Jademalo

Ooohhh, I'm really liking this! My worry with the reverse loop switch is if the train is slightly too long for the middle line and ends up essentially touching both loops either side of the isolated section. I think it should be fine, but it would need minimum 900mm of length between the blocks to prevent anything from going wrong. I like the idea of the platform on the right hand curve to break up the circle, my only reservation is it puts a run through platform on the high speed line, so to speak, which was the original intention of putting the big platforms on the left. I also worry that the amount of TMD sidings might be a bit overkill, but I'm not sure. I highly doubt I'm going to be doing a load of shunting and yard stuff though, so that sort of thing makes sense. My only thought with regards to having the TMDs be on the right "hand" so to speak is by having them cross the reverse loop, but I'm not sure if the geometry for that would work. I'm still in the mindset that it's probably better to have one of the internal sections be a small station rather than just a TMD, with the TMD consisting of some short and some long sidings (with a headshunt? I don't know). Is there any way for you to send me the anyrail file so I can have a play around with it too? I really like the bulk of what you've come up with, it's much better than my mess lol. I was considering this actually, it makes a lot of operational sense as a mid stop too. Depart platform 1, run around the outside loop anti-clockwise a few times, go through the inner section stopping there, run around the inner loop a few times, then arrive back at platform 2. I'm not sure what the best layout for that sort of a station would be though, with the space available due to the narrowing points and the available length it's probably better to have two platforms either side rather than an island. Oooh, I quite like that as inspiration!

Thank you! This is interesting - one of my super early ideas when I was testing TT was that exact sort of figure 8 reversing loop. I had envisioned the station complex across the middle of the layout like this, with the running loop around the outside. I ended up binning the idea because I couldn't figure out how to make it work electrically, since from what I could tell it was too short to reliably detect and switch. It also had issues with reversing, since the platforms could still only be accessed in one direction around the loop. After looking at this for a bit though I think this might actually work, so long as the outer terminus platforms are only ever directly connected to a single loop at a time. It's tricky to conceptualise though, especially when slips get involved. I like it though, especially within my want of "More interesting than a simple oval". In terms of platforms, My current thinking is to have a set of express platforms and a shorter set of regional platforms, in some manner. Those wouldn't need to be particularly long, I'm thinking sort of Pacer length. It's a shame the reversing loop can't cut across on the opposite diagonal, that would give a perfect place for those. One possibility could be to have the regional platforms on the right there, with access to the yard via those by crossing the reversing loop. I'm not sure how good that would look though. Thanks for the recommendation, I'm definitely leaning towards code 55. It's not too much more expensive at the total length I'm looking at, and the crossing and turnout options definitely let me do more in the space I have available. Yeah, I appreciate that a 1:1 scale copy isn't exactly feasible, it's mostly just an example of the vibe that I'm going for as opposed to something like Kings Cross. One day I'll buy all of peco's crossing stock and recreate the full might of the diamonds as they were in the 60s, when I end up making a fortune in music and have access to a cathedral like Pete Waterman, lol. Oh, that's a good point! I won't lie in saying I totally hadn't considered that at all. Hopefully they've been practicing their parkour! Thank you for these suggestions! I really appreciate it, and the things you bring up are the exact sort of feedback I've been looking for. I'm not sure what scale you're thinking however, there's no way I can fit 4th radius curves by Hornby in the limited width I have. At this point I'm leaning heavily towards N, so Hornby is entirely out of the question. The answer to Steam Or Diesel is both, as annoying as that is. My goal was always to try and make something more interesting than a TrakMat that I can run trains that I like on, and at the end of the day I like both modern era MUs and classic steam. The modern era of heritage steam does at least mean running them on slightly more modern feeling layouts doesn't feel too anachronistic, at the very least. With regards to moving the back scene, since I'm limited on height for the sake of storage there's no real way to separate them. Having the back lines diverge as in my example was an attempt to break up that toy train set oval look more than anything else, while still having the double track to be able to run more than one train.

