Under bed OO Thomas the Tank Engine layout?

[Fold]

My boys (2 and 4) received a “Percy & The Mail Train” Hornby kit for Christmas (actually 2 – one proved to have a fault in it’s controller so a replacement was sourced) along with a Thomas loco and a few additional carriages and trucks. Unpacking it I first thought the relative finesse needed to run this (especially getting the stock correctly on the track and the fiddly coupling and uncoupling) would mean this would quickly end up in the attic as a "potential toy of the future" but to my surprise they’ve both taken to it quite well aided by the youngest being quite into Thomas on TV and the oldest enjoying hands on and technical stuff

 

Now, I’m not a train enthusiast but I am a wargamer and hobbyist (more hobbyist than gamer) so I get a lot of enjoyment from building things and of course from scenic modelling, and I’ve been known to read the odd model railway magazine just for the spectacle and the modelling bits. So seeing their early enthusiasm my thoughts have naturally turned to making a scenic layout with some of the contents. Starting to research the ins and outs of doing this have led me to this forum.

 

The only place we have that this would fit is under their bunk bed. I’d stick it on castors and they could roll it out and have a play whenever they want. This would look far nicer and I think give them much more enjoyment. Crucially it would save Dad from unpacking, connecting, disconnecting and repacking the track whenever the mood takes them, and hopefully provide more than the current 20 minutes of peace and quiet afforded by the limited appeal of a basic oval circuit set up on the living room floor.

 

I quickly established that the curves in the kit (which I think must be 3rd radius) make this impossible, being as the oval you build from the box is way wider than the ~3 foot width of a single bed.  So as far as I understand it, the layout would have to be formed from a mixture of some of the 3rd radius stuff and then some 2nd and perhaps even 1st radius to negotiate the narrow board.

 

If have researched correctly the next challenge is – will Thomas and Percy run on those radiuses (radii?)?

 

And then, assuming this is even possible, the next question is what the layout should look like.  Now, I appreciate that Thomas the Tank Engine may not be the most thrilling subject for experienced enthusiasts but in the course of reading a bunch of threads here I have noticed there seem to many people more than willing to help out newcomers or otherwise uncertain modellers with track layouts so thought I would chance my luck and see if anyone can help me with a layout, given I know next to nothing about laying out track or running trains.

 

My thoughts on the restrictions/requirements here:

 

• 95-97cm wide – I’d like it to sit back slightly from the plane created by the edge of the bed which would be 95cm. If essential I could build the actual board surface above the level of the skirting board the bed sits against, which would gain an additional 2cm in width.
• Up to around 170cm long. The length is flexible, the longer it becomes the more unwieldy it is of course.
• Needs to have “roundy roundy”. As you can imagine the boys haven’t yet gained an appreciation for the finer arts of shunting things around (even if Dad finds that sort of thing quite appealing) and their immediate desire is simply to turn the speed up the max and watch Thomas or Percy race around… usually both with the intention to see who catches who and then what carnage ensues when they do!
• For similar reasons prototypical operation, layout accuracy (if there even is such a thing on Sodor) or realistic scale between locations is obviously not important.
• I imagine something with 1 “main” station with a couple of platforms and a shed, 1 smaller country station with 1 platform and then a representation of Brendam docks where they can imagine loading and unloading cargo on to some boats.  I’ll probably model a lowered water section for them to put some toy boats on.
• The rest to be filled in with countryside, buildings, whatever lie ins/passing sidings you’d deem suitable, and a few roads to allow them to mix in some hot wheels and other toy cars (I know… the scale differences!)
• I’d like to use as much of the existing track as possible, though I know I won’t be able to use it all.  That’s something like 16 double curves (again I assume are 3rd radius), 2 single curves (unsure of radius), 6 single straights, 6 double straights and 1 set of points (one set is missing its points)
• I like the idea of multiple levels and I think I’m up for the modelling challenge. Might this allow more track to be packed in if e.g. one line runs under a hill (with a cutout access for the inevitable derailments) while the other goes over it?

 

Aside from this I’m sure there are tonnes of things I haven’t thought about so I am all ears!  Thanks in advance for reading and any advice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ITG]

First I must say I have no direct experience of Percy or Thomas, but googling suggests your assumption about 3rd radius curves is correct. Most manufacturer warnings given about stock unable to run on tight curves, quotes 2nd radius as the minimum, ie some stock will struggle with 1st radius. But these warnings normally refer to much larger locos than 0-4-0 or 0-6-0, such as those with bogie wheel arrangements. But couplings are another factor which can be affected by tightness of curves, as they can foul and cause derailments on the tighter curves. Also, reversing trains of such as bogie coaches is probably more likely to derail than the same train going forwards.

 

The board size limitation you mention may also restrict your features of docks and stations will have to be on the inside of the circuit, meaning (a) that limits the size of the feature (b) reaching them would be across other features which could be leant upon and damaged. On the subject of reach, will you be able to pull the layout out to be wholly clear of the bed, thus allowing your boys to position themselves all around the board for access. If they can only sit one side, then reaching across 95cm again means likelihood of leaning on the board or it’s features.

