Harlequin

I can see the attractions of O gauge but it does pose some slightly different challenges. Apart from the space requirement, which doesn’t seem to be a problem for you(!), decent scenic depth is probably too far to safely reach across. So access from both sides of baseboards would seem to be useful. When that is combined with the time and cost constraints you mention I think an end to end design might be preferable to a roundy round. I imagine a curving L shaped design that follows two walls of the room but leaves space behind for access. So then you’d be looking for termini that are small enough to model but big enough to have an interesting goods yard and with route availability for the 43xx... Something like Kingsbridge, perhaps? (Edit: But route availability is not sufficient.) Edit2: A cut down version of Cheltenham St James' ? (Red route availability) Edit3: No that's a silly idea - much too big even cut down in a room 42ft long!

I have started using this technique, specifically to try to improve the sound from sound-equipped locos: Since I did the City I have also done a King and I am thinking of doing one of my 14xx’s (but the problem with that is really the weedy speaker so it probably won;t improve the sound, just look better). It does mean running with brimming full coal bunkers all the time, though...

There's a whole new product line for Modelu! The scanning process would be, erm, "interesting"...

Here's a suggestion about how you could fit a passing loop into the scenic area if you wanted: The two end curves are R3 (red). That eases out to a wider radius where the track emerges on scene (purple), by using plain flexi-track at the platform end and using a curved Code 55 at the other, which leads into the passing loop. The whole station is slightly angled to give the passing loop room and that same angle sets up the staggered fiddle yard connections I was talking about earlier.

@Graham70 Re-reading the OP I get the feeling that you might not have allowed for a fiddle yard at all because you mention the caravan being off-centre to make space for the station with double track going around the other 3 sides of the shed. Is that right? And related to that, can I ask why the caravan needs to be able to exit from both ends? If one end were blocked then that might provide space for a fiddle yard and it would simplify things greatly not to have to engineer two ~3m long lift-out sections. Do you intend to operate the layout while the caravan is in the shed? If so is there room to move around to deal with derailments, pickup problems, etc.?

Can you tell us more about the plans for the colliery on another level, please? Will it be sited above the scene we're talking about? If so, how much separation do you foresee to allow the lower level to be viewed unencumbered? (7 metres at 1 in 50 gives a rise of 140mm - not very much, even if you didn't want to see the lower level!) Or do you mean it's just on higher ground behind the current station? That could work well, given the depth of scene but, as others have said, the depth raises access questions. Might need some hatches. How will the layout operate before the colliery level has been built? Will the junction and whatever exchange sidings you decide on serve some useful purpose in the meantime? (Might be wise to connect the colliery line to the fiddle yard and have a virtual colliery for a while.)

Rotate: Yes, Flip: not really. If you geometrically flipped the whole plan (once, in any axis) then the trailing connections would all become facing, which would be bad. You could of course flip the positions of the major features but then you would have to draw new pointwork to connect them while maintaining all the usual conventions.

Hi Keith, The Streamline small Y has a total deviation of 24degs, I.e. 12 for each arm, so not that different to the set track part and a better fit in your design.

It's OK for tracks to still be turning when they reach the lift out bridges, if that helps to ease the end curves.

Could you re-arrange the room so that the layout is against a wall? That would surely be more efficient than having two have spaces either side and then you could have something along the lines that I suggested above with a central operating well. Sorry to be a pain in the neck but given the difficulties that the 8*4 space forces on you, wouldn't it be worth the effort to grab just 1 or 2 more feet in each dimension? It would be a more efficient use of the space and would make a HUGE difference to the layout possibilities... If you can't supply a photo how about a rough sketch of the room so we can understand what you're dealing with?

No. If they slide then they are less likely to conduct current, at least not consistently. So you'll have intermittent running problems. And it would be extremely tedious to slide 8 fishplates into, or out of, position if you have 4 tracks crossing your lift-out section every time out open or close it. The most convenient and reliable solution is to build something that automatically makes a good connection when the section is in place (e.g. springy copper contacts) or just a simple flying lead that plugs in.

