mdvle
-
Posts
4,765 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by mdvle
-
-
For anyone interested I put the track parts list into an online retailer, and the track cost for the layout is £3103.50
-
I note with interest the comment along the lines of "more Marylebone, less Victoria": when I was contemplating a layout in the attic, I had designed an entirely different plan, but incorporating some of the elements here (long platforms - there only long enough for 10 carriages, Underground lines serving separate platforms at the non-terminus end of the station and then a separate further Underground station beyond a scenic break, the additional distance being simulated by the trains automatically pausing in the intermediate tunnel for the amount of time that it would take to traverse the several kilometres to the next station, and an engine shed and carriage sidings) which I had called "Maryington" as it was inspired by a sort of cross between Paddington and Marylebone. That had 9 platforms plus the two suburban platforms, and was still very intensively covered with track, although I later realised that some of the curves on that plan were of the same radius as first radius curves and would have been too tight for much of what I wanted to use there in any event. One possible difficulty with a Marylebeone inspired layout is a relative lack of ready to run stock used on the Great Central - from what I found out when I looked into the matter, the LNER largely continued to use old GCR locomotives and carriages on the line. In particular, there is a lack of suitable suburban passenger engines and carriages.
While I can't speak for those who suggested that, I think what they were more suggesting was doing a fictitious terminal station that would allow you to have fewer tracks/platforms rather than giving up the GWR.
Trying to recreate Paddington / Waterloo / etc., whether accurate or just in a resemblance, while an attractive idea quickly adds up in cost and complexity.
Having said that, if you really want to do it go ahead. Just be aware going in that it will be a significant time/money commitment (without considering the cost of making it computer controlled).
There certainly are some examples of large® stations on RMweb to look at, but also look at the start dates on these layouts and read through them (and ask questions if you want) to see how much work they are putting in each week/month/year and compare that to your situation to see if you have the resources.
Regardless of what your ultimate layout currently is, starting small to gain experience would still be advisable.
As to using all of the space, the reason that I did this was because space, especially linear space, is notoriously the most significant constraint in railway modelling. Thus, a layout that can take full advantage of the available space is one that will be less constrained than one that cannot. We all have our own preferences as to what compromises to make, of course, but I find unrealistically short trains and tight corners in visible parts of the layout to be particularly unsatisfying, which is why I designed the plan attached to my first post to have the corners mostly behind the scenic break, and to have long platforms and carriage sidings.
The comments weren't about the length of your layout. As you say, linear space is an issue. Rather, we were commenting on the fact that your trackwork totally covers your layout. While this was quite common previously, it has fallen out of favour with many of us deciding a "less is more" approach works better. Certainly modelling a city area does mean more trackwork than a small country branch, but sometimes compromises on what you model can lead to a more satisfying layout.
In terms of simplifying/redesigning, it would help me to know a little more about some of the constraints within which I ought to work in order to achieve something workable. The maximum width beyond which it is difficult to reach items is useful to know (900mm was suggested; I am fairly tall (6ft 1) and thus have fairly long arms, so might 1m be workable). Several have mentioned the time taken to lay track; can anyone estimate how much track can be laid in a given amount of time? In terms of wiring, is there a maximum density of some sort which can sensibly be expressed numerically that it is preferable to observe to avoid unworkable wiring?
To a large extent only you know the constraints. For many of us budget is a constraint, for a fortunate few budget is something to not worry about.
You certainly shouldn't be telling us what your budget is, but just consider this. I quickly did a count of points on your plan and got 82. A quick check online reveals a price of between £10 and £12.50 depending on brand/rail. So just in points you are looking at spending between £820 to £1025 (and that is assuming you don't want to be more accurate and go for the bullhead points, which at £37 will increase the price substantially even though you wouldn't need to use them on hidden or storage tracks).
I didn't bother counting the crossings/slips, but depending on their numbers it can also be a substantial cost.
Now, if you are fine spending that on part of your trackwork, that's okay. But for many of us we would rather spend that money on more locos or rolling stock.
The issue with reach is not so much what you with long arms can do, but what can you do without risking damaging either your layout or rolling stock. Reaching in a long distance risks you brushing up against scenery, buildings, signals, or a passing train with your body while you try to extend the reach of your arm. This is influenced to a large extent by the height you have your layout, but many people prefer to have the layouts reasonably high.
In one sense, I am rather tempted to buy a small train set with DCC (and the higher quality stock), set it up on my floor and see how that works out (and test various DCC control options), but I will need to know that I will not be buying stock that I will ultimately not be using, which, in turn, involves planning what I actually will be using. That also has the difficulty that I suspect that one cannot set up point motors without fixing track to baseboards (or else the motor might move instead of the point blades), so testing the wiring and control of these things might have to await a shed in any event.