 

re gradients, best to work out the length of track run going up and down, and thus estimate your incline and decline gradients. I guess you’ll be running short trains so pulling power may not be a problem, but friction on a curved incline is greater than a straight incline. I guess you may want 100mm clearance (to get hands in) which at 3% gradient needs over 3 metres up and 3 metres down. A long run! Sharper inclines may work but best test first. It’s not just the incline itself but the transition between level and start/end of incline which needs consideration.

 

in overall terms, little minds can get bored very easily if things don’t work properly, so time spent thinking things through as you are, will be invaluable. Trying to iron out problems before you get to the woodwork or track laying stages is always a good idea.

Good luck.

[Fold]

Cheers ITG!

 

I have seen reference to figures such as 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 but don't understad them What do these refer to? Percy and Thomas are certainly short but I don't yet know if they fall into that specific bucket of loco. They do have rims on the centre wheels which I understand limits their ability to chuff around curves.

 

They will be able to pull it out to sit around the entire thing yes, so reach into platforms and bits of track on the inside of the main loop isn't a concern, or alternatively (and what I'd do at their age) perch on the lower bunk to get a good birds eye view and take advantage of the relative comfort of a mattress, from where they would also be able to easily reach features located on that side of the board but further in to the centre. Presumably some featurs could be on the outside still - albeit on the short edge where fitting track into the available dimension isn't such a big issue. E.g. the dock could be on a short edge.

 

3m is a very long way and clearly not feasible here, so I will experiment to see what these engines can climb up. I'm not sure how one transitions from flat to gradient - certainly not with the Hornby track supplied in the set, but I assume there are specialist tracks that can bend in the vertical plane as well as those that can curve horizontally.  I can test the straight gradient bit and then perhaps someone could advise on the additional distance needed to transition at each end.  I am sensing though that this idea (multiple levels) might not be feasible. Unless they are two completely separate tracks (which is always a possibility I suppose!)

 

As you say reliability is key, and a subject I intend to cross once I establish if a decent enough layout is even possible.  From what I gather this may mean soldering power to every piece of track, and possibly replacing the power unit that comes with the set. Wiring is not something I look forward to but hey ho!

[BroadLeaves]

1 hour ago, Fold said:

I have seen reference to figures such as 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 but don't understad them

It's the number of wheels the engine has, split into driven and non-driven. For X-Y-Z

X: The number of non-driven wheels at the front
Y: The number of driven wheels in the middle
Z: The number of non-driven wheels at the rear

So this https://uk.Hornby.com/products/br-class-264-pug-0-4-0st-56025-smokey-joe-era-45-r3064 is an 0-4-0 but this https://uk.Hornby.com/products/br-a3-class-4-6-2-60103-flying-scotsman-era-4-r3627 is a 4-6-2.
 

[ITG]

2 hours ago, Fold said:

  From what I gather this may mean soldering power to every piece of track, and possibly replacing the power unit that comes with the set. Wiring is not something I look forward to but hey ho!

I mention the following, in case your reference to ‘replacing the power unit’ is because you’d heard of DCC. I suspect your 2 locos are 12v DC as opposed to DCC. The distinction is that DC powers the track, and that in turn moves the loco. But that means 2 locos on, say, a single track circuit will both move with just one controller. To separate the 2 locos for independent control your circuit would need to be split into 2 electrically isolated sections, with a controller powering each section (obviously this is only an example, as if the track layout was a single circuit, the 2 locos would physically crash into each other!). Note when you start using two controllers it is important the two can never simultaneously power the same piece of track…… smoke will result!
 

DCC works differently, in that a decoder in each loco has a unique address, so a single DCC controller (or indeed two) can independently control the 2 locos on the same track, as each controller can ‘speak’ to each loco independently, and vice versa.
 

But if you are using Hornby track, the points (turnouts) are self isolating, meaning the power only flows the way in which the point is set. This means that for DC it may mean that a loco could be isolated on a siding, so would not move if the controller was activated. The same may be true for DCC, but having a loco isolated would be a disadvantage because you have loco-specific control without that isolation.

 

If your two boys wish to each drive a loco simultaneously, then you either need…..

1. two completely independent DC sections of track (maybe 2 circles of track) and two controllers, or, 

2. a DCC power unit with two throttle controllers, and the locos converted to have decoders

 

Note that using isolating rail joiners is an alternative/additional way of isolating sections, and in fact, are likely to be needed alongside self-isolating points (if the two track circuits are connected)

Many folk successfully run layouts with single power feeds but ‘good practice’ is considered by many others to be powering every individual track section. The former seems easier….. until you get a poor connection and the loco stalls. Then the latter seems a good idea.