If the layout is up against the wall (am I right to assume that?) then isn't one of the stations also up against the wall, and hidden by the central backscene?

Yes, sorry Keith, that was a bit too blunt. What I meant was, you presented possibly too much info to allow people to give useful feedback - and I promptly proved that by suggesting something outside your given #3. You have some very challenging conditions to fulfil.

Sorry Keith, TLDR. You could cut the 8ft by 4ft board in a different way to give you longer runs, easier curves, an operating well and better access. E.g.: becomes: 5ft by 9ft overall with a 2ft6in wide operating well. Admittedly the 8ft long top and bottom boards might be unwieldy but that's just one example. Many other cutting patterns are possible.

Hi Rhydgaled, Operationally speaking, you are definitely on the right lines by modelling a main line junction and a branch line (with or without terminus station) because that lets you run mainline stock and branch line stock and perform lots of interesting operations at the junction. (Edit: Sorry that's assuming it was back in the day when the branch line really was a branch line...) I completely understand that this is an initial draft but: Before you get too deeply into it can I plead with you not to use Settrack parts in the scenic areas and only use them in hidden areas if you have no other choice. A layout like this deserves something closer to prototype trackwork and even if you're just sketching it helps to start using those parts to understand them and the limits they impose on the design. A design that circumnavigates the shed would make more efficient use of the space and it looks like there's room for a reversing loop somewhere. There's an awful lot of hidden track. The gradient to "Cardigan" looks like it's probably a bit steep. Also, the way the branch line rejoins the main line in hidden track is a bit, shall we say, "smelly"... This could be a really great layout!

Hi hap, I'm not sure if this is directly helpful but it might give you some useful ideas: I'm suggesting the whole board is 370mm wide (30mm wider than your drawing) just to ensure that the TT well doesn't foul the supporting timbers below. And I'm suggesting that the small 350mm long arm at the left is not part of the scenic layout. Use the sheds as low-relief because there's no point hiding your prized locos in a building. The centre of the layout is more open and there's more room for the roads in front and their inspection/ash pits. Peco loco lifts can be connected to all the line on the left, including the shed roads, so that locos can leave and enter the scene and the sheds really do have depth even though they are low-relief. Most turnouts are 45in radius (Peco Large) or greater (Large Ys). There's one medium in front of the sheds and one double slip (urgh!). I'm just showing that you don't have to use small radius points and since the track is the backbone of the layout and will be there forever it's probably worth investing in. The double slip is a bodge just to provide the prototypical exit route (connecting out to a loco lift). I'm not sure it's really needed and maybe there's a better solution but at the moment I can't see it. The loco lifts would have simple hinged supports that fold flat against the edge of the baseboard when not in use so that they don't take up permanent space. Coal wagons (full and empty) could be stored on the lines either side of the sheds. Edit: Whoops! We both posted at the same time!

If there was no turntable at all then engines would run bunker/tender first exactly 50% of the time also... Hmmm... Makes you wonder whether one turntable is worth the effort!

Two fiddle yards eat up space. That's one of the reasons the oval pattern is so popular - one FY shared by both ends of the scene. Reversing loops take up yet more space. It is possible to combine reversing loops with the end curves of an oval to get something of the best of both worlds. Another neat answer might be to avoid the balloon loops entirely and use a "Denny pattern" fiddle yard at each end instead. That is to say, a sector plate long enough to hold an entire train, which can be spun 180 degrees to reverse all the trains stored on it. Space saving but no continuous run, admittedly.

Hey Jon, I just thought of something... If your station is a fictionalised version of Ingrow you could call it, Ingtonale...

