rogerv

I think we can class this Christmas blockage as being completed on time. I still have the wiring to do, installation of all the point motors and copper clad track board joints for the lifting sections, but the track is now all cut to length and connected together and trains are running!!

 

 

image_2017_12_FY-3.jpg

The completed fiddle yard, with hinged section in the foreground

 

image_2017_12_FY-4.jpg

Double track approach with Programming track spur.

 

image_2017_12_FY-5.jpg

General view

 

image_2017_12_ML-4.jpg

New double main line track on the scenic side

 

image_2017_12_FY-6.jpg

Lots of stock space now

 

image_2017_12_FY-7.jpg

Plenty of finger space between each road, which I wanted.

 

 

During the build, I was rather surprised to find the Class 08 arriving at the station having just been sent though the fiddle yard by my eldest son, upon which I said, "how did you do that", to which he replied "I just did". He had found a route with connected track and just drove a train through!!. So I was very pleased to find at the end of the track build that even without any DCC wire droppers, all the track was live when the points are set in the right direction off the main scenic board.

 

Two of the priorities of the fiddle yard build was to try to use only scrap timber I had stored and to use up all the spare track left from the main 8x4 build. I managed both. The result is that the track plan looks a bit odd a I had lots of R2 curves but I manged to use them all up.

 

The final plan has 3 through roads and 4 sidings, two in each direction. The top two are separated by the timber beam and will mainly be used for DMUs as they are very difficult to get to do do any uncoupling. I also had one spare old settrack point which I have used to lead to a short spur, which will be a dedicated programming track/loco stabling point. The two longest roads allow for an eight coach train and loco to be stored.

 

layout final.jpg

The final track layout

 

There is quite bit of baseboard space left for placing "stuff" on when forming trains. the result is a much better space for playing trains.

 

Really pleased with the the result and it has transformed the play time, with one of us on the station side and other in the fiddle yard pit forming trains up. I even found an extension lead for on of the the handheld controllers which reaches the "pit".

 

My plan will be to have a traditional probe and contact control panel for the fiddle yard points in the pit but also Peco point levers on the main lever frame. Some form of LED indicators will be required to show the routes set.

 

Next, fix ther track properly....

"One of us on the station side and the other on the fiddle yard".  Haven't you forgotten someone?!  And in the meantime, after telling myself "no more tweaking" I believe I have finally frozen the track plan.  Next step - superimpose the terrain contouring, with a view to mocking up a 1:4 scale model to see if it really "looks right"!  BTW, really chuffed to see you made use of the Superquick engine shed ... 

Happy New Year!  Roger.

Hi Roger,

 

The name is Paul, thought I had signed it at least once, perhaps on the planning topic for the layout?

 

Anyway to you questions.

 

Yep all the loops, sidings, gradients etc in an 8x4.  Sounds cramped and when viewed from the air, you can see the "toy" like appearance.  But I have lots of different locations around the layout board, that when you get down at track level and really close, you get to watch trains running by like being stood on the boundary fence and the loopyness/tail-chasing nature of the layout disappears.

 

Key stats

• Min radius is 2nd radius which is the loop going down and under the flyover.
• The max is 4th which are the two outer loops going through the tunnels.  
• The station areas is at +40mm and the main baseboard in at zero
• The flyover is at +85mm with rail to rail being 75mm and 65mm clearance to bridge soffit
• Gradients are all 3%
• Points, all main line points are medium radius where as the sidings are mostly settrack

My boys love playing on it and to be honest we have not found it too limiting only being 8x4 and a bit of a tail chaser.  There are two separate loops, the outer (tunnels) and the flyover, so you can race two trains, which the boys love; especially when I have fiddled with the max speed CV settings, Tut Tut ;-)

 

Would I want to go smaller, no - bigger yes.  10x4 would have been nice with a longer station so that trains would not have to stop on the points.