 

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by ITG
Addition

[Fold]

1 hour ago, Coombe Vale said:

As you are building for two lads, have you considered having two loops? Thomas and Percy will negotiate first and second radius curves with no problems. If you could increase the width of your baseboard to four feet, (i.e. another 25cm approx), you would be able to fit in a station with platforms on either side of the running lines on one side of the board as well as giving both boys their own circuit. I realise you intend to store the layout under their beds, but could you not pull the beds away from the wall slightly, (about ten inches),  in order to "conceal" the layout when not in use? (Apologies for using both imperial and metric measurements, it's an age thing in my case!)

Also, have you given any consideration yet to what material to use for the baseboard? If you are going to mount it on castors you will need something that will not flex between the wheel sets. (Sorry if I'm stating the obvious.) I would suggest something like 12mm chipboard which would probably remove the need for underboard bracing, (others may disagree). 

I must agree with ITG with regard to gradients; it will be difficult to incorporate them successfully in such a limited space especially as they will have to be, at least partially, on a curve which as ITG said increases the friction quite considerably. (I learnt this the hard way myself!) It can be done, but modern locomotives seem to have limited haulage power on inclines.

 

Thanks for the input!

 

I don’t think I could get away with pulling the bed out a foot, but I do love the idea of there being two independent circuits. I’d like to explore if this is possible even without extending the board - if the big station were on a short edge presumably it would be possible without extending the board.

 

I was thinking 18mm ply, or 6mm MDF but braced underneath with timber. I’ll have to review what I have in the attic when it comes to it but the reminder about stability is useful.

[Fold]

1 hour ago, BroadLeaves said:

It's the number of wheels the engine has, split into driven and non-driven. For X-Y-Z

X: The number of non-driven wheels at the front
Y: The number of driven wheels in the middle
Z: The number of non-driven wheels at the rear

So this https://uk.Hornby.com/products/br-class-264-pug-0-4-0st-56025-smokey-joe-era-45-r3064 is an 0-4-0 but this https://uk.Hornby.com/products/br-a3-class-4-6-2-60103-flying-scotsman-era-4-r3627 is a 4-6-2.
 

cheers. Okay so they are definitely 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 engines, good to know!

 

19 minutes ago, ITG said:

I mention the following, in case your reference to ‘replacing the power unit’ is because you’d heard of DCC. I suspect your 2 locos are 12v DC as opposed to DCC. The distinction is that DC powers the track, and that in turn moves the loco. But that means 2 locos on, say, a single track circuit will both move with just one controller. To separate the 2 locos for independent control your circuit would need to be split into 2 electrically isolated sections, with a controller powering each section (obviously this is only an example, as if the track layout was a single circuit, the 2 locos would physically crash into each other!). Note when you start using two controllers it is important the two can never simultaneously power the same piece of track…… smoke will result!
 

DCC works differently, in that a decoder in each loco has a unique address, so a single DCC controller (or indeed two) can independently control the 2 locos on the same track, as each controller can ‘speak’ to each loco independently, and vice versa.
 

But if you are using Hornby track, the points (turnouts) are self isolating, meaning the power only flows the way in which the point is set. This means that for DC it may mean that a loco could be isolated on a siding, so would not move if the controller was activated. The same may be true for DCC, but having a loco isolated would be a disadvantage because you have loco-specific control without that isolation.

 

If your two boys wish to each drive a loco simultaneously, then you either need…..

1. two completely independent DC sections of track (maybe 2 circles of track) and two controllers, or, 

2. a DCC power unit with two throttle controllers, and the locos converted to have decoders

 

Note that using isolating rail joiners is an alternative/additional way of isolating sections, and in fact, are likely to be needed alongside self-isolating points (if the two track circuits are connected)

Many folk successfully run layouts with single power feeds but ‘good practice’ is considered by many others to be powering every individual track section. The former seems easier….. until you get a poor connection and the loco stalls. Then the latter seems a good idea.

 

 

I wasn’t referring to DCC (which I think I have read enough about to know it’s not something I’m interested in or really need to explore) but the fact that the controllers supplied with the Henry kit might be too “basic” to allow custom wiring. But that might also be my complete lack of electronics knowledge speaking!

 

In any case after the various replies received so far I am definitely erring towards the idea of two separate circuits so that both boys can drive at the same time and would like to explore a layout that allows this.

 

as for single vs multiple feeds, I just get the sense that the track will probably fail and that will be a recipe for disaster once the track is stuck/nailed down. Furthermore I like the idea of balasting after laying track with the glue soaking method and as I understand it that will put the normal track joins even more at risk of non conductivity.

[ITG]

40 minutes ago, Fold said:

might be too “basic” to allow custom wiring

Depends what you mean.  All DC controllers are basically mains in, 12v DC out (some do have added refinements but whether that’s your custom wiring I don’t know)

 

43 minutes ago, Fold said:

erring towards the idea of two separate circuits

That does simplify things but do you mean they should be interconnected by a crossover? If so, that’s where you need to be careful with switching to prevent 2 controllers powering same piece of track. If not, it’s straightforward.