Consider that the advice to try a smaller layout first doesn't have to be expensive.
A short section of baseboard, a small amount of track, one or two points, and you run/test the equipment you buy or build, learn about track laying, mounting point motors, wiring, scenery (ballast ...). But also try other aspects of the hobby, you may find that you really like building kits, or scratchbuilding (both perhaps relevant to your desire to go Edwardian), and thus you want to build a simpler layout so you can devote more time/money to the making of stock. Or maybe you decide you really like doing scenery or building structures.
There are lots of small layouts for inspiration, for example maybe check out the Cameo competition.
-
If I am going to have a shed built for a model railway, I cannot sensibly have a small shed and then later upgrade to a larger shed without wasting a huge amount of expense, so, so far as the building is concerned, the only option is to start with as a large a shed as I may desire in the long-term that can sensibly fit into my garden. The 7.7 x 2.9 (internal 7.5 x 2.5) shed appears to be correct for that.
No one is saying not to build the shed you have planned. But, and this is important, just because you have the space doesn't mean you need to immediately (or even ever) fill it with track.
If I have a shed of that size, it then seems to make sense to have a model railway that takes full advantage of that size, which is what I have tried to do here. It would be silly, after all, to have a 7.5m x 2.5m space and build a small branch line terminus in N gauge in it.
Why? Why do you feel you have to "fill the space" (I ask because it will help others understand where you are coming from, and also to maybe have you think through why you believe this).
Aside from the layout itself, you will (if the layout is successful) being spending a significant amount of time in this shed and thus making it a welcoming environment can also be a key design decision. Maybe allow for somewhere to sit comfortably with a work area to work on models, etc.
Then there is the question of what things interest me - I am very keen on modelling something that includes (but is not limited to) the London Underground, which practically rules out N gauge (which I did spend some time considering, especially when I was thinking of building in the more limited space in the attic). I also prefer the operational intricacies of a terminus station to a layout in which most trains just enter and leave again (with or without stopping at an intermediate station). This also has the advantage of allowing more to fit into a space (by not needing two sets of turns/fiddle yards or alternatively a doughnut shaped layout which requires a hatch or duck-under to access).
If you haven't already done so I would suggest reading through this post on Minories http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131100-is-minories-operationally-satisfying/ and look at the video linked in that posting that demonstrate a lot can be done with a smaller terminus station (of which London certainly has some in the 6 track range).
I can see the advantages in many ways of starting with something fairly straightforward that can be got up and running in a relatively short time. A real difficulty is how this short-term aim might be reconciled with the longer-term aim of having a layout that conforms to the elements of interest that I outline above. After all, it ultimately takes considerably more time and expense to build two layouts than it takes to build one layout. The idea of a layout that can provide for future expansion is interesting - but I am not sure how that might be achieved in this instance.
I would argue it would be cheaper, certainly in cost, if not also time, to go the 2 layout route.
While I haven't yet built a layout, from reading about others doing it one is apparent is that there is lots of experimentation, and certainly lots of mistakes, made in the process of building a layout.
My goal, when I have the space, is to make a small layout to learn with and make mistakes with. Thus when the large layout gets done (and to honest if it gets done) I will have experience that will hopefully help minimize any expensive mistakes. It will give me a space to run trains, test my purchases, while allowing me to go slower on the main layout because the urge to get something running can be tempered with playing with the smaller layout.
Also note there is nothing to say you have to get rid of a smaller layout when you move to your dream layout, you can always store it under the layout or in the corner of a garage.
-
1
-
-
If 75% of cars end up being electric so what if the rest aren't? (number plucked from thin air for illustrative purposes only)
But then you end up with the reverse of what electric cars are facing today - when the market reduces for diesel/petrol then you see a matching reduction in places to purchase the diesel/petrol, thus leading electric to be more favourable, thus leading to fewer non-electric cars, etc.
The bigger issue is whether the making of all those batteries - energy required directly and in the mining, refining, and transport of the raw materials, recycling when the battery reaches its lifetime, etc. - is really going to be better for the environment.
-
Mike - I think Jeff (note his location) was commenting on the new Code 70 track. And he's right, there had been loadsa teasing stuff about bullhead OO, before points and now other items were announced. But now we have a big single announcement of a whole range of Code 70 all in one breath.
Also an existing market - Microengineering already do code 70 turnouts and flex.
-
Peco Code 70 US standard gauge?....
See http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131237-peco-code-70-ho-track/?p=3045528
-
When I was in the US a couple of weeks ago, I rode the Brightline and Tri-rail services around Fort Lauderdale.
I've not been able to track down any of the Siemens built locos and coaches of Brightline yet - as the service only started last month,
The Siemens coaches, if they come out, will be at least 2 or 3 years - any manufacturer will want to wait to see what changes Siemens makes for the California / Illinois / other state order.