 

Foxwood Park does have a younger (but bigger) brother http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/122082-brambleford-layout-dcc-concepts-powerbase/?p=2726752 which might be of interest.  This is a 10x4 layout.

Hello again Paul.

Please ignore my previous post, I now realise I was being rather lazy!

I have since downloaded your "final" JPEG, scaled it to a width of 24 cm (aka 2.4m), and printed it off.  The definition doesn't allow me to read the actual track section codes, though I can see they are a mixture of Hornby and Peco!

So, now I can start the plagiarisation.  I am going to stick with pencil and paper and my college drawing instruments( but I've left my slide rule in the loft).

I've also cleared an area on my living room floor (stripped pine boards) so I can prototype "segments" of the whole thing bit by bit.  Just waiting for my 4th radius curves and WS inclines to arrive ...

Meanwhile, my lovely children are taking me on a steam excursion from Euston to the S&C  as a birthday treat, so I'll be able to get a feel for the real thing ...

Regards.  Roger.

Scalelink have them on their website. 51mm centres from 22" up to 36". You have to buy a full circle of 12 pieces though.

 

If I ever built my super layout I would consider them as I don't really like flexitrack.

Thank you Dave (and Pat).  I am constrained to 4th radius 'cos I can't go above 4ft base depth.  I wonder how the Shinohara product compares with Peco Setrack 4th's ? 

Hi Roger,

 

The name is Paul, thought I had signed it at least once, perhaps on the planning topic for the layout?

 

Anyway to you questions.

 

Yep all the loops, sidings, gradients etc in an 8x4.  Sounds cramped and when viewed from the air, you can see the "toy" like appearance.  But I have lots of different locations around the layout board, that when you get down at track level and really close, you get to watch trains running by like being stood on the boundary fence and the loopyness/tail-chasing nature of the layout disappears.

 

Key stats

• Min radius is 2nd radius which is the loop going down and under the flyover.
• The max is 4th which are the two outer loops going through the tunnels.  
• The station areas is at +40mm and the main baseboard in at zero
• The flyover is at +85mm with rail to rail being 75mm and 65mm clearance to bridge soffit
• Gradients are all 3%
• Points, all main line points are medium radius where as the sidings are mostly settrack

My boys love playing on it and to be honest we have not found it too limiting only being 8x4 and a bit of a tail chaser.  There are two separate loops, the outer (tunnels) and the flyover, so you can race two trains, which the boys love; especially when I have fiddled with the max speed CV settings, Tut Tut ;-)

 

Would I want to go smaller, no - bigger yes.  10x4 would have been nice with a longer station so that trains would not have to stop on the points.

 

Foxwood Park does have a younger (but bigger) brother http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/122082-brambleford-layout-dcc-concepts-powerbase/?p=2726752 which might be of interest.  This is a 10x4 layout.

Thank you so much, Paul, for such a comprehensive and lucid response. 

After my previous post I found an earlier thread of yours which records the development from scratch.  It is uncanny how closely your thinking mirrored my own after about 4 weeks of musing and sketching on graph paper!  So now for the $64 question - is there any way you could send me a scaled track plan that doesn't require me to buy the layout software you used.  I would happily reimburse you for the time and effort involved ...

 I have just downloaded the Anyrail freeware, but the learning curve seems so steep for what will probably be my first and last "serious" layout.

Kind regards.  Roger.

P.S. Are you a rock climber or a bridge painter?! 

Paul -

Following my post on your current thread, I have just found this earlier thread, and followed the evolution of your design.

Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, I would really like to emulate your layout, the only difference being a "homage" to the S&C by changing the topography/scenics in the LMS era .

I have no experience of layout planning software (SCARM), is there any chance of sending me a "scale plan" as a starting point?  I would cheerfully reimburse you for any associated costs ...

Many thanks.  Roger.

Good afternoon sir (I haven't picked up your real name!) 

I've spent a great couple of hours skim-browsing your thread.  What a wonderful layout, and you seem to cover every aspect of RM ...