 

45 minutes ago, Fold said:

the normal track joins even more at risk of non conductivity

Most likely cause of this is either expansion/contraction caused by temperature variation (unlikely in a bedroom ) or movement caused by the board being shifted about or handled clumsily. The more rigid you can make the board the better, with ample bracing. What you must avoid is warping or flexing in the board.

[peach james]

Once on a time, say, about 1988-93, I used to exhibit a Thomas layout.  It was 4x6, (or 1200x2400mm) which exceeds your space by quite a bit.  Later on, I moved on to building my own, which sits on 60x60" (actually, 60.25x60.25").   I can confirm that the Hornby Thomas, Percy, Duck, James, Bill, Ben, Oliver will all comfortably run around 15" curves, because that's what is on it.  

(Strangely, I don't think I have any photos...certainly not many...)

So, building a layout that sits in 90 cm wide is practical.  I used Peco turnouts- I think a mixture of setrack small turnouts, and one curved one, which might be Hornby rather than Peco (it certainly isn't the long radius Peco curved turnout...).  In 60x60, I had 5 loops in the back, and a passing loop on the front, with Faller road on it.  (and it was all automated, with Lego Mindstorms RCX's (x3) to run it automatically...not DCC).

 

If I was going for a layout for kids, I would try to make it so they can configure it- it's a pain in the buttocks in some ways, but good in others.  

I would look at KATO Unitrack, or Bachmann EZ Track (yes, spelled like that...), and go from there- both of them are designed to be taken apart and put back together many times, whereas the UK systems (Hornby and Peco) are not as good for that.  If you want to attach the track to something for now, that would make sense, just do it in a way that you can recover the track later for them to have at it on their own, would be my suggestion.  (use white glue, something that water will remove ?  Or over here, draft stop calking, which can be peeled off when they get to wanting to "change" the layout on their own...)

My (then 8 year old- now 11 !) has a Kato N gauge loop in the bedroom in OO9 (N gauge, OO scale) that he occasionally plays with- both of my minions are far more about the easy to use than the more traditional, as my 16 year old dragged out the box of wooden railway and it's currently set up all over the living room floor.
  
(both my two children are autistic- and killing a childhood by saying no, you are too old for that seems like a daft thing for someone with 450 000 pieces of lego to try to do !).  

So, I would say stay DC with a single controller for now, and that yes, a loop that goes away under the bed is perfectly practical.  I would use a non traditional baseboard material (some form of plastic) for the top surface to allow to remove the track in 2-4 years, and my preference would be Unitrack.  It is not cheap, but there are a couple of advantages that I can see for a kids layout over the traditional track- 1:  it has built in ballast for laying onto the floor (if carpeted) 2: it is fairly easy to connect/disconnect 3: it is engineered to be connected/disconnected 4: resale is likely possible if they decide to get out of it, probably at 1/4 of what was paid in.  

https://www.gaugemasterretail.com/magento/catalogsearch/result/?q=kato+unitrack+2-260

or Bachmann EZ track- Rails carry it:
https://railsofsheffield.com/products/Bachmann-trains-44505-e-z-track-15-radius-curved-track-4card?_pos=1&_sid=427bef5c0&_ss=r


I hope you get enough info to help you- remember that asking for opinions on here, you are likely to get at least 1 more than posters !

 

James
 

[BroadLeaves]

1 hour ago, Fold said:

I do love the idea of there being two independent circuits.

I've just created this in AnyRail (www.anyrail.com) 



The white baseboard is 170 cm x 95cm and the two loops are first and second radius Hornby SetTrack curves with two crossovers. As you can see, it's a bit tight for width, but it does fit. Anything using third radius curves will be outside of the available space.

The above layout can be made to work with two independent controllers, with one for each loop. The key is to use self-isolating points and either an explicit insulating rail section or insulated fish plates, but the relative positioning of them is important. Once that's in place, one boy who was controlling the outer loop could set one crossover to "cross", drive the train from the outer loop to the inner, all under his control and then stop the train (he would control it from the points to the insulation break). He then sets both points back to "straight" and now the inside loop is all under control of the second boy who has the second controller. You don't need all four points, but with four, you can always switch between tracks, no matter if the train is going clockwise or counter-clockwise. With two sets, you can also have some route variation in that once train can do a loop that is half inner and half-outer.

[Fold]

I don't have (and can't install - work laptop) a proper track design programme so I tried to replicate the standard OO curves in powerpoint and proceeded to lay out a very simple track from there just to see what sort of basic loops we're talking about if there are to be two (once again I emphasise that I have zero expertise in doing this so I just put stuff kind of randomly.

 

I am starting to see the limitations of the size available. The board seemed bigger in my head!

 

Two separate tracks certainly limits possibilities. It seems to me that the bigger station definitely needs to go on the short side, the outer loop would have the dock and the inner could more easily have a smaller station and a more elaborate shed. 

