Tallpaul69

Afternoon Phil, and everyone following this thread, Having spent some time with this plan and the current draft of my timetable, I think the scenic side track layout is great. However, I think the fiddle yards need a little tweaking:- I think the high level terminus layout needs a little work:- Firstly the crossover needs moving to the right. I can tell you to what position if you can post me the lengths of the 4 sidings, so I can finalise what to hold where? Secondly, While appreciating why you left out the carriage siding, I could use a short kickback, just to hold one bogie parcels van and a shunting engine (not coupled together). Regarding the main fiddle yard:- 1) Could the high level terminus be supported off the wall (it is a shelf?) to leave space for an additional through loop in the centre of the yard? If so, I would use it as a reversible loop to hold two DMUs, one a 4 car (3 car+ 1 car), the other a 3 car. So I would like the left hand end to connect into the down main, and the right hand end into the up loops. 2) The loops/sidings need some development because unlike " Partly Maidenhead" where the branch was a self contained circuit, here the branch is single ended, so the trains starting at the high level need somewhere to run to unless they are terminating at Maidenhead. So I suggest the stock transfer/ maintenance siding connects at the left hand end rather than the right hand end, has a second track with a cross over, to provide a run round loop, with two long sidings off the right hand end. Somewhat similar to the two sidings to the wall side of the high level terminus, but the other way round. 3) In a similar way to "Partly Maidenhead" could there be a few short loco holding sidings in the top left and top right corners , to hold locos for use when trains reverse? Regarding a name, I think either "Maidenhead Yard" or "Lower Thames Yard" might be appropriate. The later has the benefit of being less specific and leaving the layout less open to having the compromises highlighted. I am still to find details of the points raised a while ago about the Peco and Hornby curved points. So I may raise a query in one of the other forums and see what folks have to say! Thanks again, Best regards Paul

Hey Guys, Can we leave the fireworks out of things for another 7 months or so, please? While amusing, it t just obscures the thread of the discussion!! Cheers Paul

Thanks for all your hard work Phil, I will spend some time digesting this and looking at the timetable possibilities, but on first impressions it looks good!. The yard is a lot better now, I was worried that we might end up with a single ended goods shed, which would not have been right. The only train that comes to mind as having to run wrong road is the morning parcels from Reading, which reverses to go up the branch (to High Wycombe). This arrives in the up loop, splits off/ picks up some vans and its final move before leaving would be for the loco to run round, and couple to the rear. It would then push the stock out of the up loop and up the up line under the bridge, and pause clear of the branch up points. It would then use the branch up line connection to run wrong road onto the branch. In real life this move was done by pulling the stock into the branch platform (which was a through line), and running round via the relief lines to reach the rear of the stock and then depart up the branch. I am sure the GWR purists will quote a load of rules to us that prevent my above set of moves, but better to compromise than loose this particular train from the timetable! I understand why the kick back siding at the high level had to go, I just need to look closely at what needs to be stored there and when! Re the curved points I thought the problems had been with the Hornby ones, but doubtless other contributors will put us right on this point. On a name, I will kick around the adjectives that could be added to Maidenhead, and let you know. Once again, many thanks for delivering on the challenge, Best regards Paul

Dear Alan and Ronronron, I think you guys have in slightly different ways gone down a similar path to that which I would like to follow:- So, as I see my way forward:- Stage 1:- DCC control of locos with the addition of some sound locos as I can afford them. Layout will be 12ftx8ft round and round plus branch with 8 road main fiddle yard and 4 road branch fiddle yard. Yet to settle whether one zone or four (up, down goods yard, and branch) or subdivision of the four zones into 2/3 areas each? Have seen arguments for all of the above, trying to decide whether the additional wiring costs pays back in ease of faultfinding? Currently not convinced it does? Control:- want to be able eventually to use wireless (not infrared!), preferably using electronic mimic on laptop, so that I can position myself anywhere in the operating well, and control everything. Stage 2:- Installed at initial build:-. DCC control of points and signals. Eventually have some degree of automation to stop trains realistically at an adverse signal or when approaching another train in the fiddle yard. Stage 3:- As finances permit, have wireless control on laptop with curser operation of points and signals. Think I might still want to have knob or slider control of throttle. I would prefer that any systems I buy are supported by more than one organisation such as an importer. I ant to be able to go and chat to someone face to face, but not driving they have to be reasonably accessible by train/tube/bus to home in South West Bedfordshire. Along this road DCC Concepts is attractive because my local model shop is an agent. Who sells Roco? Your thoughts please? Many thanks Paul .

