Harlequin

Has anyone got a video of one of these things blowing it's top? I looked on YouTube but didn't find anything. I wonder if someone would like to video one doing it's thing on a 15VAC power supply in the interests of scientific enquiry and public interest? (While taking the appropriate health and safety precautions, obviously.)

Hi Gary, An interesting question arises from your post, which might get to the heart of your problem: Why does the bigger scale alone hold your interest? Imagine the exact same subject modelled in O and OO. Why would the OO one fail for you? If there's a clear answer to that then maybe the decision of which way to go will be easier. It might be that your OO work wasn't focused and that simply narrowing down what you want to do, like you'd have to with an O gauge layout, would equally help get the OO going again. Regarding baseboards: You could buy laser-cut kits to save the time and trouble of making your own. They would be neatly modular, lightweight, accurate and could be made to bolt back to back fairly easily. You'd have to investigate legs.

Unfortunately the scale of the trackplan for Child Okeford is wrong. The text says it's 4.8m by 3m but the drawing quotes 5ft by 3ft with 1ft grid squares. Looks like a metric / imperial mixup...?

Hi again, One other thought that I should have remembered because it's come up before in this context is to simply buy a length of Code 75 track and test your stock on it (by pushing it along).

Hi Adwoot, Hornby and Peco Settrack can be connected and have the same basic geometry, both can be connected to Code 100 Streamline. For the size of layout you are thinking about, you have the opportunity to create nice sweeping trackwork - so it might be better to avoid the tight radii and sharp angles of the modular Settrack systems (either Peco or Hornby). Peco's Streamline turnouts and crossings are "modular" in the sense they have well defined geometries and can be joined to make useful formations. You would typically use flexitrack with Streamline parts and that's very easy to get to grips with even though its not "modular". Peco make both Code 100 and Code 75 flexitrack with concrete sleepers but the range of turnouts with concrete sleepers is very limited. Only Medium left and right Code 75 turnouts. That is probably good enough to allow you create the majority of modern rationalised mainline track formations, though, with wooden sleepers used in older sidings and branch lines. (Note that Peco don't make any Settrack parts with concrete sleepers - another vote against it.) Electrofrog turnouts and crossings simply give locos more rail surface where they can pick up power so that as locos drive slowly across them they are less likely to stall. (Peco don't make any electrofrog Settrack parts - yet another vote against it.) You have to use insulating rail joiners strategically with Electrofrog turnouts, but that's all easy to get to grips with. I won't go into the question of modifying Electrofrog turnouts before you install them. Lots of people do this (for both DC and DCC) and there are very good reasons to do it but you don't have to. That's a decision for later. Code 100 rails are bigger (taller) than Code 75 and are out of scale. Code 100 stands out like a sore thumb to my eye and I would try to avoid it. It's usually easy to fit new (metal) wheels with finer flanges that will run on Code 75 track to non-powered rolling stock. It's more difficult to change wheels on locos (but not impossible). There are other reasons why older locos might need to be replaced: Split chassis locos are more difficult to adapt to DCC, the cast alloy ("Mazak") is known to break down in some models, plastic gears split, plastic bearings split, some old motors don't work well with DCC decoders because of the way that decoders supply power to them. And of course, modern models are a huge step ahead in the quality of details and liveries. So sticking with Code 100 to run old stock might not be the right decision in the long run (and if you really want concrete sleepered turnouts you have to use Code 75 anyway). You can just plug a DCC controller into a traditionally wired DC layout and it will work. You would usually turn all the section switches on because you would no longer be relying on them to decide which loco moves - that will now be done by the DCC controller. So your control panel becomes mostly redundant. To make it possible to remove the control panel when you change to DCC you need to make sure that every piece of track has it's own power feed ("dropper wires"), i.e. it doesn't get it's power only through a set of points. Then when you change to DCC you can just connect all the power feeds to a simpler control panel that just contains a few switches that power up whole areas of the layout to help with fault finding. It's a good idea to give each length of rail it's own power feed and not rely on fishplates alone to feed power from one rail to the next. Again, you don't have to do that and you can rely on fishplates if you want to, with just a few power feeds in strategic places. If you do that it's still possible to add more power feeds ("droppers") later on if you find you need them. If you do give each rail it's own power connection there are a lot of wires under the baseboards and to avoid bringing them all back to your control panel (either DC or DCC) it's a good idea to connect all the droppers in the same switched section together locally, then just bring one pair of wires back to the control area. When the switched sections cover large areas of the layout for DCC the best method of connecting all the power feed droppers together is by running a bigger cable (a "bus" cable) under the area and connecting the droppers to it wherever they are closest. While you are wiring up for DC you could lay the bus cable even though many of the droppers will have to be wired back to the control panel at that stage. (You can see that in some ways it's simpler to just go DCC from the start!) As other have said you can use traditional point motors while your trains are DCC controlled. No problem. Finally, remembering that this is a layout design forum, would you like to share your current design ideas for your layout?

