Harlequin

Slightly off-topic, but did you use planning software to produce your proposed layout? If you did, which one was it, it looks very nice!

 

regards,

 

Tony

Thanks! I'm using a normal drawing program because I wanted to get cleaner output than the dedicated track planning programs - more like the track plans you see in the magazines.

More info and resources here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126780-layout-design-in-illustration-software/

The track plan looks very plausible, if a little limited operationally. The only thing that jars slightly is the turntable. Whilst not completely unknown, these were extremely rare on rural, single platform GWR branch termini. The only exceptions that I can think of are Fairford and Princetown (and in the latter case it was removed well before closure).

Cardigan, too - see trackplan here: http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/cardigan/ - although photos of the turntable are scarce.

Thanks. I think there were enough examples of turntables at terminus stations that survived well into the 20th century to justify the inclusion of one in a fictitious 1930s setting - if I concoct a reasonable back-story. (I'm thinking also of Newquay, Minehead and Kingswear but I realise these were bigger stations.)

But you have made me ask myself, "Why did I originally include a turntable and do I really need one?". I'll have to think about that!

You could use some of the space for more trackwork but think about the balance between railway and non-railway scenery. That's down to personal preference and what the layout is actually trying to be and do.

If you are going to model steam era then maybe a turntable might and engine shed might fit in the top left corner. Or in a later era Motive Power Depot. Or you could perhaps have carriage sidings or place the goods yard out there and use the space inside the loop for something else.

At one end of the operating well, it might be a good idea to have a small workbench area for modelling and maintenance.

The software I'm using is just a normal drawing program. See http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126780-layout-design-in-illustration-software/

For a layout that circumnavigates a room it makes sense for the major wiring bundles to start at one "pole" and travel equally in both directions, meeting at the opposite "pole". (Because it would be mad to have a device next to the starting "pole" who's power/control came all the way round the room...)

So the door shouldn't problem, really: The door is a natural place for one of the "poles".

However, you could fit a bit of plastic ducting around the architrave, up over the door and down again, if you did need to route wires past the doorway. White stuff with a clip on front so that you can adjust the wiring at any time.

Here's the first image of a design I've been working on for my first layout on returning to the hobby after many years.

It's a fictitious mid-1930s GWR branch line terminus (yes, I know - another one...)

Trackwork is all Peco Streamline and all points are large radius so that it can be constructed from Bullhead (correct 4mm scale) track.

The station design compresses together elements from various prototypes and I have an imagined history behind it, which I might expand upon.

The model will use some of Iain Rice's ideas (as you can no doubt see) and will be mounted at around eye level.

I have drawn point rodding runs, following KNP's recent advice to plan it in advance, but I have not yet attempted to work out the signalling.

I'd love to hear from you if you can see mistakes or opportunities for improvement but please bear in mind the constraints of space and the deliberate foreshortening of depth.

Here's a possible rough design:

Min radius 610mm (2ft)

Here's the dimensioned scale drawing in PDF form, including photo and low-res floor plan of the whole kitchen.

EdWint4.pdf

We established a long time ago that the Juliette balcony must not be obstructed with either permanent or removable sections. So I strongly suggest that the baseboards are cut diagonally to keep the Juliette clear as I've shown it. Any intrusion across the windows/doors would be awkward and ungainly. Maybe show the drawing to your family to see what they think.

And I don't think it's realistic to use any more of the kitchen space.

If anyone reading this has an idea of how to use that space to meeting Ed's requirements for a layout feel free to use this drawing to sketch out your creation.

Drawn to scale then I see this:

[Click to enlarge]

Some of the dimensions and positions are educated guesstimates. Does that look right?

Do you definitely not want to use the 500*915mm alcove on the right? And if not would that mean that the layout could not actually use the full 2200mm depth as shown?

"A picture speaks a thousand words" was never more apt!

That looks like a very usable space and now we can see the famous Juliette balcony window.

I notice also that there's a radiator on the long wall that will have to be taken into account and some boxing or some sort of structural column in the far corner.

Thanks Ed!

Sounds like a very good idea! The tiny speakers in locos are never going to reproduce sounds very well, no matter how clever the installations become.

So how about this:

Never mind placing a small speaker somewhere near the layout, place several large-ish speakers around that can reproduce both bass and treble properly.

Then get some software to steer the sounds around the speakers. It would need a map of the speaker positions, some knowledge of the physical arrangement of the layout and would use train detection and knowledge of train speed to gradually adjust the mixing between speaker channels.