I am a "late returner" to RM (i.e. retired, kids left home) and I am designing an 8x4 for my (newly) spare bedroom.  Your design is so close to what I hope to achieve and I wonder if you can help me ...

You appear to have two tail-chasing loops AND an over and under branch (goods) line - all this on 8x4?

To come to the point though.  Please, what are your main curve radii (they look to be Setrack), and what gradients did you end up with on the inclines?  Did you do +40 and -40mm, which is what I am hoping for ...

I would really appreciate the lessons of your hard-earned experience.

Kind regards.  Roger.

OP - Original Poster.  It's not offensive.

Heehee.  I am NOT offended - I AM an old person!

Sorry, Dave, can't agree with this.  All railways, whatever era, lay track for the fastest possible running and the easiest gradients dictated by the geography and availability of land, and while the ideal way to do this is in a dead straight line, the 'line of least resistance is very often a gentle (and sometimes not so gentle) curve.  

 

There is a case for using setrack on a small layout with curves tighter than 24" radius due to the difficulty of laying Streamline to radii tighter than that and holding it to an accurate radius without losing the gauge, and that suggests straight sections between the curves if you want to keep the geometry simple.  Streamline is not hard to lay in long straights, you just line it up against a straight edge or draw a straight line to lay it to, but setrack straights are just as good!  But a gentle, flowing, curve between areas of pointwork or the sharper curves at the ends of the layout is prototypical for any era.

 

The dog's hind end look should be restricted to sidings and is better achieved by weathering and painting than using secondhand track unless you are 'scale' enough to consider fully compensated chassis.

 

My view is that I would not recommend using second hand track for any purpose to a beginner, as it is likely to be warped and twisted all over the place after lifting, and second hand pointwork is just asking for trouble.  Unreliable running is probably the thing most likely to sap a newbie's confidence and enthusiasm, and depends on trackwork smoothly laid and joined on level boards.  Our OP wants inclines and viaducts, an homage to the S & C, and needs to understand that the incline top and bottom must be a transition curve in a vertical plane, and if he using setrack, kept well away from curves or pointwork!

 Thank you David.  Is an "OP" an "Old Person" ?!  Regarding inclines I have assumed I would use the Woodland Scenics products (lumps of polystyrene?) that would incorporate the necessary vertical transitions.  But you have put me on alert when you advise not to combine inclines with Setrack curves.  Why not?  I could shim the polystyrene blocks to provide superelevation if that is the problem ...  If my arithmetic is correct no grade would be more severe than 1:64 ...

Sorry, Dave, can't agree with this.  All railways, whatever era, lay track for the fastest possible running and the easiest gradients dictated by the geography and availability of land, and while the ideal way to do this is in a dead straight line, the 'line of least resistance is very often a gentle (and sometimes not so gentle) curve.  

 

There is a case for using setrack on a small layout with curves tighter than 24" radius due to the difficulty of laying Streamline to radii tighter than that and holding it to an accurate radius without losing the gauge, and that suggests straight sections between the curves if you want to keep the geometry simple.  Streamline is not hard to lay in long straights, you just line it up against a straight edge or draw a straight line to lay it to, but setrack straights are just as good!  But a gentle, flowing, curve between areas of pointwork or the sharper curves at the ends of the layout is prototypical for any era.

 

The dog's hind end look should be restricted to sidings and is better achieved by weathering and painting than using secondhand track unless you are 'scale' enough to consider fully compensated chassis.

 

My view is that I would not recommend using second hand track for any purpose to a beginner, as it is likely to be warped and twisted all over the place after lifting, and second hand pointwork is just asking for trouble.  Unreliable running is probably the thing most likely to sap a newbie's confidence and enthusiasm, and depends on trackwork smoothly laid and joined on level boards.  Our OP wants inclines and viaducts, an homage to the S & C, and needs to understand that the incline top and bottom must be a transition curve in a vertical plane, and if he using setrack, kept well away from curves or pointwork!

