ITG

IZomboid, I thought originally about the loco facilities being so, but reasoned that if that P1 was occupied (DMU maybe) it would block access to/from loco roads? Maybe an alternative would be to take loco facilities off between the point just above X and the point leading to P1 & P2? Possibility about the two roads coming together under the circumstances concourse. I was a little reluctant about that for the reasons you state, albeit my current layout has 3 such hidden points with very few problems, and 2 of those are Settrack insulfrog curved points! And none are currently easily accessible (one of my many learning points - no pun intended!)

Phil, tried to incorporate some of your thinking - see below. There's a limit (I feel) to how much I can bend the GY around the corner because (a) need to avoid making that top left corner a wider baseboard and thus a long reach and (b) keeping it all inside the sweep of the incoming line. As it is, that would leave the outer exit through the station throat as connecting to the upper level circuit and back to the station, under the high level concourse and into P1. The inner exit X through the throat then drops at 2% to go back under that concourse but at a lower level obviously than the upper circuit. Or do you see any pro/con with reversing these two entry/exit tracks so that the inner one went round upper circuit, and the outer one dropped? Note, loco facilities branch off the outer.

David, thanks for reply. The Feb 27 overall plan has evolved a little. Not dead, but shuffled in my planning options. Could you expand a little on why the yard looks American, although I’m not sure if you’re referring to GY or FY? Incidentally, I called it a staging yard rather then FY as I don’t really want to be handling stock, and with the reverse loop, I don’t have to, per se. If you mean FY, I have now simplified to a more conventional single-track entry to 5 parallel loops, with a fan at each end, and is located more to the bottom of the room, and curving partly around the diagonal corner. This rework of the FY could of course apply also to your suggestion of a double-track round and round at lower level. That lower side of room can only really be 8’ long, before the diagonal across the door. Taking into account the bends and point fans at each end, makes it virtually inevitable that the FY will need to expand into that diagonal board, which then may limit space for your suggestion of a station there. Particularly, as I don’t want to squeeze the operating space (and capability to reach locations) which is already at limits, I think? One of the reasons I was kind of avoiding a straightforward double track main line was the fact that space-wise I found it difficult to avoid the reverse loop only connecting to the inner circuit on both ends (without it fixing the RL itself in such a way that it created a 3’ wide block of baseboard in a corner - tricky to reach across.). That meant, at least to my eye, that I would have to have wrong-road running to get a train turned on journey to/from terminus. Hence, even in my earlier incarnation, I was not seeing it as twin track, more two single tracks that happened to run nearly parallel for a distance. (Imagination is a wonderful thing) . Now I eagerly and hopefully await ideas as to how to blend all this thinking into a workable layout.

Mickey, i have half a dozen of these motors, bought early 2019. I found mine forgot addresses if I had a short, eg caused by forgetting to set a any point in correct direction causing derail. At DCC Concepts suggestion, I fitted ‘suppressors’ (I think, can’t actually remember what they were called) to the end of the bus wire, and also fitted a 12v car bulb across each motor. DCC were very helpful and provided same free of charge. This has cured the problem.