Hi hap, Do you need the bulge? It looks like you could just leave out the tracks going around the TT and connect things together to give the double road engine shed a headshunt and a simpler connection to the TT. (That would also get rid of those ugly Settrack curved points!) Edit: Do the lines to the right of the TT go anywhere? The second from top connection to the TT has a reverse curve that could be removed. And you could easily replace the small Y SL-97 with a smoother formation if you could justify spending a bit on some new turnouts. The same applies to various other places, actually, and it might be worth it if your locos are bigger than tank engines. Think about a big pacific traversing a small radius turnout...

Hi Jon, It might be an idea to allow a bit more width (and length) so that the curves can be a bit more open in the scenic section, as we said above. I suggest you also draw the fiddle yard now because you need to know that you can fit enough loops and that they will be useful lengths. Extra baseboard width and tweaking the end curves might help here too, not just for capacity, but to be able to stagger the points fans in the FY and make better use of the space. Edit: Diagram: A: Not staggered - loops short and varying lengths B: Staggered (left entry lower than right entry) - loops all the same length C: Staggered - no loops but terminal storage sidings make use of the space inside and outside the end curves Some combination of B and C is probably the most flexible. Could you add a passing loop in the scenic area to the outside of the main line? That would give you more interest: You'd be able to sensibly have two trains on scene, passing each other in the loop and it would allow locos to run round their trains if needed before shunting back into your yard.

I'm no expert on the KWVR branch but here's what I've gleaned about operations from a bit of research: It seems that the branch was relatively busy both in passenger and goods traffic up to WW2. Workmen used the trains to get to and from work and Haworth, just down the line from Oxenhope, generated a lot of tourist traffic. There were also excursions to Morecambe and football specials. Summer timetable for 1902: From Oxenhope, Weekdays: 5.12, 5.56, 6.53, 7.53, 8.26, 9.35, 10.50, 11.38, 12.40 SO, 1.30, 2.20, 3.13 SO, 4.00, 5.12, 5.48 SX, 6.35 7.17, 8.12, 9.20 SO, 10.10 SO, 10.27 SX, 11.03 SO. Summer timetable for 1938: From Oxenhope, Weekdays: 5.49, 6.35, 7.05, 7.41, 8.40, 9.39, 10.48, 11.40, 12.47 SO, 1.35, 2.15, 3.22 SO, 3.56, 4.35, 5.17, 6.26, 7.30, 8.19, 9.22, 10.10, 11.10. At peak times there were two passenger trains on the branch at the same time but unless they were scheduled to cross on the double track at the Keighley end, one train ran empty because the passing places were not rated for passengers. (This might mean more departures from Oxenhope than appear on the timetables.) There were up to 20 mills in Oxenhope at one time (not sure how many were still working by 1939) which must have generated a lot of goods traffic along with all the usual supplies for the village. The passing places and electric token working up to Haworth allowed the pickup goods to take its time shunting the yards between Keighley and Haworth but from Haworth to Oxenhope was operated by staff and so goods trains normally had to work up to Oxenhope, shunt the yard and return to Haworth between passenger trains. (You probably already noticed that there is no signal box at Oxenhope but there may have been a remote token machine in the station building, allowing a driver to lock his train into a siding and clear the section for another train to enter. So the goods train could stay on scene while passenger trains arrive and depart if you wanted.) So, plenty of action and regular visits to Oxenhope by at least 3 different trains.

The "Cardi-Bach" branch line (Whitland to Cardigan) was quite steep and windy. (I mean windy, not windy...) Small prairies were the perfect fit for goods duties on this line. It was common to double-head the heavier goods trains with two small prairies and I'm sure I read somewhere that occasionally, to save a light engine movement, a third was added*! That would have been a sight! (* One day I'll track down where I read that but at the moment I can't back it up with a reference, unfortunately.)

Absolutely, and this is an area where DCC ought to help out, with clever motor control and stay alive circuits. You can, of course, do something similar in a computer without the need for a large flat surface and with more accurate alignment of parts than you could achieve with paper.

Thanks. Yes, that end is left open for exactly that reason.