ITG

Assuming the door is reversed (as described in my earlier update), here's another evolving plan which makes use of the previously unused corner, by introducing a lift-up section across the doorway. Plan 1 shows the wholelayout (except the terminus station which will link to the purple/pink tracks across the top, at +185mm above datum (0). Green is the roundy-circuit, part of which across the top is hidden below the terminus. This green circuit is at +80mm over on the right, where it links to a double-double junction, one element of which goes to the terminus; th eothe rpart linsk to orange lines down to a storage yard and reversing loop, all at datum. To provide a little more access height to the rear roads of the storage yard, the green line rises to +90mm. The orange tracks leading to the storage yard run alongside the (not shown) terminus, falling from +80mm on the right to almost 0mm, before dispaearing into a tunnel below the terminus, which curves round to feed the storage yard. I'm not yet sure how the hinged lift-up section across the door in the bottom right corner will work, as I'd prefer rail joints across board joints to be at 90 degrees, and the distance between the corner and the door is around 63cm. So getting a 4 track 90 degree bend in probably means the lifting section being hinged on the end wall, making it a sizable section. Maximum gradients are around 2%. Plan 2 shows only the visible tracks, which does illustrate that only 3/4 of the roundy circuit is visible. The double-double junction allows trains leaving the terminus to complete over 1/2 a circuit, then go round a full circuit, and into the storage roads - without a turnout change. Plan 3 shows only the hidden tracks. Only the rearmost roads of the storage yard has tracks directly above them, at 90mm clearance. The area above the front most roads can be purely scenic, and could be removable for access. Any thoughts?

Thanks again @RobinofLoxley. Your suggestion does seem to have simplified it, although I’d need to check how much space is used by the storage roads being angled diagonally, and what that did to the walk through gap. That said, as I suggested in my last post, after a definite and decisive pre-condition which banned the idea of the access door opening into the lounge (meaning it opened into the train room), now the boss has seen the door frame (and the depth of the recess in what was an external wall), she would now prefer to see the lounge-side view of the closed door being flush with the wall. Meaning it has to open into the lounge. (Well, now that’s what the Chippie said when I passed on the boss’ message about the recess, and I’m not about to challenge that!). So although this has to be seen in practice, it now means that potentially my whole idea of needing to avoid that bottom right corner (due to combination of door opening and workbench space) is up for a rethink. I’m sure I can site a workbench elsewhere (maybe below the board, possibly slide out), but the main new factor is that I could now have a lift-out / hinge-up section across the access doorway. The distance from door frame to corner in that right corner is 63cm, just enough for a 2nd & 3rd radius curve with crossing the baseboard join at right angles. Thus allowing the continuous run to go around the perimeter of the room. Mind you, the previous restrictions have given me a taste for folded-8s, so I may not ditch the previous learning completely. But the fact that the continuous run and/or station approach can go around the perimeter will ease gradients, clearance heights and radii. To use a cliche…. Back to the drawing board. But I’m glad this mind-set change came now - I’d have hated to have heard the words “I wish we’d had that door opening the other way” after I’d sweated and cursed trying to cut baseboard gradients and angles!

Followers of this thread, and indeed members of the Crescent Bridge fan club, may be interested in these old photos in todays local rag. Sorry about all the ads. https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/heritage-and-retro/retro/looking-back-the-men-who-built-the-bridge-4049049 Ian

Thanks for the compliment Phil. Yup, don’t I know it? It will be a challenge, and whilst I’m fortunate to have time, space and resources…. I wouldn’t class myself as a master carpenter. I’ve always used commercially available modular laser cut boards, which of course I can do so in some areas, but recognise that the gradients will need a different approach. Re storage, I don’t have Anyrail open at the moment, but if I recall my calculations correctly, all the storage roads can hold a 4 coach train plus loco, which is what I had to factor in. Although there’s potentially a long 5+ m wall for the terminus to sit along, because it seems all facilities (passenger, goods, loco etc) will have to be in that space, having the same train length limit would be relevant. Some stop press…… now that the building work is coming to an end, the domestic planning permission authorities have spotted that the door into the hobby room (from the lounge) is recessed, due to that wall formerly being an outside wall and thus thicker. So she is now reflecting that maybe it would have been better if the door had been hung on the lounge side, and opened into the lounge… not the hobby room. Luckily, it’s not too late to make that change, as decorating has not yet started. Now, let me ponder- what do I think about that door opening outwards away from the hobby room? Watch this space, as that completely changes the usable space! Ian