Well, still tweaking Anyrail plans. Now lost count of how many versions of plans I have, but I see that as no bad thing. Hopefully more - evolving and developing - plans means less mistakes and shortfalls when it comes to making baseboards and laying track. In my previous postings, I have outlined my thinking and wish list, and whilst that has been refined, there's not a lot of change in my fundamentals - which I accept may lead to what some would see as 'unprototypical' to one degree or another. I'm using Streamline (including all points) with some Set Track pieces (a) because I have them & (b) they make the (mostly hidden) curves more straightforward. Anyway, I'm tinkering with the station. The plan context is that it is a terminus station handling passenger/goods traffic (train length limitations excepted) on a board approx 11'4" x 2'6". There is a 'branch line' which is there to provide an upper level continuous run through platform 1, running under a higher level station building/concourse. (thanks - the idea came from this forum). I foresee that mostly the station will function as a terminus. The gap between the northern track and the baseboard edge will be road/low relief buildings. At this stage, its the overall plan I'm looking at - when it comes to fine-tuning, I can always consider curving it slightly or making it less parallel, for aesthetic reasons. Point X on the plan is the single track main line exit from the station which falls with a 2% gradient around the room perimeter to a 5-loop staging yard and reverse loop, integrated into a lower level continuous run. Part of this lower area runs under the terminus. The lower area is mostly on a 12" (max) wide board, which would allow for access by reaching up. So I can have two roundie trains running in each of upper & lower level circuits whilst marshalling trains in the goods yard etc. Like most people, I guess, I have too many diesel and steam locos (50/60/70s era) and too much associated rolling stock - hence the 5 storage loops and the amount of station sidings/platforms. I'd be grateful for any feedback on the station, particularly around: could I/should I seek to avoid the short length where main/branch lines converge in the station throat? if better to keep them separate, any idea how to do that in available space? the loco facilities are accessed off the branch approach - any other options? the goods yard access run-round loop seems a little tight - can anyone see how to lengthen that a little? anything else? Thanks in advance. Ian

Good luck - let’s hope you can get all the basics you might need to get started, during this odd time. Such as the wood, rail joiners, cables etc. I’ve had 18 months building my first layout after a gap of xxxx! (a lot) years, making plenty of mistakes as I went (or improvement opportunities). So I’m now at a stage where, although by no means finished, I almost don’t want to spend too much time on the current layout, as I’m planning/doodling/ considering what the next layout might be ——- hopefully eradicating most of the hiccups this time.

When I was around 12-13, my DIY-proficient dad succumbed to my requests for a layout in what was known as the playroom. This room had been constructed from what was a brick built coal shed and two outhouses. anyway, the baseboard plan was agreed to be approx 10’x5’ with central operating well, hinged so it folded against the wall, leaving a 6” wide shelf on which rolling stock would be parked for storage. The board was constructed from pretty heavy duty block board with framing. Dad was very much from the “make it twice as strong as it needs to be” school of thought. I already had a load of Triang TT track, locos and rolling stock. Not a thought was given to the scenic treatment. The lack of planning didn’t really matter, as no sooner was the above all in place, and track laid out in experimental layouts, that I decided it would be better if it went around the entire room, probably about 10’ x 16’, with a lift out section diagonally across the door access. Dad duly cut the original board up, and followed my bidding. Time had evolved during all these developments, and it got to a stage where I discovered........ girls! Trains took a back seat, and I have no idea what happened to all the TT stock. 50 years went by, and I’m now modelling again. The penny dropped when I realised that what I thought was a 5 minute job for dad with a hammer and saw, turned out to require a little more finesse and skill, along with an array of tools. None of which I had, of course. But now I’m learning!

03060 - on my current layout (the first for 50(!) years and full of lots of mistakes learning experiences,) I have used a 3% Woodland Scenics gradient. Very easy to use, and goes around curves superbly, so no complaints there. But, I didn’t allow sufficiently for the transition at the top and the bottom, so I have a slight ‘bump’. I’ve since heard of building that very small but important transition slope. And, for me in OO, 3% seems too steep for some steam locos as they do struggle, particularly on those curves. That said, I have purchased but not yet used, the DCC Concepts Powerbase to give extra adhesion. Considering all above, I’m still aiming for 2% on any future layout, but these explorations/considerations are deliberately very premature. I want to give myself much more planning and thinking time for the future development.

SJP- so if my maths is correct, your upper board must be 4.5 to 5 inches above the lower one. I’d prefer to keep it a little less than that to ease gradients if possible. P the E - what did you use for the upper board framework, and how high above lower board is it? i guess what I wanting to explore is the use of a shallow framework to the upper board, but without losing strength. Hence the consideration of aluminium or steel framework.