Pete, if you had seen some of my past layout efforts, you would understand why I don't want to do it all myself! As for the clubs, sorry but I don't fancy on a cold winter night, having a half hour walk, or sitting on the railway station for ages having caught one of the few evening buses. Coming back its walking or nothing! Added to which, although retired, I barely have time to do everything I want to in life, without getting sucked into helping build a club layout! So in my view, yes, you can learn a huge amount by club membership, but not sure the return , for me, is worth what would be involved! Thanks for the advice anyway! Cheers Paul

Because I am having my layout built as I just don't have the skills to do it myself, I have to trade off cost of wiring against benefit of extra sections. My current feeling is that a professionally built system should be less prone to requiring troubleshooting than an amateur build, so a reasonable compromise is to have only up, down, and branch sections. Reference control systems I do not have modelling friends that I want to be compatible with, but I agree you need to be comfortable with how your chosen system switches and knobs work. Cheers Paul

Hi there, I accept that trying to model multiple periods means that there have to be compromises somewhere as the real infrastructure changed over time. My intention is to cover the sidings except the loops with removable covers as the sidings disappeared in the early 70s, so the loops would have only been used for lay byes by 1992. So we will see if your idea helps Phil in the planning! Best regards Paul.

Hi Phil, The carriage siding is for the station which is not modelled but beyond the road(?) bridge. One set of carriages is held there overnight for a 6.00am suburban train to London, and later in the day it stores various passenger trains that have come down the branch to the station. There is a particularly involved routine where a single class 121 or 122 with a trailer arrives from Slough in the morning and takes a trip up the branch. On its return it puts its trailer into the siding, picks up a parcels van, and takes another trip up the branch. It returns later with a different parcels van, sidings that van, and picks up its trailer. It then takes further trips up and down the branch . Finally in the late afternoon it comes down the branch and returns to Slough. I understand the problem. The carriage siding need not be long, it just needs to hold three 57ft suburban coaches and a prairie tank loco. From your plan above, I assume that you are moving the junction further round towards the left end of the fiddle yard to give more space further to the right. This seems a good idea to me! I expected to use Hall 4-6-0 for two of the long distance freights that use the branch. I can probably get away with substituting 61xx large prairies, as used on the passenger turns on the branch, but I am not sure that they will take tighter curves than the Halls. There are other possibilities, but they are all six coupled tanks or tender locos such as 43xx 2-6-0s. In reality this branch was a red route, so did see Castles, black 5s, and B1s on diversions or excursions, but the loss of these is no problem! Thanks for all your efforts, Best regards Paul

Hi All Getting back to the original theme of this thread, I thought I would update everyone that I have made the decision to go for DCC. While I am now fairly comfortable with DCC in locos and controlling them, although the controller has to be finalised. Points, signals , and couplings are still under investigation! I think finances may dictate that I go for basic control of signals and points via DCC but have things so that at a later date I can go for electronic Mimic diagrams. I may start a new thread on this particular area. I think Couplings will go Kaydee for the ends of rakes, and individually or in 2s for wagons that need to be shunted, but I am not too sure about fitting Kaydees to Locos. So again, I may start a new thread on that topic! Cheers Paul

Good Afternoon to Phil, and all the others contributing to or watching this thread. I have been thinking about the branch and realised my idea of singling it and turning the second line into sidings at each end needs some refinement:- Because of the branch being inclined, the sidings parallel to it need to be flat as they will not always have a loco at the head of the stock to stop it running away. So I think the carriage siding at the junction end should be on the inside rather than the outside of the branch track so that it can be level with the branch rising behind it. At the junction of the siding with the branch with the branch, there needs to be a short length of single track and then a point to allow the retention of the double junction to the main line. to allow access to/from the branch and the siding from both the up and the down mains. At the terminus sidings end of the branch things need to be the other way round with the siding outside the branch single track so that it can be level, and the branch drop away from the siding. In the corner of the layout where the branch curves round the track could be 2ft 6ins radius as it will be hidden by some houses, which may only be able to be half profile, and some trees . Space for the up loop could be helped by using a retaining wall against the branch track and behind the houses referred to above. Hope the above makes sense? Best regards Paul