Presumably you refer to the likes of Celotex (other brands are available) insulation board, as used in the construction industry? It’s light, various thicknesses, cuts easily, etc. The fridge packing I’ve seen is white and rather crumbly when cut. For a completely different purpose involving the need for a folding part of a larger layout, I bought a secondhand gateleg table for a tenner. Might it be possible to try similar, even put it on casters, so the test circuit could be permanently laid, but you just wheel the table in/out, and open it up? Ian

Thanks for the comments. Fully share your thoughts about the long run behind the terminus, but as yet cannot find a way round that. Those storage sidings are intended for either DMUs or spare locos, (if I choose to change locos for departures from the storage loops). But if I go ahead with this incarnation, I’ll be reviewing that sort of thing as I build. Ian Well spotted. I’ve been thinking about that. I pinched the idea of the twin reversing facility from @Bloodnok ‘s Dongits layout. When I was juggling with the base plan, I wasn’t sure where any goods or loco facilities might end up, relative to where the passenger station was. That is to say, there may have been departures from somewhere else on the layout other than the terminus station, so therefore I’d potentially wish to reverse trains from the other direction. In this version of a potential layout plan, it seems unlikely I would need it, so may omit it. It’s a simple Anyrail task to do so, and doesn’t alter any inclines elsewhere as it mirrors the same path/gradient as the twin tracks next to it. Very much a case of watch this space… Ian

Finally, the hidden track areas. Not too worried about access to the storage yard below the station, as it is 180mm gross clearance (less when factoring in board thickness, point motors etc), which compares with 150mm on the current layout. As I can access derailments or cleaning on this, that should be ok. Fixing point motor failures etc under the top board may be a challenge, but I plan to make board sectional and movable for such eventualities. The hidden turquoise track in the lower dogbone is accessible from 2 sides, so hopefully ok.

And now the plan,showing only visible tracks. I really don't mind a degree of hidden track as representing the rest of the UK railway network. Of course, the storage yard itself allows trains to hide, but the coming and going of trains in and out of visibility also supports that notion, as well as fragmenting the roundy-roundy effect. I have left part of the dogbones open, simply becasue I can, and to ease access, and to allow glimpses of trains.

Been having another look, challenged by questions and observations from @RobinofLoxley as to if it is possible to somehow alleviate the problem of so much hidden track on the last published version of the plan. In trying to do this, and also stick to my aspiration of a twin track roundy, in a folded 8 dogbone format and without having a duck-under/lift-up section, it does end up rather busy in terms of track coverage. Not to your taste, did I hear? And maybe I won't go with this, but I wanted to push the boundaries to see what the 'maximum' might look like. After all, this will be a near permanent in-house layout, with most visitors being non-modelling friends, so its me I have to satisfy. So what's changed? I have juggled the topographical order in which tracks emanate from key junctions, thus pushing higher level tracks to the rear of the boards. This in turn allowed some tracks directly below others to be brought forward, and thus becoming visible. In doing these two things, it has changed where/how some of the gradients are, but the vast majority are around 2%, and maximums of 2.5%. In the three representations of the layout plan that follows, track colours are as follows: Bright pink - the terminus station (at +180mm, which sits above the storage yard, from point TS onwards, but is not drawn on these diagrams) and its approach lines. The spiral back to the junction at 2%. Grey - these tracks, including the storage yard, are all level at datum 0. Orange - the upper dogbone, which starts at datum, rises to +80mm, and then drops down to link to the storage yard at 0. Turquoise - the lower dogbone, which also starts at datum 0, and drops to -50mm ( to allow clearance of the station approaches directly above it in the lower loop) before rising back in its U-turn Green - these are the two reversing loops, one facing in each direction. Because of the way in which the upper orange dogbone folds across itself, these link tracks do not have to actually take the form of the traditional U of a reversing loop. The uppermost of the two maintains datum level, whilst the lower one drops at 2.4% from +80mm on the right to datum where it rejoins the main line on the left. First the complete plan (omitting the station). The 4 tracks (2 orange and 2 green) behind the station are currently shown as visible, but they will lie in a cutting. As stated above, the green one at the top is level at 0, whilst the 3 others drop from 80mm to 0. An option might be to completely cover these, making it a high street. If I leave them open, not sure how to treat it scenically, apart from it being a steep-sided brick or stone cutting. With the station at +180mm, the cutting walls would be 100mm at one end, and potentially 180mm at the other, although its likely these lower lines will have disappeared into a tunnel before that differentail is apparent. A compromise may be to cover/hide only the rear flat track, leaving the other 3 open. This would allow a little more space above it next to the wall, for scenery, as well as make the appearance of the three remaining tracks somewhat simpler, as they all share the same gradient.

