RichD1

Thanks Harlequin for the link. I can now understanding fully what you've been saying. Did you use birch? Looks like you've used 12mm. When you put the tops on, any idea on the weight?

Looking at your workshop tools looks very similar to mine, mitre saw, router table, drill press, planer/thicknesser, bandsaw and table saw.

Richard

The board with the river on I was planning on making that one about 50mm deeper than the rest. The tops would then be all at the same level and I would have a 50mm dropped area just where the bridges are shown to make a river and embankments.

Just trying to work out a materials list and have found a great optimiser website.  https://cutlistoptimizer.com

Also checked out birch ply pricing and its quite expensive now! 4mm @ £44, 6mm@ £47, 9mm @ £54 and 12mm @ £61 per sheet. So just for the tops in 6mm the Optimiser tells me I need 4 sheets and for the 4mm frame work I need 2 sheets. That makes a total of £276 just for the ply. I'm not sure if birch is worth the extra as when I went to look at it on the racks the sheets were still not that flat/straight but I guess better than Far East stuff.

Do you think I would have a problem using cheaper ply if say I use 18mm ply ends and the sandwich construction of 4mm ply spaced with softwood blocks for sides and crossbeams. Would everything hold square bearing in mind I do have a large mitre saw to cut ends very square.

Richard 

I’ve attached a sketch of the latest design. The area is approx. 3.2m x 3.1m. The boards at the top and top left are fixed. The board at the top right is removable as are all the boards back round to the alcove/chimney breast. Hopefully you can make out the planned joins.

Thanks Harlequin for your response. Would a lattice be the best approach or just straightforward crossbeams. Most modules would be about 1 to 1.2 metres long so would have about 3 crossbeams plus the 2 ends. How would you construct a lattice?

I was also thinking that the ends of the module would be substantial thicker to provide the stability and alignment for the dowels and scenery above. Was thinking about 18mm but this is maybe an overkill.

So considering a module with a raised section I would make a piece that fits the top of the whole frame then mark where the incline track would be and then saw this out and put on top of the risers to form the trackbed?

I was thinking of using the Woodland Scenics incline set so the boards in this area would be flat and then when it gets to the top of the incline would then go with the ply risers round to the Terminus at the top. Alternatively I could use Woodlands riser sets all the way round. I am hoping to have at least 2 bridges/viaducts in it on its way round to the top so the Woodland foam risers might not suit.

I'll try and sketch out a track plan so you can see what I'm trying to achieve.

Richard

I want to build a OO roundy-round track layout with a double track mainline and a single track branchline. 

The mainline loop will be on the base level of the top but the branchline will gradually rise to an elevated terminus. The main line will go through a tunnel as it passes under the elevated branchline.

There will be a fixed L section along one wall and around into the alcove. From each end there will be removal sections to take the tracks back around with an operating well in the centre. These sections will carry most of the incline and the tunnel for the mainline plus the scenery. The boards are not for transport but just to allow the room to be used by our son when he comes, but probably only 4 or 5 times a year. 

I think the fixed sections will probably follow the usual 9mm or 12mm frames and 6mm top. But I'm unsure about the removal sections.

Trying to reduce weight to ease removal, I had thought that a 2 x 4mm ply sandwich with softwood spacers topped by 6mm would be OK, but now I'm not sure whether this would support the planned inclines and tunnel. The sections also need to provide stable aligned joints between each section where these higher level tracks and scenic sections pass over. This is my biggest concern. The use of the 4mm ply worries me too as recently I've found that it's not very flat. Would the softwood spacers hold it flat and square?

What do you think my best solution will be?

Richard

BTW; I can cope with most carpentry needs as I have a workshop full of machines and tools.    

Thanks everyone for all the advice.

I now need some advice on baseboard construction but will open a new post.

Richard 

The layout needs to be removable to allow the room two be used for other purposes but this will only be about 4 or 5 times a year.

Richard

If I use Woodlands incline sections how would they work across baseboard joins?

Richard

Hi Chimer, how did you do that in xtrkcad!! I've been fiddling around for weeks and almost to the point of giving up. Being able to do just lines would be a real step forward before going to put down actual tracks. I'll PM my email and see if I can load the .xtc file. In metric would be great if its no bother.

Richard 

14 hours ago, ikcdab said:

BUT the big problem is that it dents very easily. Only got to rest your hand on it a little heavily and you have a dent which you cant get out. 

So is the same for the blue (now grey I believe) which you can buy from various outlets including model and art shops?

I thought the Woodland Scenic boards are XPS foam.

Richard

Has anyone used this to put over the ply top of your baseboard? Seems a cheaper alternative to the usual cork sheet and should provide better noise reduction. Could also use to build up the ground level to provide contours in the layout. 

https://www.diy.com/departments/diall-5mm-extruded-polystyrene-xps-foam-laminate-solid-wood-flooring-underlay-panels/1570772_BQ.prd

Can anyone suggest a cheap source for thicker sheets of XPS to create inclines and cuttings?