Hi, i have a thread running as I start to plan the track layout for my next project, but I also need ideas specifically for baseboard construction, so hopefully this will encourage such ideas and feedback. I did find an old thread where the idea of a baseboard-specific (or benchwork-specific) topic was suggested, but can’t find anything became of it. Unless you know better. Anyway, as woodworking is not my skill area, I’m keen to improve on earlier efforts. In particular, I’m planning a high level station, which due to gradient limitations etc, will probably be some 100-120mm above the lower level. There will be simple 1 or 2 through tracks running under the station area. So what can I brace this upper level board with, that gives the required 70mm or so clearance for trains to pass below? I’m using Gaugemaster undertrack point motors which sit fairly flat (on the upper level) so they shouldn’t be an impediment. I've seen talk on this forum about using steel or aluminium tubing as below. http://www.richardsonsuk.co.uk/Aluminium-Tubes/p47?gclid=CPChifGBjskCFUafGwodAxgODw anyone actually used it, with what results? or could I cut ‘archways’ in ply framing, without weakening the structure? Or any other ideas? This must be a fairly common issue, I’d assume. thanks.

Bought but not yet used Powerbase but the video on DCC Concepts site (you tube) is very impressive. as for accessing hidden sidings, failure to anticipate that appropriately is one of the reasons I am planning a complete rebuild. I started off with a 7’x2’ board (on that part of layout) above another of same size, then realised I had to cut access holes in lower board to reach upwards, with a strange uncomfortable bend of arm to try to get to any derailments etc. Far from satisfactory. also, I originally calculated clearance, taking into account upper baseboard thickness and frame thickness. Then belatedly during construction added metal L shaped corner brackets. Still ok, but I now see just one specific loco can catch (just) on a slightly protruding screw head above it, as it goes through lower storage loop. Doh! Also, I discovered 3% gradient (at least on curved track) does need the Powerbase- hence relaying that section of track. As a result of both above issues, I now spend hours on Anyrail planning and calculating clearances and gradients for the next time round!

Not on my iPad, it’s not. Is it a setting or an update on your device that’s changed?

I have now developed a few variations on the above theme, with basically the same overall plan, but with changes to the lower station as I’ve now incorporated it as a through station to be part of the reverse loop, and changed the ‘dummy’ siding at F to a passing loop. That also then allows a couple of short sidings to lead off right, along the edge of the RHS well. That may allow the edge of the well itself to be a dockside? So the lower terminus station as was then disappears. Still got to think about the upper station, which with throat, goods and loco facilities and some scenic treatment , would be anything up to 11’4” x 2’6”. But my thoughts have turned to the baseboard, particularly the dual level area. In a nutshell, this would require, a shelf of some 250mm for the 3 tracks running along the wall, with the upper board surface being 100mm above it. (Gradients work ok). Assuming 9mm ply, that leaves 91mm, and I guess I need to allow 75mm for train height on track. The maths suggest only 16mm for bracing. I am thinking that with the lower board only being some 250mm, there would still be reasonable access for derailments or track cleaning. Obviously the remainder of the bracing on the upper board could be heavier duty, but what do folk suggest/use to stabilise/strengthen in these circumstances, for that long thin strip of the upper board? Or, if the upper board were MDF, would I get away with no cross-bracing along that length, so close to the wall? Dotted line on plan below shows upper board edge. .