To be honest, I haven’t posted what would be an overload of variations. One of which was to swap the pink and orange lines on the bottom end of the plan. The swap is doable, (which I’ll have another look at) as is swapping points for slips, but tinkering with where interlinking lines join to make the reversing loop is much trickier, owing to differences in height and resultant inclines. Does this question refer to the top wall run of the plan, or the bottom end? If the former, I did think about this but it doesn’t fundamentally alter much. In my latest tweak, I moved the left hand end of where the green line connects back to orange, around the corner (on to the west wall). This then simplified the gradients because that green line then ends and starts at datum level - hence no incline on it, as the orange lines had dropped back to datum at that point. If you refer to the lower green line, this too I moved up around the corner to near the double junction, which then meant moving where it connects back to the main lines right round the backside of the storage yard, in order to get the gradient right. The key to unlocking this problem of too much hidden track might be, as you suggest, to try to separate tiers of track away from running either above one another, or, a low level being hidden behind a higher level. But to do so does put pressure on baseboard width, and/or, shortening the storage roads so as to allow the tiering effect on the west wall, ie the SY roads curve downwards earlier. thanks for your input. Ian

Certainly not how mine behaves. Sounds below par.

I’ve now spent time fine-tuning and adjusting, and I’m having second thoughts, mainly about how much of the continuous run is actually out of sight. After all, I do want to view trains! The storage yard, understandably, is hidden below the terminus, but the continuous tracks behind the station seem to allow two options. 1. I try to leave them exposed, but they’ll be on an incline in a cutting so won’t be exactly truly visible, obscured by station architecture etc. Plus, the far side of the cutting will be tricky to model, being right up against the room wall. I can only foresee the vertical (brick/stone) wall of the cutting, with virtually nothing above it except a back scene. If I tried to model any low relief buildings there, the depth required would push that side of both levels of the layout further out, thus widening the baseboard. OR 2. I cover those tracks completely, possibly with a road and (low relief) buildings, thus increasing the amount of hidden run. Turning to the other side of the room, and the end wall, much of the continuous run path is directly below the the terminus approach roads. So, not really presenting an opportunity to sit back and view trains. As I said in an earlier post, my rather busy plan did tick a lot of my wish list boxes, but a major “untick” against viewing trains, alternating as they would be via iTrain. At least, when I’m arguing with myself, it never comes to blows! Ian

No experience of these but I have heard of them being used for this. Designed for lying on the cushion to reach over and above an engine compartment. https://www.toolforthejob.co.uk/product/foldable-topside-creeper-genuine-neilsen-ct5257-

I use Heathcote servos to drive uncoupling ramps for tension lock couplings, via a separate 12v DC supply. As I’m now on the verge of building a new layout, I’ve realised that I didn’t pay a lot of attention to power usage for the wiring I used previously. It was 6 way cable - maybe alarm cabling. It worked without problem so presumably ok. The multi colours help with wiring back to push buttons, and using a common negative. I’ve seen 10 way ribbon cable, sized 28AWG 7.0, for the new layout. Is this likely to be ok for these servos. thanks ian

Light railways are outside my sphere of interest so not sure how much space / clearance you may need for your locos etc. but the track spacing looks too tight on the dockside loop. In the passenger loop, is 41cm (less clearance needed at ends near curved track) long enough to park vehicle(s) to run round? Would 3-way turnouts anywhere help save space?