 

 

 

 

[Fold]

58 minutes ago, ITG said:

Depends what you mean.  All DC controllers are basically mains in, 12v DC out (some do have added refinements but whether that’s your custom wiring I don’t know)

 

That does simplify things but do you mean they should be interconnected by a crossover? If so, that’s where you need to be careful with switching to prevent 2 controllers powering same piece of track. If not, it’s straightforward.

 

Most likely cause of this is either expansion/contraction caused by temperature variation (unlikely in a bedroom ) or movement caused by the board being shifted about or handled clumsily. The more rigid you can make the board the better, with ample bracing. What you must avoid is warping or flexing in the board.

 

Thanks. I reckon connection of the two circuits would be fun. Will cross the isolation bridge closer to the time.

In the room it varies between around 16 to 21 in the winter and perhaps 20 and 23 degrees in the summer. Not sure if thats a lot of variation or not?

 

27 minutes ago, peach james said:

Once on a time, say, about 1988-93, I used to exhibit a Thomas layout.  It was 4x6, (or 1200x2400mm) which exceeds your space by quite a bit.  Later on, I moved on to building my own, which sits on 60x60" (actually, 60.25x60.25").   I can confirm that the Hornby Thomas, Percy, Duck, James, Bill, Ben, Oliver will all comfortably run around 15" curves, because that's what is on it.  

(Strangely, I don't think I have any photos...certainly not many...)

So, building a layout that sits in 90 cm wide is practical.  I used Peco turnouts- I think a mixture of setrack small turnouts, and one curved one, which might be Hornby rather than Peco (it certainly isn't the long radius Peco curved turnout...).  In 60x60, I had 5 loops in the back, and a passing loop on the front, with Faller road on it.  (and it was all automated, with Lego Mindstorms RCX's (x3) to run it automatically...not DCC).

 

If I was going for a layout for kids, I would try to make it so they can configure it- it's a pain in the buttocks in some ways, but good in others.  

I would look at KATO Unitrack, or Bachmann EZ Track (yes, spelled like that...), and go from there- both of them are designed to be taken apart and put back together many times, whereas the UK systems (Hornby and Peco) are not as good for that.  If you want to attach the track to something for now, that would make sense, just do it in a way that you can recover the track later for them to have at it on their own, would be my suggestion.  (use white glue, something that water will remove ?  Or over here, draft stop calking, which can be peeled off when they get to wanting to "change" the layout on their own...)

My (then 8 year old- now 11 !) has a Kato N gauge loop in the bedroom in OO9 (N gauge, OO scale) that he occasionally plays with- both of my minions are far more about the easy to use than the more traditional, as my 16 year old dragged out the box of wooden railway and it's currently set up all over the living room floor.
  
(both my two children are autistic- and killing a childhood by saying no, you are too old for that seems like a daft thing for someone with 450 000 pieces of lego to try to do !).  

So, I would say stay DC with a single controller for now, and that yes, a loop that goes away under the bed is perfectly practical.  I would use a non traditional baseboard material (some form of plastic) for the top surface to allow to remove the track in 2-4 years, and my preference would be Unitrack.  It is not cheap, but there are a couple of advantages that I can see for a kids layout over the traditional track- 1:  it has built in ballast for laying onto the floor (if carpeted) 2: it is fairly easy to connect/disconnect 3: it is engineered to be connected/disconnected 4: resale is likely possible if they decide to get out of it, probably at 1/4 of what was paid in.  

https://www.gaugemasterretail.com/magento/catalogsearch/result/?q=kato+unitrack+2-260

or Bachmann EZ track- Rails carry it:
https://railsofsheffield.com/products/Bachmann-trains-44505-e-z-track-15-radius-curved-track-4card?_pos=1&_sid=427bef5c0&_ss=r


I hope you get enough info to help you- remember that asking for opinions on here, you are likely to get at least 1 more than posters !

 

James
 

 

Nice one James - good to know from someone who's done it that I'm not barking up the wrong tree. I take it buying in to those track "systems" precludes using any of the existing? I'd have to think carefully about it, looking at those two links it looks like full layout, even a small one, would rapidly get expensive. And if it proves the kids want to experiment more I'm not averse to ripping up the layout and letting them do a new one - with new track if needs be.  Would pinning with small tacks as per the official Hornby starter video work, as that seems the easiest way to make it removable? Though it precludes my idea of realistic looking ballast - I shall have to live without!

 

15 minutes ago, BroadLeaves said:

I've just created this in AnyRail (www.anyrail.com) 



The white baseboard is 170 cm x 95cm and the two loops are first and second radius Hornby SetTrack curves with two crossovers. As you can see, it's a bit tight for width, but it does fit. Anything using third radius curves will be outside of the available space.

The above layout can be made to work with two independent controllers, with one for each loop. The key is to use self-isolating points and either an explicit insulating rail section or insulated fish plates, but the relative positioning of them is important. Once that's in place, one boy who was controlling the outer loop could set one crossover to "cross", drive the train from the outer loop to the inner, all under his control and then stop the train (he would control it from the points to the insulation break). He then sets both points back to "straight" and now the inside loop is all under control of the second boy who has the second controller. You don't need all four points, but with four, you can always switch between tracks, no matter if the train is going clockwise or counter-clockwise. With two sets, you can also have some route variation in that once train can do a loop that is half inner and half-outer.