Oh, I wasn't aware they could be mixed, I thought you had to stick to one or the other. Are either of them particularly recommended over the other? I'm not bothered about which one I go for since ultimately I'm starting from scratch when it comes to N. Thanks for the hints! Haha, I know I don't have to, the second iteration will be a lot more streamlined. A lot of that was just me trying to get things right in a broader sense, so I was a bit haphazard with choice. I've realised that I'm missing a set of points to that right hand siding, whoops. I was attempting to copy the rightmost platform in the picture of Newcastle Central Station that I posted earlier, which has a slip to a middle track siding thing that I really like. Noted, the length and general shape of a lot of the internal stuff is very rough. The whole thing can be moved to the right and extended without much effort, so I'm not too worried about that. The reason for the terminal platforms on the left hand side is length, and wanting at least one running loop that doesn't hurtle past the platform every go around. Trying to join those again at the top ultimately means I need a tighter radius right the way round, and less space can actually be used as reasonable platform. In my head the platforms are roughly something like this; Again the actual shape and profiling of the track will be a lot better when I've got a bit more time Oh, I wasn't aware they could be mixed, I thought you had to stick to one or the other. Are either of them particularly recommended over the other? I'm not bothered about which one I go for since ultimately I'm starting from scratch when it comes to N. Thanks for the hints! Haha, I know I don't have to, the second iteration will be a lot more streamlined. A lot of that was just me trying to get things right in a broader sense, so I was a bit haphazard with choice. I've realised that I'm missing a set of points to that right hand siding, whoops. I was attempting to copy the rightmost platform in the picture of Newcastle Central Station that I posted earlier, which has a slip to a middle track siding thing that I really like. Noted, the length and general shape of a lot of the internal stuff is very rough. The whole thing can be moved to the right and extended without much effort, so I'm not too worried about that. The reason for the terminal platforms on the left hand side is length, and wanting at least one running loop that doesn't hurtle past the platform every go around. Trying to join those again at the top ultimately means I need a tighter radius right the way round, and less space can actually be used as reasonable platform. In my head the platforms are roughly something like this; Again the actual shape and profiling of the track will be a lot better when I've got a bit more time. I'm thinking the curved outer platforms being for longer trains mostly so I can make more efficient use of the corner, rather than having a big long station in the middle of the loop. The outermost platform is ~900mm in length, so should be enough to hold something like a Kato Class 800. In my head the outer loop is the third platform, with the inner loop being purely for running. The inner platform is very much trying to capture the vibe of the old platforms at Newcastle, with space for smaller things like pacers. Hopefully that gives a rough idea of where my head is currently at, even if my anyrail skills are currently lacking. This obviously isn't considering the entire right hand side of the layout, either.

Oh my apologies, is it in the wrong place? I had assumed the Modelling in the title of the subforum was the broader sense as in the whole hobby, rather than specifically scenic dioramas. The fact that the whole section is called Modelling zone in contrast to the Trade & Products zone only cemented that. I double checked to see if there was a better place when I first posted it, and this was the only place I could see that was specifically for questions and help. If so that explains the miscommunication, If there's a better place it could be moved to then that would be appreciated. Oh yeah, at the end of the day I didn't spend all that much time on it, I was just trying to chunk it out conceptually. It's pointless spending hours mediculously radiusing curves and getting everything spaced perfectly if the core concept isn't right. Plus I'm using the free version, so I had to do everything I could to squeeze it out of the 50 pieces I had. I'm not 100% decided on Code 80, mainly because of some of the fancier elements available in Code 55. I have a feeling a single slip crossing is a better way of doing what I'm trying to do with the interior platforms/yard, but that's only available in 55. Honestly I'm not all too familiar with the differences, I know the profile of the rail is different but not really any advantages or disadvantages.

Deansmoor is 90% scenery and has a lot of elevation to make better use of the space, both things I can't do. All I want to do is run trains in circles with a bit more intrigue than a simple oval, not design a masterpiece that will outlive me. The only real similarity is the fact that it's on a door. As I said, the positioning of everything is all over the place and not sized properly for platforms yet. That was just me throwing together a rough outline of the shape. Measuring the two left hand platforms they should be long enough for the kato class 800, especially if they're actually pulled out to the edge properly. The inner platforms are absolutely not sized right at all, the points need moving around. I guess you could say I'm wanting to evoke something along the lines of Newcastle central station with the loop over to Gateshead, just without the bridges.