Hmmm, could be expensive!

OK... I'm going to assume that the largest of the three rectangles is 3900*2200mm. Is that correct?

Are there walls on three sides?

Could you post some photos of the space, please?

It's difficult to visualise those dimensions, especially the "little bit that pokes out". Any chance of a rough sketch? It doesn't have to be to scale, as long as the dimensions are clearly marked.

I guess you need to brace it by fixing a couple of plywood "walls" either side of the track, if there's room, so that it's U shaped in section. The walls probably don't have to be very tall to perform the stiffening job and don't have to be equal height.

I can recommend Sketchup for it's intuitive simplicity.

It has all the hallmarks of a well-designed program with some clever people working on it. It is regularly updated with new features, supports some very powerful plugins and the non-commercial, "Make", version is free.

I suggest a machine with a bit of "grunt" because 3D models can contain a lot of information that has to be manipulated before it reaches the graphics card. E.g. when you are scaling something you want the program to respond quickly to your mouse movements, not give you an update once a second, as if you're wading through treacle.

So you need processing power whatever graphics card you have. I suggest at least a Intel "Core i5" but a "Core i7" would be much better - look for those names in the machine specs. (I am assuming that modern 3D software can make use of the multiple "cores" in those chips. Techy: More "cores" is generally better.)

If you get a desktop or tower machine (as opposed to a laptop) then you can change the graphics card later on when you've decided which software you'll use and what graphics capabilities it needs. (Note that some 3D software, especially older software, does the hard work entirely on the main computer board, not using the 3D capabilities of graphics cards at all!)

Get a 64-bit version of Windows so you can expand the memory to a decent amount later if you need to. This may be an issue if you ever have to use high-resolution photos of prototypes - they can eat a lot of memory!

And if you can afford it, get a "Solid State Disk" (look for the name "SSD" in the spec) because that helps programs work faster - especially Windows itself. (Techy: Sold State Disks do the same job as hard disc drives but they are totally electronic, with no moving parts, and so they can load and save info much faster - and Windows is loading and saving all the time in the background.)

Hi Ed,

Did you find out how long blue Pullman trains were? (Google and Wikipedia know all!)

Have you worked out whether building a layout in your proposed location is achievable? And if so have you managed to measure the space?

Hi,

There are a number of companies that specialise in buying up used model railway parts.

The most well-known is www.hattons.co.uk. They are a well-respected retailer but I don't know how they rate against other companies when it comes to buying from you.

Other buyers regularly advertise in magazines such as BRM and Railway Modeller, both of which you can find in big supermarkets and newsagents.

Here's a simple way to slice up a 1220*2440 (4ft*8ft) sheet so that each piece is then much easier to move and set up wherever you want:

There are lots of other good permutations, of course, and if you're making smaller connected boards like this you don't have to limit yourself to one 2440*1220 sheet - use as much material as you need to get the design you want.

"What makes a good model railway?"

Hmmm... I assume you mean a model railway that a large number of people consider to be "good", otherwise the answer is subjective to each individual.

In that context I think the answer is: A model that has a clear idea behind it and that successfully expresses that idea in a well-rounded way that delights the viewer at every level, from the broad landscape right down to the tiny details.

Hi Phil

 

Thanks for the comments, so I won't keep posting every change I make but I would like to be on the right track at least... taking what you said about 1 large board into consideration I have come up with the below. I'm not happy with the bottom set of sidings, I will try and make that area less busy. I doubt I will purchase all the track at once so that part will be a work in progress I think

 

New Layout.jpg

Yep, you are on the right track. I would suggest various improvements that you could make but first things first: Are you prepared to build baseboards around the perimeter of a room? That's quite a big step from a 4ft*8ft board. If so, that's great because you'll get a much better model! Then you need to measure the proposed room and the positions of doors, windows and other features because that info will play a huge part in the design of your layout.

As David said, the track plans books by C J Freezer are full of interesting designs (including 4ft*8ft boards!), they are inexpensive and are a great read if you're into track plans (like me).

Many of Freezer's plans manage to squeeze a very useful reversing loop into small spaces, like David's plan. That's a tricky design challenge because they take up a lot of space and tend to cut the space in half on smaller layouts.

I would go for something basically Set Track except the terminus station and the sidings which should be Peco Streamline to keep the width to a minimum . CJ Freezer did some brilliant ones but rather than plagiarise one of his I suggest  Terminus, Continuous Run and return loop which will need a bit of thought to wire up. 