 

Amazing thanks!  And your properly done version tells me my hacked together one (posted at almost the same time) wasn't too far off.

 

Those operations sound too complex but I assume in a couple of years it would be more realistic to expect them to be able to pull it off.

 

What do  you think of my version that mixes some 3rd with 1st to achieve the same total radius of two 2nds? Is that a thing that can be done?

[Kris]

Take a look at what I have done for my 2 boys. When I started they were a similar age to yours. I built a narrow shelf at the rear of the bed to give me the extra width I needed to ensure I could use 2nd and 3rd radius curves. 

 

 

 

[BroadLeaves]

18 minutes ago, Fold said:

What do  you think of my version that mixes some 3rd with 1st to achieve the same total radius of two 2nds? Is that a thing that can be done?

It would work, but to get "clean" joints between the sections (important to avoid derailments when Gordon is racing James at top speed) you're going to have to have some flexible track in there too. The other thing I think you should consider is some way to link the two loops. Two completely separate loops is simpler from an electrical angle, but it's also simpler from a "playability value" angle.

 

[Kris]

4 minutes ago, BroadLeaves said:

It would work, but to get "clean" joints between the sections (important to avoid derailments when Gordon is racing James at top speed) 

 

Percy is more likely to derail especially if it's an older model. They fly! 

[PaulaDoesTrains]

If you want to be able to easily take up track for future re-jigging the I recommend using track screws rather than track pins. I doubt your children will be bothered whether or not the track is ballasted. A simple and cheap compromise is to glue down shed roofing felt and lay the track on top of that. Rather than under the bed, could the layout be stored on edge somewhere when not in use?

[Fold]

10 hours ago, BroadLeaves said:

It would work, but to get "clean" joints between the sections (important to avoid derailments when Gordon is racing James at top speed) you're going to have to have some flexible track in there too. The other thing I think you should consider is some way to link the two loops. Two completely separate loops is simpler from an electrical angle, but it's also simpler from a "playability value" angle.

 

Okay, that doesn’t seem too arduous? Although I’ll definitely consider if the small variation from a standard oval really makes enough of a difference to justify the complication.

 

yes I’m definitely interested in the ability to switch tracks, I didn’t draw that as I was only getting the basics down and because it’s much more difficult to draw smooth s bends in PowerPoint than simple curves!

 

9 hours ago, PaulaDoesTrains said:

If you want to be able to easily take up track for future re-jigging the I recommend using track screws rather than track pins. I doubt your children will be bothered whether or not the track is ballasted. A simple and cheap compromise is to glue down shed roofing felt and lay the track on top of that. Rather than under the bed, could the layout be stored on edge somewhere when not in use?

Right, track screws it is, perfect!

you’re probably right about the ballast. In this case I think I’ll use painted/washed 1 or 2mm cork for the ballast - giving the track a little height and satisfying a little of my modelling desire while keeping all track removable.

 

10 hours ago, Kris said:

Take a look at what I have done for my 2 boys. When I started they were a similar age to yours. I built a narrow shelf at the rear of the bed to give me the extra width I needed to ensure I could use 2nd and 3rd radius curves. 

 

 

 

 

Ha! Amazing. You’ve pretty much already done what I imagined! Thanks so much for the link - I’ll be reading through it carefully.

 

Do you use standard track to do the inclines (specifically the transitions between two angles of incline) or is there some special type that must be bought?

 

How wide is it and if you didn’t have the turnout on the long edge that necessitates widening the board, how wide would it be?

 

Studying the slopes it looks like the approach is actually partially cutting and forcibly changing the elevation of parts of the same base board? Is this how you went about it - mount the entire baseboard on a slope from the engine shed side towards the station. Then cut and raise the goods yard branch, and cut and raise or layer a piece to bring the central sidings back to level. 

[Kris]

55 minutes ago, Fold said:

Ha! Amazing. You’ve pretty much already done what I imagined! Thanks so much for the link - I’ll be reading through it carefully.

 

Do you use standard track to do the inclines (specifically the transitions between two angles of incline) or is there some special type that must be bought?

 

There is no special track used for the transitions between the angles of incline, they are very gentle so you don't notice them.

 

56 minutes ago, Fold said:

How wide is it and if you didn’t have the turnout on the long edge that necessitates widening the board, how wide would it be?

 

The layout is 123cm wide. As I said I have made a shelf to sit beside the bed to give the extra width. It's very handy for keeping soft friends on! This shelf is 25cm wide. If I didn't have the turnout heading up to the top yard I could have saved 4.5cm. If you were prepared to cut down the level crossing you could save a little more. Having the extra space does allow for cars to be waiting at the level crossing which is very important for one of my sons who is car mad.