As almost everyone says, L is really the only sensible way to go. It is a relatively small area but you might be able to do something with a small terminus in each arm and a hidden fiddle yard behind one of them in the form of one or two cassette connection points.

Hi Jon, The basic arrangement is good. You only need one fiddle yard to serve both ends and you can just let trains circulate when you want to. What overall size would it be? About 8ft by 3ft? Note that only one quarter of the track (approx) is scenic and that feels unbalanced. It's a shame not to have the entire front half being scenic. I would argue it's better to build something for now using all the front boards and the track rather than limit yourself because of the modularity idea, which might never happen. You could still make the front corner boards separate but use them scenically now and work out how you might move or replace them when (if) the time comes. The huge advantage of using all of the front boards scenically, of course, is that you've got more room for the station. E.g. maybe extend the platform to the left and move the VCT to the right. The curves would have to be eased and/or disguised where they are visible but that's probably do-able. And the same arguments apply to the corner boards at the back, actually: if they are just hold radial curves then they are not really "paying their way" when they could be used to increase the FY storage capacity. One other thing: baseboard joins are a bit of a pain generally. The fewer the better.

Edit: I don't need to type my replies to this thread - I just telepathically transmit to Joseph and wait... ;-) If we knew the restrictions you are working with, Keith, we might be able to suggest solutions you haven't thought of. And remember the cliché that less is more - you can get interesting operations from a simple trackplan while giving the scenery room to breathe. But this is all really a subject for a different thread - not signalling.

Zimo every time and Youchoos are a great supplier, although unfortunately they are out of stock of MX600R at the moment: https://www.youchoos.co.uk/Index-Shop.php?L1=StdDecos P.S. I'm a programmer as well and I also plumped for the Pi-Sprog which is a great bit of kit. Shame about the techy software though!

Sorry to disappoint you Jon, but did you spot the word "imaginary" in my first post...? I'm afraid I don't have to room, the time or the money to build this myself but it's fun to dream! If a club was interested in doing something with this design I'd be overjoyed and give them all the help I could!

From Longworth: Four C16s made it into BR ownership. Lot 940 W3165 previously 7604 and previously again 604 W3167 previously 7606 and previously again 606 W3170 previously 7609 and previously again 609 Lot 867 W3713 previously 6950

Yes, absolutely agree that it would be great to see some of these produced RTR, they would really fill a gap. I think manufacturers should be able to handle a good number of variations with modern tooling. (They don't have to do them all!) Here is a link to the Model Rail Poll if you want to make your opinion known: https://www.model-rail.co.uk/gwr-toplight-pyc

Recently @jonhinds showed us a plan based on Oxenhope station on the preserved KWVR. Unfortunately it wasn't quite right for Jon in the end but historical Oxenhope had a lot of elements that piqued my interest: The curving cut into the hillside and the trees above it that form a natural amphitheatre, with lower ground in front. Perfect for a display layout. The presence of water nearby in two forms - a natural Beck and the man-made system of mill pond, sluices, mill race and weir. The old stone mill building, which the station seems to have been wrapped around. The combination of a dead-straight private siding for the mill and the organic curves of the platform and the station's own sidings threading their way through the site. The little details like the many bridges over the Beck, the complex level changes, the watercourses that flow under the station in culverts and the old footpath that descends the cutting and crosses both the railway and the beck. So I wondered what an imaginary model of Oxenhope, could look like if you had lots of time, money, space, people, endurance, etc, etc... To represent Oxenhope as a finescale model I decided not to compress the trackplan so that all the features are in their correct positions and views of the model should closely match the real thing. (Even though the station is quite compact that still results in a large model!) To make a great exhibition display I aligned the station plan on a set of angled baseboards with a continuous curving panoramic backscene behind. There are then some slight changes to the position of real world features around the edges to help frame the scene. I included a good distance of the main running line to give a flavour of the line in the countryside and to capture the opposite curve to the platform, which conveniently helps align the track's exit into the fiddle yard. The baseboards break down into manageable units. Maximum width 735mm (~2ft 5in) and the longest is 1690mm (~5ft 6in). Most of them are simple parallel-edged boxes with angled ends, although some are more complex. There are two distinct groups: The working railway boards along the back and a set of purely scenic boards wrapped around the front. The joints avoid complex trackwork and many fall nicely to be naturally disguised by scenery but some scenic elements might be built on separate "jigsaw pieces" to further help with that. The railway could be run without the scenic boards being attached. The corners are rounded on the public facing side to avoid painful collisions for public and operators. Some elements are a bit sketchy but I think you can see the idea. I'll add a few more notes as I think of them below, including something about operations. Thanks again to Jon for letting me pick up on his original idea of modelling Oxenhope.