Ok this layout is a bit of a mess, but this is roughly what I've got in my head. It needs a lot of fixing since everything is a bit wonky, and I feel like I could utilise the right hand side better. A lot of the wonkiness is due to track piece limits though, more than anything else. What I'm thinking is two physical platforms on the left for the two terminus lines and the outer loop, with no platform on the inner loop. One on the outside, two tracks, then one between. Then having the left bank of 3 tracks be two short platforms on the outside with a siding in the middle, a lot like the rightmost newcastle platform in the image I posted above. If anyone has any decent feedback on this sort of thing I'd very much appreciate it, but I'm really starting to like how this is coming along. As a side note, Anyrail's flex track system is so much better than SCARM's.

Oh wow, that's absolutely gorgeous. Oh how I wish I had the space for something like that, lol. That's a fair thought, but as I said above it's just not the era that gets me going. Oh wow, that layout is absolutely gorgeous. It really uses elevation well though, which I unfortunately don't have the luxury of. Good to know the secondary market is solid, I'm not averse to buying so long as I know I'm not just throwing away money. I hate whenever I have to get something that I know will immediately lose a lot of value, but it's why I tend to spend more on good stuff I can sell rather than buying cheaper stuff I can't. Oh wow, these ideas are absolutely fantastic, thank you so much! I genuinely really appreciate it. I particularly like 2 and 6, I'm going to have a play with something along those lines and see if I can get something ideal. Unfortunately my door probably isn't deep enough for a turntable, as much fun as that would be. These have definitely given me a load of great ideas though! The original reason the diamond crossing was there was for a double loop, but I couldn't quite get something I liked with it. I had the idea of being able to run it either as two opposing loops or a figure 8, depending on how I was feeling, with some sort of feature at the top. Do you have any particular recommendations or ideas in terms of where to put platforms and how wide to space things? I'm actually wondering if it could work to sort of mirror the internal section of 8, and run the diagonals as platforms in addition to the ones outside of the loop. It's actually reminding me a bit of Newcastle in the 80s and earlier looking west, with some straight terminus platforms where the car park is now and the curved through platforms next to them. Obviously I want to be careful to not make it too busy, but I feel like there's the seed of an idea here!

I mean, at the end of the day you aren't wrong and I appreciate the advice, it's just that what interests me and what I want is to watch some trains I like run around a track. I could just buy a starter loop of whatever and set it up on my floor, but I figured I could get a bit more intrigue out of a different scale and a bit of clever track planning. I could just build an N or TT loop and be done with it, but that just seems a bit boring. This is ultimately something to have while I'm limited on space that I can pull out and watch trains I like go around. I think you might also be overestimating the size I have available vertically as well - This layout has to be stored between a settee and a wall, so it has to be pancake flat. Any buildings and scenery I include will have to be removable no matter what, and I can't even begin to consider things like wired signals. Decoration can't go much further than a grass mat and maybe some ballast, with some removable buildings placed on top. My goal here isn't really to create a highly detailed scene, when I eventually get the space to do that and have a permanent setup I'll almost definitely do it in OO. It's entirely to have something a bit more compelling than a circle on my floor. I'm not bothered about sticking to a perfectly prototypical ECML, I mostly said that to give a rough sense of what I like which is generally speaking passenger stuff that has been run on the ECML that I fell in love with when I was little. I always used to see Class 91s crossing bridges, and I have so many memories of falling in love with Mallard at the NRM. With regards to sticking to an era, it's sensible advice but honestly there won't be enough detail on this layout for there to really be anything era defining. I could pick one or the other, but the fact is I love both. I've been considering a non-loop layout since the start, but I like watching trains run rather than just shuttling back and forth so I've been trying to figure out a way to make a loop that works. I'm also hesitant to spend space on things like fiddle yards when it's so limited, it seems like the space would be better spent on actual running track. Can you elaborate a bit on the specifics of what you're envisioning here? I sort of understand what you're thinking, but I'm struggling to come up with anything in SCARM. The only sort of thing I've been able to come up with so far is along these lines, with a terminus station on the left with a through track for running. Technically this station should be able to accomodate a kato class 800, but honestly I'm out of my depth planning here. This is obviously just rough, ignore the points mess etc. As I said in my OP, the exercise is ultimately me trying to make something more compelling than a trakmat.