 

 

56 minutes ago, Fold said:

Studying the slopes it looks like the approach is actually partially cutting and forcibly changing the elevation of parts of the same base board? Is this how you went about it - mount the entire baseboard on a slope from the engine shed side towards the station. Then cut and raise the goods yard branch, and cut and raise or layer a piece to bring the central sidings back to level. 

 

Yep, it is all one baseboard with the board being forced up and down to fit the gradients required. When I planned it I placed all of the track on the board and drew round this. Doing this allowed me to establish where I needed to cut the board. I then created a frame to go under the board and put appropriate risers in place to support the track bed and roads. The first part to be screwed into place was the goods yard. This had to be flat as you don't want the wagons rolling about when uncoupled. The station is about 3cm lower than this (doesn't sound a lot but it is quite a fierce gradient and train lengths are limited by it which is no bad thing on a small layout). The track starts falling just after the level crossing in one direction and after the set of points accessing the goods yard in the other direction. The track rising to the upper yard is fractionally steeper than the main line and the transition is not as smooth which does cause a few problems with some pieces of rolling stock that have been purchased since the layout was begun. This track gains nearly 4cm by the time it reaches the set of points at the top. 

 

I could have just as easily built the layout without any gradients and my children would have been just as happy with it. It would have been far easier to construct. I like gradients however, they add visual interest and make it more interesting driving trains.  

[Fold]

1 hour ago, Kris said:

 

There is no special track used for the transitions between the angles of incline, they are very gentle so you don't notice them.

 

 

The layout is 123cm wide. As I said I have made a shelf to sit beside the bed to give the extra width. It's very handy for keeping soft friends on! This shelf is 25cm wide. If I didn't have the turnout heading up to the top yard I could have saved 4.5cm. If you were prepared to cut down the level crossing you could save a little more. Having the extra space does allow for cars to be waiting at the level crossing which is very important for one of my sons who is car mad.

 

 

 

Yep, it is all one baseboard with the board being forced up and down to fit the gradients required. When I planned it I placed all of the track on the board and drew round this. Doing this allowed me to establish where I needed to cut the board. I then created a frame to go under the board and put appropriate risers in place to support the track bed and roads. The first part to be screwed into place was the goods yard. This had to be flat as you don't want the wagons rolling about when uncoupled. The station is about 3cm lower than this (doesn't sound a lot but it is quite a fierce gradient and train lengths are limited by it which is no bad thing on a small layout). The track starts falling just after the level crossing in one direction and after the set of points accessing the goods yard in the other direction. The track rising to the upper yard is fractionally steeper than the main line and the transition is not as smooth which does cause a few problems with some pieces of rolling stock that have been purchased since the layout was begun. This track gains nearly 4cm by the time it reaches the set of points at the top. 

 

I could have just as easily built the layout without any gradients and my children would have been just as happy with it. It would have been far easier to construct. I like gradients however, they add visual interest and make it more interesting driving trains.  

 

Great info thanks.

 

Does this method (single base board) offer much more than the alternative of adding slopes on top of an uncut base board? I first thought about using 3mm MDF on a series of supports. I can imagine that a single base board creates more natural inclines though.

 

I definitely want to have a level crossing but would move it to one of the short edges, saving the width, which means it will go over curved tracks - probably precluding the use of any commercially available kit, but making one from scratch with plasticard doesn't seem like it would be too difficult.

 

I like  your shelf idea and will bear it in mind should it prove too difficult to squeeze everything into 97cm.

[Kris]

8 minutes ago, Fold said:

 

Great info thanks.

 

Does this method (single base board) offer much more than the alternative of adding slopes on top of an uncut base board? I first thought about using 3mm MDF on a series of supports. I can imagine that a single base board creates more natural inclines though.

 

I definitely want to have a level crossing but would move it to one of the short edges, saving the width, which means it will go over curved tracks - probably precluding the use of any commercially available kit, but making one from scratch with plasticard doesn't seem like it would be too difficult.

 

I like  your shelf idea and will bear it in mind should it prove too difficult to squeeze everything into 97cm.

A single board does make for more natural inclines and gives a smoother transition into it. Adding slopes onto an uncut board hinders access to the underside of these areas which is a problem for wiring, adding point motors, adding lights etc. 

 

Peco do curved level crossing kits https://peco-uk.com/collections/100/products/curved-level-crossing-3rd-radius I used to have a straight version of one of these but have never had a curved version so can't comment on it. 

[BroadLeaves]

4 hours ago, Fold said:

I definitely want to have a level crossing but would move it to one of the short edges, saving the width, which means it will go over curved tracks - probably precluding the use of any commercially available kit,

Peco do one that is designed for use with curved tracks and you can add other radii to it. See 
https://peco-uk.com/products/curved-level-crossing-1st-radius and https://peco-uk.com/products/curved-level-crossing-2nd-radius-add-on-unit 

[Fold]

Thanks for the hints about the curved level crossing chaps.

