Harlequin

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.

Even though I'm a GWR man through and through I convinced myself that I really ought to have a Flying Scotsman. A distant family connection, a special offer from Locomotion and the feeling that every modeller should really have one at some time were enough for me. Now I find myself coveting the Hornby Stannier Duchess! And I don't even have a layout yet, just some track on a table! Argh!

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.

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. 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: 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. If you're interested in DCC some old locos can be difficult to adapt because of the way their chassis were manufactured.

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/

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.

The definition of the addressing bytes in the "extended packet formats" section of the DCC standard allows for around 10,000 addresses and it's important to note that some combinations of bits in the two address bytes are "reserved for future use". So, the number of address bytes could be increased in future within the DCC standard. I.e. the number of digits within a loco address number could be increased to 5 or more digits without breaking the standard. Having said that, I agree with Ron: Decoder addresses are really a technical part of the standard, not designed for human readability or to be mapped to any prototype numbering system, and in setups with many decoders it's best to use a controller that can map human recognisable addresses down onto the raw DCC addresses. For example, your controller should show you "4472 Flying Scotsman" rather than just "4472" so that you can avoid possible confusion with the roster of class 44's you might be running... ;-)

The curve entering the station from the top seems to be about 1ft radius - probably too tight if this is 4mm scale.

Shame. You had a really unique and memorable idea there.

This thread was a chat about how to fit the OP's requirements into a very small baseboard. No problems that I was aware of with the content and an interesting design might have evolved so it would be good to re-instate it, if that's possible.

The book I am currently reading (slowly due to Christmas and being away from home), "An approach to model railway layout design - Finescale in small spaces" by Iain Rice, seems to have much advice that directly addresses your situation. I think you might find it very useful.

Fear not, similar problems exist in the open source software world and they have been largely addressed: The set of people changing the model would be self-selecting as those people who are interested and have the skills to manipulate the 3D Model. They would overwhelmingly tend to be people trying to do good, positive things. Changes submitted would be held separately and only pulled into the the main model after they have been peer-reviewed and assessed by the community. The CAD people making the changes to the 3D model don't also need to be experts on the prototype. They can work closely with the non-CAD prototype experts in the community. So long as the prototype experts can see the changes being made very quickly (i.e. have a 3D Viewer to study the model as soon as it has been changed) they can give immediate feedback and the design process could proceed much quicker than using a public forum to communicate with a small commercial design team who release static images of their models once every few months. Commercial entities would make money from the "open source" community-developed CAD model by "packaging" it. I.e. by manufacturing, preparing, advertising and distributing their version of it. Sure, anyone could use the open-source model as the basis for a product but only the big commercial entities would be able to do that to a highly-professional, injection-moulded RTR standard and that's where their market share would come from. That still leaves room for those who want to print their own rough versions at home for whatever reasons and the middle-ground of fine scale modellers who might use the model as the basis for much more detailed and specific work, perhaps buying high-res prints from a specialist small-run manufacturer.

I had a lot of fun researching and just drawing up the Caterham/Attic track plans in 4mm so don't worry if you choose to follow a different path. I think Caterham c.1900 (pre line doubling) in any scale would make a great model because of the wonderful architecture, the slightly different Victorian take on the station layout and the wealth of information that's out there. And of course, because you live nearby. But does it meet your original requirements for operational interest??? And does it meet the other requirements, which maybe you are not so clear on yet? Iain Rice suggests a process where, to summarise him brutally; you write down the things you want the layout to do, be, achieve and look like in priority order. At the same time write a list of the practical considerations (including location and being realistic about what you can achieve). Then think through the two lists, re-order, filter out the things that wouldn't work together or are unrealistic and distil them down to describe the essential concept of the layout. (Sorry if that all sounds old hat and a bit obvious - it just reflects my recent reading...)

This is slightly off-topic, but: Instead of people trying to describe changes textually in these forums, why is it not possible for the community to create, or at least contribute to, the CAD models for projects directly? I imagine this could be done in a similar way that open source software is developed (although that's maybe not the best model because it can get divisive and thorny). There are many good 3D CAD packages freely available, many of us on this forum with the skills to drive them and many others (clearly!) with the required in depth knowledge of the prototypes. Obviously some central coordination and decision making would be needed, and the limitations of the manufacturing process would have to be explained to those involved but it would hugely multiply the time and attention to detail that could be applied to a CAD model, with little extra cost to the manufacturer. Thinks: It would need revision control of the CAD models and branching and merging of changes - which someone must have already done...