You can interchange streamline points with set track, but only to a degree. The angles and radii of SL points are different to those of set track curves and points, so you will get anomalies in alignment and spacing. The “mixed” plan doesn’t really work as is, not least because the track centre spacing in the run round loop is awry. ST gives a track centre spacing of 67mm, versus SL 50mm. What eats a lot of space is trying to include effectively two run round loops. Can you juggle so there’s only one? That would save space by eliminating some of the turnouts, as well as potentially reducing the number of partly-parallel tracks. have you thought about couplers, and therefore uncoupling? If you plan to uncouple in certain areas, remember that (a) you need straight track for some types of uncouplers and (b) clearance is needed for a wagon overhang when standing on a curved piece of track. Too close to the turnout, and there will be conflict between the standing wagon and any traffic passing on the turnout .

Although it won’t help with R1 curves, have you thought about using Streamline turnouts. Longer yes, but will support narrower track centre spacing, which may help. You also may be able then to angle the entire track plan slightly diagonally across the board, which aesthetically might be better. Are those short pieces of track at the end of the run rounds long enough for a loco? Ian

Actually, I could hide that entire link line by starting the junction further back, and pushing where it connects further along the left wall, effectively hiding it all. Not sure what that may do to gradients and access to a hidden turnout. More pondering of options.

Here's a couple of extracts of 3D views. Rather crude, and not helped by the fact that, as Ive drawn it, Anyrail shows the entire room as a single surface, ie with no operating well. And for some reason, it insists on inserting two single mouth tunnels when a double is required. Even when I used an object (Metcalfe tunnel mouth) it doesnt show in the 3D version. The second of the two screen shots shows a view towards that lower curve-back, and the three tunnel mouths; and then the first shows looking the opposite way into the bottom left corner. I think I need to either disguise the sharp curves there in some way, and/or see if I can ease them. And seperate that single link track that enters the single tunnel there.

Using the term “loops” refers to the orange (mostly obscured, almost full circle) which is the continuous run, and the vivid pink terminus branch. The continuous circuit runs directly under the terminus branch, not only the “loop round” itself, but also along the left wall. The orange continuous run then is climbing from datum to 80mm along the top wall. The pink climbs from datum at the double junction to 80mm above the orange loop, and eventually up to 180mm at the station approach top left. (I accept I’m going to have a lot of hidden track). I get what you mean about the visual aspect question. I may try to mock up a 1/4 scale model of card to see how it all looks. I may have to be quite inventive. Maybe tunnels on both the orange and pink tracks, just prior to where they coincide vertically; I think there’s enough horizontal separation between the parallel twin tracks to make that feasible. Albeit may look a bit Swiss Alpine railway!