Hi there, I now understand why you highlighted this thread. I agree that access is important but, if a layout is well designed and constructed then the need for access to some areas is reduced. Taking the two areas in Phil's first draft that you highlighted, you may not have realised that the track along the bottom is on a rising gradient which helps access. Phil has already said that he intends to rework the pair of sidings that make the reach to the bottom right corner so large. So we will see what he comes up with before panicking about the reach. If you look at my Partly Maidenhead thread you will see that I have put in access to three of the corners of that plan, so access is on my agenda! Items such as steps, provided they are safe, can help with access, and there are methods such as removable scenery boards which if properly planned and with a proper storage area for them while removed, can help with emergency access. Best regards Paul

Hi There, Have already commented on the scenery thing, in my reply to all the recent posts that I sent a few minutes ago. This post is to query the relevance of Halsey's freight only line in a 9ftx7ft shed to this? Maybe I've missed something? I did download the Halsey2img plan? Cheers Paul

Hi All, Trying to answer the above from Phil and the subsequent queries raised by other posts:- 1) The formation Phil proposed Is I think a good way to do an up loop which is without sidings. (There is no room for any!) This may be argued as un prototypical but it is a compromise I can live with. From my point of view much better than trying to back a down train from an out of scenic area into the loop from the far end! 2) Not sure how you got the impression I wanted to hide the operators view of the fiddle yard. What I do not want to do is be constantly spinning round from viewing the scenic area in front of which I would want my controls to view the fiddle yard. Yes, if I have a hand controller I can view the fiddle yard and the scenic area while standing to one end of the operating well. However the scenic area needs to be the main focus of my attention. 3) I didn't worry too much about the access to the sidings as I thought the goods yard overall probably would need a revisit. Phil, referring back to our earlier discussion about the coal sidings, while a pet feature of mine, the up loop is far more important , so if the coal sidings idea has to go, so be it! 4) regarding the balance of scenery areas, I agree with the post from Mdvle that cautioned about being able to reach all the track, but I don't see a large operating well as being of any use! 5) If Zomboid and Mike the station master can suggest an alternative arrangement for the up and down loops that is not too space hungry then I am sure Phil will look at it, as will I Thanks to all for their contributions Paul .

Phil, I hope my comments in italics in your above post clarify things? Best regards Paul

My detailed points on Phils suggested layout:- I have some comments on a preliminary look at using my Partly Maidenhead plan timetable on Phils suggestion:- If up and down through lines in fiddle yard are also used to hold trains It will be possible to give as reasonable representation of the off peak up and down express, semi fast, and suburban passenger trains as was possible with Partly Maidenhead. If up and down through lines in fiddle yard are also used to hold trains It will be possible to give as reasonable representation of the off peak up and down through freight trains as was possible with Partly Maidenhead. I would just have to "loose" 4 trains if I wanted to run a tail chasing session! Branch trains will be ok if storage at terminus can be increased (see below), and a run round included in the terminus area There are however a few problems with trains that, in my opinion give the area a particular character. These problems can be reduced if :- The branch is made single track, with the second track providing a necessary suburban carriage siding (from the junction end) and a siding from the terminus end with a stretch of single track in between. A up loop can be fitted into the main line as there are 7-8 trains a day that drop off/ pick up from there. The down loop is fine for the same number of trains per day that utilise that track. One feature that I had in Partly Maidenhead, which I will be sad to give up is my double ended hidden coal sidings. These allowed full wagons to be dropped off, empty wagons picked up, and then the full wagons taken away from the far end of the siding hidden behind scenery and the empty wagons sneaked in! Sorry, but the giant hand in the sky taking coal loads in or out, is just not on!! Scenically, I think I would reduce the size of the operating well, to increase the scenic picture. I just cannot see the use of all that operating well space for what will mostly be a single person operation. It would be a shame to be short of space on the layout and have a space that will inevitably just fill up with junk, that having less space will force me to be disciplined and put away in my storage area! In particular, I need to fit a row of houses between the up loop and the branch . I tried not to be negative in the above, I did put the positive first, and suggest solutions to the problems! So with a few tweaks we could have a positive outcome here! Best regards Paul