Richard

Hi ISW, thanks for your link it's very impressive and given me food for thought. I had thought about doing something similar to your design for transitions but was unsure whether a 6mm ply top would be strong enough to give a smooth raise or just bend mostly at the bottom.

Richard

I'm a Mac user so I've downloaded xtrkcad but not finding it that easy. Did try Railmodeller but I think you need to buy the licence to get the best out of it. I think I will preserve with xtrkcad to get the basic design and then draw out full size on paper.

I'm wondering if I move the crossover to the right hand side top corner whether that would give me more length of incline as a solution. I would like to have the figure of 8 so I can run two tail chasers on each line as I plan to use DCC. The circuit length would be approx. 17 metres. The use of Powerbase might be worth considering as a backstop if needed.

Can an incline on a curve have a very slight camber?

The change to a single loop and and inclined branch line up to a small terminus or industrial in the top left hand corner does have some appeal but I would need to add some bridge/viaduct features to add the extra interest. A tunnel on the main line would be nice but I cant see anywhere that would be long enough so that you wouldn't see the train at each end.

Richard

Thanks for the input guys. The level numbers on the diagram have changed since I did that sketch. The station area is now at -35mm and the storage tracks opposite are at zero. The track at the back of the station area is at +35mm. this gives a clearance at the bridge crossover of 70mm. 

Hi Gordon S, yes the storage area has given me some concern as you say. My thoughts are to make a cassette type loading area on the main board in that area or possibly off the board but there is very little space around. I've also seen a video on a European layout where a point on the main circuit feeds off the board and then allows a cassette to connect at about 45 degrees.

Siberian Snooper, Just bought a roll on wall lining paper to do a full size drawing but can't find a large enough area to lay it out on. I don't have use of the room yet as we are still clearing it out to decorate before I can make a start on the baseboards.

Richard 

Thanks ITG. Does the Woodland Scenics foam allow for a double track? Does it need any track underlay on top before fitting the track. Probably a silly question as without the ballast would drop through! In which case what did you use on top and how was it fixed.

How did you build the transitions? Could the last bit of the Woodland foam be sculpted to achieve this?

BTW; I made an error in my original post. The station, goods, and engine shed areas will be at -35mm elevation and not zero.

Attached is the rough layout of what I'm thinking. The dark grey area will be fixed and the rest removable  to allow the room to be used as a sitting room on the odd occasion when our son comes home.

I want to build a double track roundy-round folded figure of 8 on a 3m x 3m baseboard in OO. I want to keep the gradients to a minimum of 1:50 and an elevation difference of 70mm based on +35mm to -35mm so that I can run at least a four coach rack.

At 1:50 this produces a gradient length for a 35mm change of 1750mm plus 300mm each end for transitions gives a total of 2350mm so this means I cant fit it onto the board without going round a curve.

I intend to build flat topped baseboards and build risers off this to provide the elevation changes with the station area being at zero. 

So advice please on the best methods of building gradients, transitions and gradients on curves to get a smooth track surface.

Richard

Thanks for the advice. The trucks have had any sign of standard coupling fitting lugs removed. How easy would it be to fit Kadee couplings?

Richard

I’ve inherited a whole stack of goods wagons, mostly kit built and they all have a strange coupler fitted.

Can anyone identify them and were they any good? They appear to be magnetic type couplers.

Is it worth trying to get them all up together? Are they still made as several are missing parts.

From looking at them I can’t see them being as good as Kadees for the ability to push the wagons around the yard without coupling again.

Richard

I've watched the video but it doesn't go into whether you can add a splash of IPA or similar to help clean the wheels or just leave it dry.

Will try it out tomorrow to see.

Richard

Just bought the above but there are no instructions regarding the wheel cleaning.

I've got the strips of the white stick-on pads but can you apply something like a touch of IPA to help cleaning? Also are the pads conductive so that the driving wheels will rotate.

BTW, looks a great bit of kit and quality manufacture.

Richard 

Both definitely Code 100. One is a Fleischmann with single motor operation. The Peco has two separate movements so not sure how that works until I put some track on a run some wagons through them.

Richard 

Thanks, not sure where they'll be used yet.  Just planning to get back into modelling so digging out all the boxes I'd stored away in the loft.

Would you suggest not on a mainline?

Richard

I've found two Peco electro frog double slips in the back of the loft. They've never been used and I've no experience using them. Obviously they will save quite a bit of room on a layout. Are they ok to fit or do they give running trouble?

Richard

I'm in the planning stage of a layout. I've not had a layout for almost 25 years so am thinking that DCC is the way to go but as I've got around 60 locos this will have to be a gradual conversion and the wiring will have to be DC compatible.

The layout I current have is a round-roundy with a folded figure of 8 and twin tracks. The size of layout will be 3.1m x 3m and the gradients will be a max. of 2% but this will require that there will be gradients on at least three sides and some on curves with at least 600mm rads. I will probably be limited to 4 coach rakes due to the available space for a station.

My question is; does DCC offer better torque and constant speed control to cope with the gradients?

Richard 

Have you any idea why the replacement motor cured your indexing problem?

I've just pulled my one out of storage and am about to give it a good clean and then test.

Richard