Obviously I'm oblivious to N, is the batch production problem really that bad? I feel like I'm in quite a good place right now with good availability for most of what I want, is it worth me just striking while the iron is hot and picking up what I want? Is the second hand market reasonable in terms of buying something not being an immediate loss? I'm starting to think N is probably the sensible choice here, I'm just obviously very hesitant.

Oh yeah, my intention would be to just run it from one of the Hornby transformers at a steady voltage. Again, it's a case of it being easy and low initial investment. Gives me space to switch to full DCC in the future if I wanted too. That's good to hear, sound is definitely something I'm particularly interested in. For me it's the last little piece that sells the illusion, and really ties everything together. Where should I be looking to start with sound for N? If I go for it I'd quite like to get a class 800 and fit dcc sound in that, but from what I can tell KATO models seem to use their own special decoders. This is sort of my anxiety, I feel like it could either end up with TT getting a ton of support with everything I want with N going through a massive drought, or the TT hype could die down and suddenly N looks like the right place to be. If it wasn't for the constraints I have then between the two I'd probably go TT for the detail, but then if I didn't have those constraints I'd go OO. N is seeming like the right choice here, but it very much feels like an unknown. Yeah, if it had been just a bit more recent I feel like my choice would be easy, but I really love GNER class 91s. Considering the work Hornby have put into the new OO 91s I've got a feeling there's a high chance of them turning up in TT, but N is definitely a big unknown.

I think the reason HM7000 interests me specifically is the fact that I don't need all that much in terms of track wiring both to get started and to run DC locos, especially when cost gets involved. I really like sound too, and I'm struggling to figure out what sort of sound stuff is available for N. HM7000 for TT has sound covered and is pretty cheap, relatively speaking. How much more available will stock be going into the future? Hornby are obviously full bore into development of new and fancy TT things, but I'm not all that sure how active the N gauge market is, especially when it comes to recent models. The Class 91 stuff seems to be from the 90s, and I worry that with TT getting the support it is that the market for N will start drying up. Ultimately though my worry for N is the same worry for TT, and that's that I have no idea what the future will bring. At least with OO you know it will be around for yonks. Plus I won't lie, the fact that TT is an accurate scale is pretty appealing to me. I had considered end-to-end, but ultimately I just love watching big long trains go in circles. By the nature of how I have to store it I doubt this is going to be a particularly well rendered layout either, so interesting things like quayside features are possibly a bit too much. I guess the decision still comes down to TT vs N, really. N seems to be the sensible choice, but I've got a lot of apprehension about getting into it with where the buzz and future development seems to be. I feel like TT is the choice if I can make it work, but even if I can just about make it work is that worth the compromise? N seems to have cheaper models on the whole, but when you factor in the needed DCC bits it comes out fairly even. I'm going to have a go at making an N layout in SCARM to see if I can figure out something I like, but I'm a bit at a loss of where to start. I'm thinking I might be able to make a nice station complex with a couple of terminus tracks and a couple of through tracks, but it's trying to make the main loop more interesting than an oval while still letting nice long modern multiple units run. Ty for the replies, much appreciated