Hi David, Glad someone else thinks my space worthwhile! Yes, my copies of all the Cyril Freezer books are well thumbed. I agree with you that his radii and gradients were not to current thinking. Also some of his layouts were too tight in operating space and he gave little thought to access! One of the problems I face is that I prefer to operate to a timetable, which is difficult to think up from scratch for this sort of layout. If I run a freight , I need it to run for a purpose, believing it is running from a real place to another real place, and the wagons dropped off or picked up in my layout need to be for a real traffic for that area. This does mean that some wagons that I like, I cannot allow on the layout. Saying that, I reserve the right to sit and watch the trains go by even if the same one makes 20 circuits one after the other! I also want to be able to set a couple of trains running round and round while I do some shunting. So if I start a timetable session, I might decide to hold it at a particular point and play trains, as the fancy takes me. Best regards Paul

Thanks for this Phil, I did not expect a viable result so soon, so well done! It just shows that if you know the software then you can soon produce a layout. I need to look at this and see if I can amend my "Partly Maidenhead" timetable to provide interesting operation on it. It has a lot of similar elements, so its a matter of working out how the trains that use elements that are different to this can be accommodated, or whether they can be omitted. I agree there needs to be crossovers within the main fiddle yard, as I would want to be able to run the trains first clockwise, then anticlockwise to increase the time interval between trains repeating their initial runs. I will send you details of any trains I cannot accommodate or alter or leave out, and see what you suggest? Best regards Paul

Thanks Phil, I'm fine with sharper radii, its just that I lost count in previous threads of the number of folk telling me that radii of less than 3ft for scenic and 2ft6ins for non scenic were the minimum acceptable for a real model! As for gradients, I think 1:50, might work, shallow than that certainly would. for additional loops. Its only a steep incline to a terminus that I'm not keen on ! Best regards Paul

Thanks for the input David, Answering a few of your points:- I have the bar stool x 2! But sometimes I prefer to stand. Lights are fluorescents just below ceiling, so no danger of banging my head! Don't need access for anything else in the room so no need for a lift out section. I agree with you about ducking under. Fair point about the width of the operating well. Current plan I am considering has points for loops on short sides of layout and on the curves which gives you longer loops but limits the amount of scenery you can have on the short sides of the layout. Sorry, not keen on gradients especially steep ones, and a terminus is not on my want list. When I talked about a branch I meant just the junction with the main line and the start of a single line on the flat leading to a small separate fiddle yard. I agree with you that hidden loops are fine until there is a problem. One possible solution to what is where is CCTV. Keep the ideas rolling guys, Many thanks Paul

OK, Phil, Here are the latest measurements:- Least of three measurements of length:- 12ft and 3/4 of an inch Least of three measurements of width 8ft 1and 1/4 inch I took the three measurements at each end and in the middle of the room. The larger measurements were between 1/4 inch and 3/4 inch greater. I also remeasured the door. This is 10 and 3/4 inches from the top long wall in the left hand side wall and the opening in the plastered wall is 32 inches wide. Remember the door opens outwards and the door furniture is within the width of the wall so does not protrude into the room. Best regards Paul l

Sorry Phil, As I do not have a laser distance measurer, or a 12ft tape, I cannot promise a precise measurement, but I will, at the first opportunity I have, which will be tomorrow afternoon try to measure the room as accurately as I can with my 10ft tape . Maybe I should take measurements each end and the middle and quote you the average to try to take out of the situation any variation due to bumps in the walls? I thought my suggestion to take two inches off the length and one inch off the width would be sufficient, to ensure you are not making a suggestion which is too big for the room, but hey what do I know!! I will also remeasure the doorway position. You are trying to do me a favour so I will try to give you the information you need. Best regards Paul

