p.asp Guido

Hello guys, Thank you very much for your thoughts and comments. Tony, as I wrote I am not happy with the current setting with the lift-out section having the operation well in the middle of the layout. The new layout would give me two more or less independent operation areas (station and TMD). I now extended the baseboard by 10 cm. This would allow me to expand the inner curve radius at the bottom from R2 (44 cm) to 54 cm. I have chosen the Scottish borders area beacuse I spend my holidays 2 times there. "South scotland" would describe it better. I did not want to write "Scottish layout" because most people would think otherwise, it would be settled in the Highlands. As I wrote it is fictional. It is set in somewhere the surroundings of Edinburgh. The station and the TMD are 2 independent areas in my eyes that are operated independently. But I added a crossover on the entrance of the TMD. It is a good idea. 12 tracks in the fiddle yard ais not that much for a home layout in my eyes. One track must kept clear in both yards to trains runnign from one fiddle yard to the other via the main layout. In my updated plan I reduced to fiddle yards to 10 tracks. This allowes me to extend the main board by 10 cm. Thanks for that. Yes it is my plan to keep the appearance of the old layout. I have learned a lot during the building. And This time I want to improve it as good as I can. I widened the whole baseboard by 10 cm and moved the crossover on the left into the tunnel. I can reacj points in the tunnel. This wouldn't be a problem. I extended the beaseboard to 1.30m and inner radius radius at the bottom to 54 cm. The lift-out section on the previous layout was made from 10 mm playwood. As you can see in the track plan the door is located in the lower right corner. The lift-out section therefore must be diagonal 45 degrees and at least 1.40 m long. It deformed after a few weeks and the track connections no longer fit togehter in height. The height difference was about 1-2mm, far too much for a reliable operation... Here is the updated track plan:

Here are some pictures of my previous layout to give you a few impressions. It looks finished but is isn't: The only thing that I will really miss is the viaduct scene (here whithout water):

I will keep the point #7. This track could be used by ballast trains etc. Richards layout "New Junction" on Youtube is a good example for that.

I considered that the inner track between point 7 and 12 could be closed due to track construction works. This could be an interesting scene and would also give operational interest. I must not run 2 trains at the same time on the inner and outer loop.

I appreciate your suggestions. I tried to fit the crossover under the hidden section before I uploaded the first plan. As you can see it doesn't fit with the baseboard width: On the other hand these were too many curved points in a row = higher risk of derailments. And I want to avoid the Setrack curved points wherever possible. I don't think that the aisle is an issue. The fiddle yards are just 1' wide. I do not want to use cassettes. Vertical traversers would be great but not easy to build. During the construction of the layout the fiddle yards are not needed. They can be installed later and I'll have much more space if necessary.

You are probalbly right about the body size but the layout is located in our house and I don't want to wear winter clothes inside.

Don't know why the image disappeared... I uploaded it again and hope you can see it now.

I also thought about it. The distance between the fiddle yard and the main baseboard is 70 cm. I tried that with two tables and the space is very convenient to work and operate.

Hello all. I want to start a new 00 gauge layout called „Barrwick“. It is a fictional modern image (2000s) layout based in the scottish borders region. I have a railway room which measures 4.1 x 3.2 metres. In the past 5 years I started several room filling layouts around the walls to use the maximum available space. But none has satisfied me due to some reasons. I had to install a removable section in one corner but the connections deformed after weeks. I tried to fix this many times but with no success. I had never a proper fiddle yard to store a lot of my trains. There was also not the space for a proper workbench and this was very frustrating sometimes. And many other things.... I never had real running sessions in the last years. So I want to dismantle the current layout and start a new. This decision is final. The new layout is inspired by some other modern image layouts like Oak Road, New Bryford or Loftus Road. Here is a plan of the room and the layout: The new layout is a roundy-roundy double track with 2 attached fiddle yards. This is a bit unusual but fills all my needs. Mainly I want to run trains. The trains can run from one fiddle yard to another passing the station and or the TMD. When a train arrives in the fiddle yard the loco will be uncoupled and an other loco comes in and can pull the train back. The main board is 1.2 by 3.2 metres and divided in two halfs using a backscene. On one half the station „Barrwick“ is located. The other half contains the TMD called „Dunwell TMD“. The curved sections are hidden in a tunnel or disguised by bridges. I tried to curve the station and the TMD area a bit to avoid to many straight tracks. The divider in the middle of the board is wide enough so that I can install an illumination at later stage if necessary. TRACK I use PECO code 75 concrete sleeper track and points in the visible section. I will widening the sleeper space as described in many other topics here in the forum. Unfortunately only medium straight points with concrete sleepers are available. The turnouts 2, 4 and 5 are Y-points and the turnout #1 is curved. I hope I can bend the points a bit to get this result. The track base will be cork. In the hidden section and in the fiddle yards I will use Peco code 100 with Streamline turnouts. But 4 of the turnouts must be Setrack curved points at least the 2 in the tunnel crossover (#7 and #8). The crossover is necessary for trains on platform 2 that want to depart directly to the left fiddle yard (at this point I think I need a name for the yards). I read about the problems (derailments) with this type of points and hope I can avoid this. The minimum radius on the layout is 438mm (R2). ELECTRICS/CONTROL The locos are DCC controlled. All points on the main board will have servos. The points in the fiddle yard will have a mix of Seep and Peco point motors because I have them already. For controlling the points I want to use MegaPoints components and 2 mimic panels on each side of the layout. I have not a proper DCC controller yet (only a Hornby Select). I consider to buy a SignaTrak controller. So what do you think? Is there something wrong with the track plan or any other thoughts? Cheers, Guido

