Harlequin

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.

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?