Charger may come sooner.
But, big but, they may be ignored if the market is deemed too small, and further to that the tooling costs may mean the Brightline versions of coaches / Charger don't get done.
-
-
Our mate Duckie can wait for the Bachmann 117, from my understanding of the press release, if I can remember that far back, they are going to do a 116 and 118 as well but the London commuter sets are first but that won't stop every ex G*R branch line having one.
Per http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/129822-Bachmann-announcements-2018-full-list/ the Bachmann 117 is in the tooling room.
Don't think Bachmann have said anything about Classes 116 / 118 - they were to be part of the Kernow / DJM product which got cancelled when Kernow learned Bachmann were planning on a Class 117 / 121.
-
I've put my own thoughts beside the ITV report. Of course no-one has to agree with me, and I'd be interested to hear other opinions. I will attempt to read the report in full later, having only briefly glanced over it earlier.
(Definition of immediately? How could they have let the RAIB know until after they'd been able to stop, remove the coach and examine it to check the Mother wasn't fibbing!)
You really should read it - first part of the report, the summary (p7) - SDR took 3 days to notify RAIB.
Page 16 - section 23 - it appears RAIB was only informed because the mother, unhappy with response, contacted the railway for a follow-up which reached a different employee.
-
1
-
-
Dave - I presume you may be aware of this? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/130571-accurascale-announce-4mm-scale-huo-and-buffer-detailing-kits/
Only in 00 for now. Will that affect your scheme?
-
Dave you say that you need to clarify a couple of things but don’t actually ask a question, you may need to re post
-
oh I have no doubt that there were lots of seemingly sensible reasons behind the change. But these are all very short sighted. You have to follow the thinking all the way through... the life of a plastic pack doesn’t just end when the customer receives their product, it goes on, and on, and on.
The peco plactic packaging is made of PET - the same stuff that is used widely for plastic bottles... which despite its suitability for recycling is emerging as one of the worst contributors to plastic pollution. And remember that even when recycled, this doesn’t make the stuff go away... it just becomes another plastic product that also needs recycling. Ad infinitum!
Old fashioned cardboard is just so much more sensible.
Consumers today want to see what they are buying (particularly if they haven't bought the product previously), cardboard prevents that unless the product is opened and handled - and consumers don't want to buy opened products.
Also, sealed plastic is preferred by retailers for theft prevention - cardboard can easily be opened and the item removed.
-
-
As for locomotive Id say its between 37, 55 and 66. But really with the locomotive I question how many will swap a DCC Sound engine that they have now and upgrade. So Id say its between those.
where can find rule that can only buy new model if already have existing model?
Main line terminus in OO
in Layout & Track Design
Posted · Edited by mdvle
There is no formula for how long things will take, there are too many variables and I don't think anybody really times themselves doing these tasks. Just like there is no formula for cost, other than bigger is more expensive.
Regarding a "test" layout, and worrying about making it fit into your eventual layout to not waste things, consider that a test layout doesn't have to be expensive. A short layout, small amount of track and a couple of points and the trackwork will be under £50, you get a bit more adventurous and do a switching layout and maybe you spend £100 on track. Considering that your layout will require over £3000 in track that looks like a bargain even if you end up throwing it away as a (relatively) cheap way to learn and experiment.
OO or N, most of the lessons should be the same, if anything I would guess things would be easier in OO given the size difference. But if N allows you to experiment and learn now vs having to wait a couple of years, N would appear to be the better choice even though with OO you could use your eventual stock. You could also eventually sell anything you don't want long term and get at least some of your money back.
In your last message you say
which makes it sound like the desire/need for that loop-back is driving a (to many of us) compromise on the main terminal.
Perhaps then you need to rethink what is important, and if necessary how to get it. Perhaps model two entirely separate layouts, or instead of having the loop-back run the track around the outer edge of the shed (using lift-outs for the doorway), thus allowing a narrowing of the layout to a more comfortable size.
As for size and density, a general rule will be simple. More track means more maintenance, more points means more maintenance, more rolling stock means more maintenance, etc. Things will fail or act up with time, wiring will fail, point motors will fail or otherwise malfunction, ...
None of which means you shouldn't do this if it is what you want (and can afford both the money and time).
As for maximum width, a look at your plan shows a width of about 19 tracks (counting a platform as a track.). Now there is a large terminal layout here on RMweb (his layout started out at 20'x9.5' vs your shed size of 24.6'x8.2'). Look at this picture from his layout and count tracks to get an idea of just how much a reach it will be to get at the back of your layout, and see a likely reason why when he abandoned being an exhibition layout he expanded his shed and moved this section from being against a wall to having access from both sides.
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64065-leeds-city-the-midland-side-in-4mm/page-25&do=findComment&comment=2748918