In Steam days, 9 coach trains would have been considered short, although I agree in the 1980s-1990s 9 was typical. Today Pendalinos regularly run as 11 coaches. The East coast mainline and the West coast mainline ran quite a few trains c12 coaches. When I get a minute I will look up some details on these trains. Cheers Paul

OK Phil:- I am trying not to box forum members into the same conclusion I have already reached as that would be a waste of everyone's time However ,answering your points as generally as possible (apart from the dimensions asked for):- Minimum curve in scenic 3ft Minimum curve in non scenic 2ft 6 ins Sorry, I thought I had told you the room dimensions:- 12ft x 8ft is what I measured it at a few months ago, don't think it will have shrunk, but lets say 11ft 10 ins x 7ft 11 ins for safety? If you are looking at a plan of the room then the door is in the left hand wall and is 11 inches from the top corner and 58 inches from the bottom corner. Remember it opens OUTWARDS, not into the room. The railway has to be interesting to operate. By this I am not talking about the number of switches that have to be thrown to set up a route, I mean that an interesting variety of trains can be run, with facilities for overtaking , detaching wagons and shunting these. A branch (but not a one engine in steam, no variety of train branch) would be good. Scenery preferred urban or mixed urban/country. The number of storage loops depends on the scenic side track layout and whether or not there is a branch. I think the minimum would be 4 up, 4 down, 4 branch(if there is a branch) with the up and down loops preferably able to hold a long train (say engine plus 5 off 64ft carriages and freights of the equivalent length and a short train say engine plus two coaches and short freights of equivalent length. If there is a branch the trains should be engine + 2x 57ft coaches and freights of equivalent length. However the 4s could be 3s if longer loops to hold 3 trains instead of 4 trains can be accommodated. The trains are not fixed entities, but will be designed to reflect the traffic on the line, so asking how long trains must be is difficult to answer until people give me ideas! Hope the above helps? Many thanks Paul

I am starting this new thread to avoid complicating my existing threads "Nearly Maidenhead" and "To DCC or not?". Before committing to my current plan being built, I want to give all those who have found fault with it chance to wow me with their ideas that I have not thought of. So here are my requirements Must have:- 00 gauge Fit 12ftx8ft room with standard size door opening OUTWARDS in one 8ft wall 5ft from start of corner. WR 1960-62 but would like to use the stock I have that suits 1992 and 2016. Thus must be outside the overhead electrified areas. Happy to model frelght/relief lines only Have stock for most named trains but am willing to sell those not needed Single level, round and round preferred Want to be able to sit and watch the trains go by while shunting a few sidings Baseboards, track and electrics will be assembled by a professional builder. I will build scenery. Prefer to view from a levelish position say 5ft baseboards hate "helicopter" view of trains Do not need Station Engine shed Prefer DCC and some sound Mimic diagram on Laptop Separate DCC supply for points and signals Kadee couplings currently under investigation Turntable not a must Generally stock and locomotives are not a problem for the eras listed Please ask for any information I have not provided! Cheers Paul

Hi James, Sorry it has taken me a while to get to answering your post, but real life has a nasty habit of getting in the way of writing posts (as well as all the other things I need to do in preparation for having this layout built! I cannot argue with your statistics, but there are factors such as :- Not all 40 locos will necessarily be on the layout at once. The 12 fiddle yard loops (4 up mainline, 4 down main line and 4 branch) will hold 2/3 trains each). There will be room to hold 8 tender locos, so more tanks, in sidings off the fiddle yard. So that accommodates a minimum of 32 locos on layout? - 4 less if you keep two tracks clear for continuous running This will be an urban mainline scene, with suburban as well as express, pick up as well as through freights, and so needs a number of locos to be realistic. I assume your layout is something like 40ft x18ft with a rural scene such as the Settle and Carlisle through which a train occasionally runs, mainly passenger expresses and the occasional freight but no locals? So your locos get a real good run? That suits you, so that's fine, I wouldn't dream of saying anything against it. Lucky you if you can run full length (13-15) coach trains? When I get a minute I will clean up my latest layout sketch which is currently being estimated by a couple of builders and post it on the forum. Best regards Paul