As I said before, I’ve been doodling. You may remember (when I opened this thread) that I said my current (7’ x 6’6”) layout had various features which I hoped to recreate, ie double track continuous running, reverse loop, terminus station with loco facilities and goods yard, and small station. Although there have been mistakes made in the construction of this layout, for me they’ve been around construction and consistency, rather than design of what works for, and amuses, me. So, given my plan was to expand to fill all/more of the 11’4” x 6’6” room, in theory I felt my aspiration should be to retain (although in a start all over again sense) and develop, rather than reduce. So here is where I am at. On the plan shown, I have separated out and excluded (for time being) the high level station, to attach initially only the lower level track, and the gradient rising to the aforementioned station. Note that my learning curve on Anyrail means that there are some slight misalignment issues (not disconnects, but just inaccurate curves or track spacings). I have tried to use much of what I already have in terms of track (mix of Streamline and Settrack), with a minimum 2nd radius. For those who have previously responded on this thread, please don’t think its gone in one ear and out of the other. I have pondered muchly, but I do feel comfortable having the two levels, to allow the operational flexibility/complexity I’m after. By way of explanation, A = where the rising gradient (around 1.5%) leads into the upper level terminus (not shown - overall size could be 11' x 2'6"). The tracks below this upper level terminus would be on a narrow shelf rather than a full width board, to allow easier access for problems underneath the upper board. Note both the gradient and the accessibility are aimed for improvements on the current layout. B to C = the staging yard, with a shared up/down central loop. This whole area will not be for fiddling per se, but for holding/sequencing, with a couple of loco spurs. I am thinking of it being covered by a removable high level urban area. The staging yard previously was a single loop, in an inaccessible location, so again, I am getting an improvement here. D = small branch station with run-round loop and small goods facility. The buildings for this station may be either at the higher level above the staging yard, with steps/lift for passengers, and/or such as goods facilities could be low relief below the retaining wall in front of the staging yard. E = where the gradient on the single line to terminus starts. According to Anyrail, all the vertical clearances work. F = a possible (removable) bridge spanning the well. The second track on this is a dummy siding, as it just ends under the high level area. Just a way of hiding a train/rolling stock in full view. I am aware the x-over on the right is facing (rule 1?) but I think it makes sense (at least to me) for trains coming from high level terminus (after circling a number of times) to cross to inner track for some (a) to reach branch station at D or (b) to access reverse loop or (c) to enter staging yard the ‘wrong way’. The grey shaded areas are operating/access ‘wells’; the bottom left triangle is to allow the door opening inwards and the centre one shown as being at least 2’ wide. I will post my evolving thinking on the upper level terminus in due course, but I’m keen to first get feedback/thoughts on this part of the plan. Running fully prototypically is not my top priority, and I am accepting of the need for 2nd/3rd radius curves (in any case set track to re-use) and 3 coach trains. Once I’ve finally settled – hopefully with your help – on this basic plan, I plan to go through it again to see if its possible to ease any curves or use larger radius points. On the current layout, I started using Set Track points, then half way through construction, switched to SL points of varying radius. I may retain ST points for use in the staging yard, as not really had any problems with insulfrogs. So, fire away. Help me stand back and review please. But do bear in mind where I’m coming from on this. Fun, amusement and learning (all in both the journey and the destination) are what I’m after. Absolute authenticity or prototypicality are less important to me.

Thanks Jeff. I still fancy a roundy. For 99% of the time, the only operator will be me, and I’d like to have a train circling, whilst shunting etc. But as I say, still thinking things through. There’s a few considerations re height. Current board is a little over a metre high, but future board will have to consider.... 1. It’s has to be high enough to clear a radiator, which tbh, it would be anyway. 2. There’s a window on the long wall, but I reckon whatever I do, I’m effectively going to have to go across the window part way up (as it does now). But as I won’t be able to open it easily anyway, the insert of the (raised up to baseboard level) window sill may allow a little cameo scene. 3. Domestic management insisted that I retain various storage units below the baseboard, eg a sideboard, shelf unit etc. Not a bad idea, and I mounted the existing baseboard on a wall-batten and adjustable kitchen unit legs standing about 10cm above and on top of these storage units. Worked well apart from it didn’t leave much access space if I then needed to access under-board wiring etc. Units are large enough to be not very mobile. So, for that reason alone, I may make the board higher this time. As you suggest, I plan to do woodwork, & lay and wire track in garage, before moving boards in to railway room.

I’ve thought about reversing the door, but immediately outside the room, there are 2 more doors, one either side, in a hallway corridor only the width of a door. So having the door reversed would create corridor congestion which would affect areas outside the railway room, in contravention of household planning permissions. a bifold door would gain a little space but in some ways, having entry space as you walk in the room (as afforded by the full door opening) is no bad thing. So haven’t ruled bifold out, but I’m favouring the idea of something like a 8’x6’6” circular, with terminus (or terminus--through) extending into the 3’ leg opposite the door. So the door issue is not such a factor. As I said earlier, because I now have a layout up and running, I am not experiencing the hunger/drive/urgency which I felt previously, to get this new creation going, That to me is a blessing, as I can ponder and consider much more, which means I’m still at the nothing ruled in, nothing ruled out stage. That makes forum input all the more worthwhile. Thank you.