Taking bits and pieces from each of your various suggestions, (@Chimer and @RobinofLoxley in particular will see their influences), I have a draft plan which seems workable. I appreciate this won't be everyone's cuppa, but as I said at the onset, I am keen to include the folllowing key elements, in no particular order: 1. twin track roundy main line, but with a feel of trains going somewhere 2. a decent sized station and goods yard 3. reversing loop 4. storage yard 5. maximising the benefits of automation via iTrain, along with manual shunting 6. avoids a duck-under 7. allows a small workbench area In this draft, curves are using R2, R3 and R4, and will be mostly hidden. Maybe I will be able to expand some to use minimum R3, we'll see. But all my current stock handles R2 perfectly well, and also does so with the gradients I envisage. The basic design is a looped 8, shown in orange. Exiting the storage yard to the right at datum level, the top loop curves back on itself with approx 2.3% incline to +80mm, and then will run along hugging the rear wall and round the perimeter to curve round in the bottom loop area, which in turn connects to the left end of the storage yard. The inner bends are downward. Much of this will be hidden. The curve-over in the top loop gives the opportunity to have a reversing loop via the link road (in green). The double junction enables a twin track main line (in deep pink) to the terminus station (not shown); this terminus approach also curves back on itself directly above the bottom loop. Because these two bottom loops are open on the side (where the doorway is), and also the front, I anticipate this will allow access if needed. A single loop line in green provides a reverse loop link, but in the opposite direction to the other reverse loop. The gradient up to the station at +180mm height is around 2.1%. The station will be able to extend all along the 5.2m top wall, above the storage yard, on a board sitting 180mm above the yard. The twin track and link line running behind the station, I may keep open, dropped into a cutting with retaining walls either side. These tracks start on the right at +80mm, but fall at approx 2% to +30mm before disappearing into a tunnel in the top left corner, and then under the high level station approach roads. Probably both top and bottom loop areas will have removable scenic lids on them. The walk-through gaps between the top and bottom loops, and the north and south boards, (into the operating area) are all around 600mm or more. So it has ticked pretty much all my boxes, albeit with a lot of track-filled baseboard! Thats ok for me. There's some fine-tuning, straightening, balancing out of spaces etc still to do. Not necessarily the final plan (that would be rash!) but feels like I'm getting closer. Ian

I have used the Peco set track curved points in hidden locations, with no running problems at all (despite what I read elsewhere). They are sufficiently tight radii to make a real difference in smaller spaces, which the Streamline curved points, being somewhat larger, cannot do.

Still exploring……. I have a specific question, which hopefully one or two folk may have direct experience of. In my (theoretical) layout planning so far, I have avoided placing turnouts on inclines, for fear of risk of connectivity issues between blades, frogs, wheels etc. I’m well aware of the problems which can arise if a turnout is not ‘flat’ and firmly ‘grounded’ such that there is no movement in the turnout trackbase. But what happens if a turnout is firmly grounded but not on level flat track? Turnouts would be electrofrog, with switched frogs, either with frog juicers or with motors with frog switching. They are also modified in the traditional way to link blades to rails. Inclines would be very close to, if not exactly, 2%. In my current layout, turnouts and inclines give me no running problems whatsoever , but I have no turnouts ON an incline. Should I be able to expect no difference in running quality on turnouts on an incline versus on level flat ground? thanks Ian

Well, Keith, I don’t speak a word of German but I think I get the drift. My own domestic planning permission “suggests” not too much layout (ie the backside of backscenes) should be visible through the front window, and I think if I were to adopt this German approach, I would contravene that big time. It would be rather claustrophobic as well, and as for the hanging wire supports from the ceiling….. As they say on that telly programme, “I’m out”. Ian

Thank you, Phil. As an immediate reaction, my logical side fully gets what you’re suggesting. As you say, it satisfies two key factors, the doorway avoidance and the reduced space utilisation of a single balloon loop. But my ‘other’ side (not sure what to call it!) really struggles to let go of a continuous run. Yes, automation could handle the type of layout you suggest, but I’d prefer to see multiple trains on longer imaginary journeys, even if that means several circuits of the same tracks. ITrain can handle entry to, then a defined number of circuits, and on to exit from, and stop. I think that’s why I favour a terminus station, where trains have to leave the main circuits, so that the repetition of round’n’round doesn’t extend to the station. *but see below My thinking hadn’t really included any fiddling off scene, so the hidden yard became more storage than fiddle. I guess in your suggestion, providing it was a yard of loops rather than sidings, the locos could run round and reverse on the reverse loop, but, as drawn, wouldn't that entail entering the main line, over the crossover and back down again. ( Unless I could find a way of a reverse loop at the lower level.) However, I shall reflect on your idea, and try to rationalise/balance/consolidate my logical and ‘other’ thoughts, across all the various suggestions. I know I’m going to have to compromise, but just don’t where and how yet. *I think I’m going to have a closer look at a looped 8 continuous run, as has been recently suggested on other threads. Maybe seeing how a diagonal end span from the left of the door and into the top right corner will fit (even if that means a sharp hidden U turn). All much appreciated. Ian