I've recently been wanting to get a simple layout so I can run some trains around, but I'm struggling to come up with an interesting layout within my size restriction. My interest is generally East Coast Main Line passenger rail of any era, from A4s to the current Class 801s. I've got a settee in my room, and the back is 2m x 0.75m. I have enough space behind that against the wall to store a board with a flat layout, and so want to try and fit something interesting into that space. Since the space to store the layout is narrow, I cannot do any sort of terrain or tunnels, it has to just be a flat layout on a board. I ended up getting lucky and bought a door for £20 that measures 1981mm x 762mm, and it's absolutely ideal for the storage space. It's not too heavy, it's nice and rigid, and all in all just the ideal thing for the space I have available. Initially I had hoped to build a OO layout since I already own a lot of locos in that scale and used to have one when I was little, but the width restriction I have is too small to even fit a radius 1 curve on it. That leaves me with two reasonable choices - TT:120 or N. N definitely gives me a lot of space to play with making an interesting layout, but I always feel like N is getting to the point where the scale is too small to really enjoy the detail. It has decent support in the UK, but obviously UK N is a bit of a weirdly proportioned scale like OO. Models from other countries also won't look quite as bad as HO on OO, but they're still not ideal. You're also a lot more limited with sound decoders, due to the limited space. TT:120 is obviously newer and less historically supported, but has strong current support from Hornby. It has good detail, an accurate scale, and is also well supported internationally. My board can fit a third radius curve oval, but with the limited range of track options I'm not exactly sure how to make something interesting. I'm also apprehensive about it being a fairly new scale in the UK, and support ending in a few years time. It does have full compatibility with Hornby's HM7000 system though, which is excellent and ideal for my wants. Both seem to have good support for what I'm interested in, generally speaking. Hornby have just released a gorgeous Mallard and Flying Scotsman, and have announced full rake HSTs in TT:120. N seems to have some good stuff too, with a class 800 Azuma from KATO, a newly announced Mallard from Dapol as well as just released full rake HSTs. There's also an old Graham Farish GNER Class 91 available, if only second hand. With regards to layout, I'm not entirely sure where to start. Ideally I'd like an interesting general running loop, ideally two with some parallel track, and a separate station track to add some interest and route variety. Ideally I'd like the station track to be 3 wide so I can have a train stopped with two running around the loop, or two stopped with one running. I'd also like some basic sidings and a yard to add a bit of variety, but the main loop is what I care about most. From playing around with SCARM a bit, I'm quite restricted in TT:120 to anything aside from TrakMat style setups. I can comfortably fit two parallel ovals with some internal sidings, but I'm struggling to come up with anything more interesting. Getting a station off the main loop basically is just a station on a glorified passing track, and because the diameter of R3 curves is basically the width of my board there's not much I can really do. I had the idea of a diagonal station crossing the layout, but that becomes a wiring nightmare with reverse loops all over the place. If anyone can come up with a layout that isn't just a basic oval with some internal sidings within the space I have then I'd really appreciate some suggestions. I've got a lot more freedom with N scale, but I'm still struggling to get something I like. I figure a dog bone style layout of some description could work well here, with maybe a basic oval around the outside and a multi track station complex diagonally across the middle to add some variety. Then I could have some sidings and maybe a small yard in the space inside the wider curves, but again I have no idea where to start and make this a reasonable layout. I'm still apprehensive about going all in on N for reasons I've explained above, so if I can get an interesting layout with TT:120 then I feel like I'd rather do that. It feels like the space I have is right on the limit of what I can do interesting things with though, and I'm not experienced enough to make good decisions in the difficult restrictions. If anyone has any advice on this, I'd really appreciate it. Space is ultimately the limiting factor here, and I want to make sure I'm doing something interesting with the space I have available. I know I could just basically scale a TrakMat to fit, but I want something with a bit more intrigue. Thanks!

Thanks, much appreciated!

I've only just joined here, so I don't think I can PM yet unfortunately. I'm not sure what the requirements to be able to are either.

Haha, I wasn't expecting it to be quick! It's not like I'm expecting to pop down to the station for 20 minutes and just slap it on a chip, my main priority now is that want to make sure I've got the bases covered before they're retired. I've got as much time as I want to mess around with loops and profile design, so long as I've got some good sources. Knowing what I need and roughly how it goes together will make recording a good deal easier though. Thank you so much for the recommendations and info, this is all really useful! I've got some slightly fancier software at my disposal than Audacity (iZotope RX10, love it to bits), so I'm not too worried about creating the clean loops. So long as I haven't made a glaring oversight in the initial recording, I should be able to sort out something that sounds good. I think I get what you're describing with LokProgrammer, that doesn't sound too bad. I'm assuming so long as the clips are nice and clean then that's just a case of going through and assembling everything, which doesn't seem too hard. Thanks!