I’ve been doodling around and have a few developing options beginning to take shape, but I have a specific question (maybe best as a new thread, but I’ll try here first). I keep reading of the unreliability / poor running of Peco set track curved points. I have 4 on the existing layout (one pair in a curved crossover, the other pair at either end of a passing loop) and these haven’t been any trouble. That said, I had one elsewhere, which did hiccup, but as I had baseboard level issues, I thought it was that. I replaced it with a straight point, and that was ok. I’d like to re-use these curved points in my new thinking, so my question is - what are people’s eeriences of them? What exactly is the issue? Are the Streamline curved points (larger I know) better? thanks Ian

Plenty of food for thought so far. I am grateful that I am not yet anywhere near the action stage on this idea, because the current layout (learning project that it is , or has become) is still up and running. That forces/gives plenty of time for thinking. Given in the current baseboard size of 7’ x 6’6”, I have somehow contrived to fit a terminus, small through station twin continuous tracks and a reverse loop, I am still hoping to recreate similar features in what will be an expanded space. But I'm wondering instead of trying to go around the perimeter of the room, as indicated by the room plan at start of this thread, would I be better to keep the ‘circular’ part of the layout to the right of the door (that’s where the current layout sits) and instead use the part of the long wall opposite the door to site the (possibly higher level) terminus. Meaning I’d end up with an L with the foot of it being around 7’x6’6”, and the leg being around 4’x2’6”. Total length along the wall would then be the full 11’ or so. if I am to retain a reverse loop, then maybe it needs to align along the long wall (possibly partly below the terminus) instead of at right angles across the mid-room area. As thoughts come in from either myself, or you wonderfully constructive commenters, I will eventually draw ideas together on a plan(s), but at present, I’m finding it helpful to retain mental reflections , standing just looking at the room and imagining........

Thanks for the offer DZ. My other passion is rugby so cannot stray far from TV this Six Nations weekend! (BTW, in Peterborough) As a recent beneficiary of the Healthy Eating Low Carb programme, my waistline is diminishing. Current well is 2’ square, but I normally stand outside layout to operate. The well is really for access for building and maintenance. Future layout and space utilisation may mean different.

Harlequin, comments appreciated. I’ll try to answer. i like the operational aspects of terminating arrivals, running round, changing locos, and departures. I understand what you’re saying is I could do all that at a through station. What about if I had a large (by my standards) through station, but then maybe a (very) small branch line? I currently have a dual level layout, albeit a 3% gradient on curves is proving to be a challenge for some locos (although I have still to install magnets as per DCC Concepts Powerbase. Metal plates under gradient already laid) point about operating well is understood. Minimum 2feet wide?

Well, AH, questions I’ve pondered. 1. I’d like to think I’m midway between. I’m not precious about era, prototype, etc, but loosely 50/60s - ish with steam, and green and blue diesels. As I said, I’d like to do more than just watch trains go round, so shunting facilities are on the wish list. I don’t mind the “loadsa tracks” look, as I think I need to accommodate that to fit in the features I want for operating. 2. Goods and passenger but I accept the limitations, as I said, to 3 coach trains. My largest locos are 4-6-0 Patriot and Class 40 diesel. 3. If I had to compromise, as I said, losing the second continuous track, and next on the hit list might be the small through station. Hope that might help.