Couple of hidden sidings.   See Pic . Just turn a blind eye to the train appearing from the back of the goods yard when using te reversing loop and it should give some some realistic operating potential and could be mad to look half decent.

Wouldn't access to the fiddle yard between the backscenes be a problem?

If using DCC then wiring up a reversing loop (Edit: using an "Auto-reverser") is almost trivial and should be a fit-and-forget solution, if done properly. (No need to stop trains while you manually switch polarity, like you usually need to with DC control.)

Hi Chris,

Are you intending this to be a trainset for playing or a more serious model layout? There's nothing wrong with a trainset - it just makes a difference to the feedback you will get about the design.

A single board like that is the obvious way to pack a layout onto the simplest baseboard but it would be very heavy, very delicate and virtually unmovable once constructed. And if you don't have an access hole somewhere in the centre then you need to have access from all four sides for modelling and dealing with running problems.

Probably better to break the baseboard into smaller (thinner) sections that are joined together either permanently or in a way that allows them to be disconnected and moved. Then you can reach across to the back of each board and that allows you to place them against the walls of a room to make better use of the space. (This is the ancient accepted wisdom of the hobby.)

The inner self-crossing loop looks artificial, even for a trainset!

The ratio of express running to branchline running looks unbalanced to me - a lot of branch line sidings but not much for the express traffic to do except run around.

There doesn't seem to be room on the outer loop for any station platforms - so no reason for an express train to ever stop! (Obviously, your train could just stop anywhere but it will feel unsatisfying without a real reason and a real destination.)

Trains headed up by steam locos that leave the branchline to run on the outer loop will eventually have to reverse back into the branch terminus. That's OK for very short trains but not for express traffic. (Unless you're happy to pick the loco up and turn it while it's on the outer loop... Or you could send out a pilot loco to fetch the train back into the branch, I suppose.)

Sorry Chris, I know that sounds like a lot of criticism but I'm just pointing out the things that occur to me. The important thing is to satisfy yourself, whatever anybody else says.

Edit: If you've got old locos and rolling stock there are two things to bear in mind:

1. Check that it will run on modern track properly. The wheel flanges on old models were quite coarse compared to modern standards. That shouldn't be a problem if you stick to Code 100 Streamline track.
2. If you're interested in DCC some old locos can be difficult to adapt because of the way their chassis were manufactured.

Harlequin, (Phil)

 

Which software package did you use for this design. Not seen an output like this before, nice and clear.

 

Dave

I'm using a normal drawing program for exactly that reason: To get cleaner, clearer output than the dedicated track planning apps (and closer to the sort of track plans you see published in the magazines).

There's more info here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126780-layout-design-in-illustration-software/

That's brilliant! Was struggling to get the industrial yard spur in before but that nails it! The short points make quite a difference to the length if the station too, seems to get a lot more in. The three way really helps and I even get to use a trap point. Seems to be a much more useable platform length too. It is certainly a vast improvement on my humble idea! I know there is a lot going on but I want to use this as a test bed to try out lots of new modelling on. I've been a bit 'plug and play' historically so this is a chance to build sheds, stations and scenery. It's also an opportunity to play with DCC. Thank you so much for your efforts with this!

Thanks!

The 3-way point is a great space saver.

It might be possible to insert another trap point where the runaround loop rejoins the running line but that would make the goods sidings a bit shorter and move the curve out to the diorama even deeper into the baseboard (unless the 3-way could be moved further right to compensate).

You could simplify a bit further by removing the engine shed kickback and just have the shed at the end of the topmost spur, behind the platform (at an interesting angle). That would make the station all splay out from the incoming lines in a pleasing way and give you a nice space for non-railway scenics in the top-right corner.

Edit: You might also consider setting the main axis diagonally or even curving it (tricky with off-the-shelf Streamline points) to make a more dynamic design.

How about this?

Here's your design drawn to scale using Peco Streamline templates:

(I rotated it 180 degrees so the viewing side is at the bottom. Is that correct?)

All points are medium radius. Not sure if the double slips are as you intended or whether they are needed. And I might not have got everything in the exact same positions but it's fairly close.

The red dashed line is R1, 371mm radius. If the runaround loop line was separated more from the platform line (as hinted on your drawing) then the slip and the junction with the line to the diorama would move left and might allow the R1 curve to fit on the baseboard.

But even then the R1 curve would not be perpendicular to the edge of the baseboard when it leaves. Maybe that's OK?

I'm sure there must be a better arrangement - but I can't see it yet.