If that foot allowed you to model the faces of the buildings on the other side of station road it would be well worth it. That would help put the station in the townscape and frame the end of the layout. Edit: Sorry, I see I'm repeating myself, somewhat. I still love that crazy station building, BTW! It’s worth building for that alone!

I had compression and increasing siding lengths in mind when I suggested the 3-way.

Two weeks off starting today! (I work at home so the current unpleasantness hasn’t changed my working life at all.) Maybe I can get something creative done if the chores, the lack of materials, the garden, the cats and other unforeseen events don’t get in the way. I tidied up the workshop yesterday, a task which never seems to justify my precious time normally. I will assess my timber stocks today, but first... One of the unforeseen tasks: retrieve dead rodent from behind bookcase. Thanks, Cat Number 2!

Hi Peter, That looks pretty good to me but get The Stationmaster to sign it off. I guess engineering trains using the yard would be loco hauled so the need to run round makes sense but just to note that if your operations didn't need to run round or if there was an alternative way to run round, you would only need one crossover. You could combine the left hand crossover with the turnout to the bay by using a 3-way turnout. Not sure if that helps or hinders, just pointing it out. (Then you would need to stack the relevant discs.) BTW: Your signal icons are disconcertingly wrong-sided (arms should be to left of post) and see Flying Pig’s more conventional orientation of the icons as if they are facing the driver. Not a big deal, your drawing is understandable regardless. I’m curious about the rest of the layout design: Are there curves outside the area we can see that complete a roundyround plan?

Hi Gary, Use a multimeter or a continuity tester to find out what rails are connected to what dropper and work it out from there. That way you’ll know for sure what you’re dealing with.

"Awkward" is a nebulous designer's term but in this case it means: Halfway between the fiddle yard and the platforms, your stock will be running at the highest speed you can achieve on your layout and right at that point it encounters the smallest radius turn in the throat.

Thanks... The routes in to three of the platforms have to turn though a slip on first entry to the scene, which is a bit awkward, and the inbound and outbound lines don't remain parallel - they split apart and then start to converge, which also seems awkward to me. Are the radii of the two elbow turns between the slips OK?

Just so you're aware: The Pacific Terminus throat uses large radius turnouts and large Ys to reduce the effects of the reverse curves that are inherent in any true Minories formation. Inserting a Streamline slip will make some of the routes through it much more abrupt. Can you post an image?

Removale/lifitng section: What most people do is fix the rails to the lifting board and simply cut them at the joint. Make sure that the tracks are aligned when the board is replaced (there are various ways of doing this) and supply the tracks with power using flexible leads. If the other half of the loft is currently for storage, and you have to move through the layout area to get to the storage and the loft ladder is consuming floor space in the layout area, then there is a clear answer to all this. Swap the layout space with the storage space. Now the layout space has a clear floor area, only needs one lifting section (or "duck-under") to get into the operating well and when you're playing trains other people can get to the storage area unhindered.

The problem with 42in radius is that it gives very little room for manoeuvre within the OP's stated space (inner blue dotted lines). But 36in radius allows the tracks to be moved away from the edges of the baseboards (inner red dotted lines). If transition curves are used in the scenic area, as sketched above, then the relatively tight 36in constant radius curves could be hidden/disguised.

I would worry about the generation of "micro-plastics" when cutting the polystyrene. I might still go ahead but I would worry. I would also worry about the bond between the ply and the foam breaking down over time. Edit: To clarify about micro-plastics: The worry would be about where the particles end up in the environment as well as breathing them in during cutting.

Thanks. He's written so many I wanted to know I was looking at the right one! (Ooph! That's a bit steep!)