After returning too this hobby after a gap of 50 years (teenager then – retired now!), I’ve spent 15 months on what I’ll call my first layout (dear old dad did most of the work all those years ago, I now realise). Trying to find the balance between ‘keep it simple’ and having enough operational interest has clearly been a struggle, as I’ve hopelessly veered towards the latter at the expense of the former! But I actually don’t mind that I’ve made mistakes along the way, as boy, have I learnt a lot! I don’t even mind that some of those mistakes now lead me to realise that this (not yet finished) layout will only have a short life, as I now seek to put these learning experiences to use in version 2. Even though this layout is up and running fairly effectively, I feel I have to start again soon for the following reasons: 1. I now realise trying to have the layout I’m aiming for, in a room that tries to double as an office ends up compromising on both. (see room details below) 2. I wish I hadn’t used Sundeala for the baseboard, as despite my best efforts, it has sagged in a couple of places, causing pain. In any case, the weakest and least enjoyable part of my skill set is definitely woodworking. A professionally made baseboard beckons. 3. I miscalculated the clearance required for access under a high-level station, to reach tracks below when trouble occurs. 4. I mixed a few things, changing as I went along, when I realised which I preferred. For example, from insulfrog to electrofrog points, and from solenoid uncoupling devices to servos. I’d like to standardise. 5. I didn’t allow sufficient track ‘storage’ space for the locos and rolling stock which I have accumulated quickly, whether that is sidings, hidden storage loops, or any kind of fiddle yard. This could mostly be remedied by a set of storage/staging loops off scene. What do I want to keep? a) Staying in the current layout room, as other options wouldn’t get domestic planning permission. b) Staying with OO DCC, and re-using most of the track I already have. I accept the size limitations mean I will need to have tight radii, hence I have used a mixture of Streamline and Settrack (min 2nd radius). Trains of 3 coaches (or equivalent lengths for goods wagons) are also necessary. c) The current track layout incorporates a 3-platform terminus, with small goods yard and loco facility; a small through station with bay and goods sidings; a reversing loop and a continuous run (actually two, although disguised so as not to appear as a double track oval). Although probably to a different track plan, I’d like to try to work these features in again, although if anything has to go, I’d prefer it was the double track. The room is 11’ 4” x 6’ 6”, and the current layout uses 7’ x 6’ 6” of that, with an operating well. But, apart from the space required for the opening door in one corner, (cannot reverse due to 2 other doors immediately outside the room), I now with to use more (ie all) space. See room layout below. My immediate dilemma, and need to learn yet more from the helpful folk on this forum, is basically where do I put what? · The terminus station (I’m thinking along the long wall opposite the door? the actual track plan is still to come) · Small through station ( or maybe a mini terminus) · The staging yard ( I favour the idea of loops with points, each (or most) able to accommodate 3 coaches plus tender loco, say 4’?) As I will probably operate from a centre well, would this fiddle yard be best sited along the diagonal board across the door area, although length for the 4 or 5 roads I’d like, means it would have to bend around the corner onto the shorter long wall) · The reversing loop seems to me to best be an ‘S’ shape across the room from north to south, but ideas welcome.

As a novice modeller who has made numerous mistakes in the last 12 months, but still found the whole thing a positive learning experience with much satisfaction, may I say it seems you may have made a similar mistake to one of mine. That is, a point in a hidden (lower level) section of track. I tried to incorporate a reversing loop and a simple hidden loop for train storage, which together meant 3 points in a tunnel, below an upper level terminus. Let’s just say I now fully appreciate why many modellers see this as a no-no. That said, some of my other improvement opportunities/learning experiences would also be my baseboard construction and track laying (both not perfect), but I have had occasional problems with smooth running on these hidden points - sometimes due to operator error. It has proved a very challenging task then to rescue stalled/derailed trains. good luck.

Surely scale track is no different. I understood the reason why multiple dropper feeds is recommended is down to the need to avoid/minimise poor connections due to loose fishplates/ track joiners. Obviously same logic is true of DC as well as DCC but the ‘always live’ nature of the latter, plus the sound/light characteristics of such locos, means you want power even to stationary locos - which if using isolating/insulfrog points would be an issue unless adding additional feeds one way or another. i started again (after a 50 year gap) with DCC and insulfrog points, and quickly realised slow running was much improved by using live frogs, so changed over to them.

The mantra I followed when starting my DCC layout was to avoid isolating points, use insulating joiners on the inner rails of points, and put feeds into tracks for every individual piece. I guess if all else fails, the last point is the key one, which would address your query re isolating points.