Thank you very much for the pictures. I see that I was wrong with the connections between the witch blades and stock rails. But it seems soldering is still required to convert it to a reliable point with a live frog. On the other hand if you compare the second with a modified electrofrog point it seems that you have to cut the magenta marks and leave the red ones? A little clarification from Peco would be very helpful. I think I‘ll buy a bullhead point to test it withou any modification and see how reliable it is (DCC).

First: I like the Unifrog concept. But I understand Portpatrick very well. I destroyed 2 points while soldering the connections. I am not very experienced in soldering but had to do this many times in the last 3 years. I avoid it wherever possible. Just a thought: Why doesn‘t Peco pre-solder the connections between the stock rails and the blades? As modeller you have then to decide which ones to cut. Cutting is much easier than soldering and it doesn‘t need any special knowledge. The only disadvantage is that you can‘t use the points out of the box... The alternative could be a hidden metal clip that you can put on from the underside. I do not mean clips like the Hornby ones. Both solutions would not increase the cost of a point dramatically but would save many modellers a lot of time and work. I wish a little more innovation from the manufacturers here.

All 3 „crossings“ are shown in post #722 (page 29) of this thread.

What is the length of a unit (OO model or prototype)?

Me too. It comes totally unexpected.

That‘s fantastic! I’ll pre-order at least 2 twin packs soon. Thanks RevolutioN & Kernow.

I am not sure but I think no one of us has mentioned a HST before. I thought about it yesterday as I have seen the price for the GWR variant. With £289 it is silly high compared to the £230 for a 156. The HST is a bit like a DMU (Charlie’s & Arran‘s specialty). But in fact it is a locomotive which is availabe in the market for years and comes in a wide range of liveries. Charlie, I think it‘s time to tell us which class you have in mind...

First I want to thank Hattons for producing the Class 66 in so many variations. I have sometimes complained about their customer service in the past but I reward their efforts to bring new models on the market. 30 liveries (or 31 from today) is a huge amount for one release. 10 or 20 would do it also in my eyes. If you look on other continental or american manufacturers the available amount of 10 or more liveries of one locomotive at the same time is not unusual. The great advantage is that you don‘t have to wait years before you get a specific model. Bachmann and Hornby do sometimes only 1-3 liveries/year and sometimes none which is very disappointing for most customers. Some liveries are produced just once in 10+ years (e.g. Scotrail or Arriva stuff). I can imagine that some people at Bachmann HQ are a little nervous about this development. I hope Hattons will also do a Shanks 66 again. A Belmond Royal Scotsman 66 would be also very nice. I‘ll go at least for the 66528 and the 66789 in the first batch. Thumbs up for Hattons!

Hi Greg, Thanks for the information. I hope you are right and the 70s are on their way. Hatton‘s website says: Due into stock between April 2018 & May 2018. Ugliness is very subjective and I can say that I like the appearance of the class 70. Guido

Then the IZA Cargowaggon twins in OO for me please...

Thanks for the pictures. But the RRP for the standard loco is £169 (see http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/130695-Bachmann-incoming-january-2018/page-1) and for the NRM edition it is also £169. There is no £33 extra. Or have I missed something?

Agree. But good to see that the price for the limited edition is the same as the RRP for the standard version. The glossy finish looks much more prototypical in my eyes.

Kelly, of course you are right about the 166 / 170. I know they are different. I own both models. But with the postponed class 166 I think Bachmann won't produce Non-DCC versions of their older models anymore. This includes the class 170 as well as the 220/221. As said from others before both DMUs have a wide range of liveries and variants. With the cancellation from Bachmann this gives an other manufacturer a timeframe of 2 or 3 years to produce their own models. On the other hand Charlie asked for a diesel engine that was on the market before. In my opinion he can produce nearly every model from this range. Here in Germany it is not unusual that many models are offered from different manufactures at the same time. I don't think the german/continental market is much bigger than the UK market. For example take the class V200. It was produced from 7 or 8 different manufactures over the years in more than 115 variants/liveries. If Charlie and Arran do it right their models will sell, no matter for which class they'll go. And I know they will do it right! Personally I would prefer a class that wasn't produced before. My favourite is the class 180 also if this is not my modelled region. But with just 14 train sets and a few different liveries of the prototype I think the Adelante will sadly never be produced...