Thank you David.  Just wondering what an OP is - "old person" ?!  I have been assuming I would use the Woodland Scenics incline sets

Thank you so much - crystal clear!  Watch this space for my next silly question once I've firmed up all the track layout.  Will probably relate to incline gradients, tunnel mouths, and viaducts!

BTW, the inspiration for my design is the Settle to Carlisle (where else?), because I love all the civil engineering..

I believe you may be over-thinking this.  Have a look at this diagram, which shows turnouts formed from Streamline small radius points on each side of a half oval formed of Setrack curves:

 

 

The separation on the straights is 52mm, which is what you get with crossovers formed from Streamline points.  The separation at the midpoint of the curve is 67mm, since that's what you get with Setrack curves starting with the rail ends level.  All that the mixed geometry results in is a 2 x (67-52) = 30mm gap at the midpoint of the inner curve, which you can fill with a cut down length of Setrack straight - no need for any flexi.  The curves may look a bit odd going from 52mm to 67mm track separation (though I'd suggest that it's not all that noticeable) but you've said that they'll be hidden anyway, so who cares?

 

You need to be a bit careful to avoid problems with stock clearances as the track separation reduces.  If you go for 3rd and 4th radius instead of 2nd and 3rd as I've drawn it then the risk would be lower.  That said, on my previous layout using 2nd and 3rd radius wasn't a problem:

 

 

You can build more complicated configurations so long as you remember the angles used in the Streamline and Setrack geometries (primarily 12º, and 22.5º/45º), and you can do a bit of trigonometry.  Sines and cosines are all you need - I use a small Excel spreadsheet that I can plug track endpoint co-ordinates in to, and it tells me the length of straight track needed to fill the gap.  This is as an adjunct to AnyRail as my track planning tool.  Other programmes are available but I find AnyRail by far the easiest to use for this kind of layout design.  The functionality of each the others I've tried seems to be much more oriented towards the use of flexible track, which IMO just gets in the way when you actually want to stick to using modular track.  AnyRail can do flexible track (that's what the cut-down Setrack straights actually are in the diagram above) but other design tools are probably better if you're going for Streamline throughout.

 

By the way, I also use Setrack curves cut down to a 12º angle to form parallel sidings and the like in combination with Streamline points, although I try to avoid it other than for fans of sidings - where arguably flexi laid "by eye" can usually do the job just as well anyway.  You can use the Setrack ST238 "special curve" (intended to be used with the Setrack Y point) which is actually larger radius than the Streamline small radius points, but as the curve is only 11.25º you have to use two of them, eg both cut down to 6º, which is a bit of a bodge (though that doesn't mean that I don't do it if the need arises  ).

 

Remember to use code 100 Streamline points, so that they match the profile of the Setrack rail.  Unless you absolutely need electrofrog diamonds or slips, in which case you need either the SL-113 code 75 to code 100 converter track (which is the same length as the Setrack ST203 straight - "the totty wee one" as the lady in my local model shop calls it), or the SL-112 combined rail joiners.  I don't have any personal experience of either of those products so I can't say anything more than that they exist, I'm afraid.

 

There are quite a few other threads on RMWeb where combining Setrack and Streamline is discussed, eg here, here and here.

Thank you so much - crystal clear!  Watch this space for my next silly question once I've firmed up all the track layout.  Will probably relate to incline gradients, tunnel mouths, and viaducts!

I am designing a (8' x 4') layout from scratch after an absence from RM of 40 years !

I intend to use Setrack curves and straights for continuous running lines, with Streamline short turnouts for sidings and passing loops (all curves will be hidden, straights chopped down where necessary to account for Streamline points).

I think I am left with just one question ...​

I believe the track separations on the hidden curves will all be 67mm as a given of the fixed geometry, but I want to reduce this to 50mm for the straight running lines.  Is there any way I can achieve this other than by using flexi to make the transitions?