 

Heavily influenced by the layout that @Kris has made (sadly the thread now seems to have disappeared?) I've now evolved towards what I hope is a final-ish layout (final enough to begin building anyway - I imagine "no plan survives contact with the enemy" is as relevant in model railways as anywhere else) and would like to get some more feedback before I take the plunge and order track (base board and timber is being delivered tomorrow).

 

I have taken @BroadLeaves advice and put the four points in to allow switching between the loops in both directions (the annotations though assume traffic is clockwise). There are two versions here. The only differences are the location of the hill and consequently the location of the points that allow the boys to switch between inner and outer loops. Essentially I became concerned that the northernmost entrance to the tunnels in the first version would be difficult to reach from an access "window" made along the board edge, necessitating extending that access window into the actual docks, which would ruin the scenery in the docks.  So hence the second version, with a tunnel that is at most ~20cm from the edge which should mean an access window along the board edge only suffices.   But as a consequence I had to move the inner to outer switch onto the curved ends of the track, which seems like it would work using curved points but is one of my questions that follow.

 

I've kept the board to 95cm wide but expanded to 180 long just to give a bit more breathing room at the docks and goods yard. While I've kept the radius colour coding I now assume I will use flexible track for pretty much everything apart from the points.

 

The level crossing is sited where it is because I hope to build a road tunnel accessing the board from the top left under the raised goods yard, the road will then cross a small bridge over the gorge and hence to the level crossing.

 

In addition to general opinions I have a few specific questions:

1. Is there any issue using curved points as I have done?
2. Is there anything more interesting you think I could be doing with the tracks at the docks? Right now it just has a sort of storage siding for unused trucks.
3. Likewise is there anything more interesting I could do with the loco shed?
4. Most crucially of all, where and how do I need to use insulated rail sections or fishplates to make the two loops individually controllable? 

 

 

 

 

[Kris]

The siding for the loco shed and the one next to the small station are too short to be practical or usable. Once you put a set of buffers on the end they will become too short to hold more than a single wagon. The loco shed should hold Percy but might not manage Thomas as shown. 

[BroadLeaves]

The layout @Kris built is linked to in his signature. RMWeb is having a few performance issues at the moment, so some of the links and images in posts aren't resolving. The thread is definitely still there, though.

No issues with using the curved points as you have on the upper diagram. They can be a problem to fit nicely into a SetTrack-based layout, but as you're using flexitrack, it'll be fine. For the lower diagram, the steeper curve of the two that make up a curved point is second radius - the whole inside curve of your plan needs to be first radius to get everything in the width. You can bend flexitrack to a narrower radius than first curve, which you'd have to do to compensate for the second curve radius which is now on the inside loop, and you *may* be alright, depending on how tight the curve is and the rolling stock, but I wouldn't be surprised to see problems with locomotives slowing down or even stopping on those curves and maybe some derailments too, especially if rolling stock is being pushed by the engine, rather than pulled.

I'd echo the comments about siding lengths. For the engine shed, if you make the track come straight out from the inner loop, rather than curving to be parallel with it, you'll have much more room. 

 

Neither the point for the small siding or the blue short siding off it are going to fit. It looks OK in your diagram, but the end of the "straight" part of the point will be too close to the inside of the inside curve and any engine or rolling stock parked on that track is going to get hit by a train on the main loop as it goes by.

You won't be able to fit a platform between the two tracks for the main station.

The curve in the bottom left is quite short - it looks to be about a 32cm radius. For a 90 degree bend, that translates to a 50cm track length. The points at either end really have to be flat and level, so all the slope has to be on that one piece of track. Even a 5% gradient is a bit of a struggle for a model locomotive and with only 50cm of track, the height gain is only going to be 2.5 cm. That's not really enough to get a bridge in or a car underneath, and once you also allow for the depth of the baseboard underneath the raised section, you'll have less headroom than that.

How about something like this (as a discussion item rather than a complete solution):

 

That doesn't solve the problem of the elevated goods area, but hey, one problem at a time!

[Fold]

Thanks both.  That diagram is spot on. Yes I had wondered about the radius of the inner part of the curved point and also the accuracy of my hacked track layout programme!  I like this plan a lot and think it's pretty much there.  The only thing I may do is move the south platform and switching point left to allow more space for the hill and tunnel, and specifically for the full length of the tunnel to be closer to the bottom board edge to address the point I made earlier about the "access window" (is there a commonly accepted name for these?)

 

On the point about the raised ground and road tunnel, I was taking a cue from Kris' layout where he has a combination of a modestly raised goods yard and a lowered ground level on that side of the board, making a combined apparent height difference more than the goods yard gradient alone.  It's hard to tell by the photos but it looks like a hot wheels sized tunnel isn't far off fitting on Kelgh.  But if that doesn't suffice, I could also notch out a road width from the underlying frame (I'm going to use 97mm timber so there is plenty of depth to mess around with) and install a separate, lower base board just for the road, in order to set the tunnel road well below the level of the base board as a whole, and have it sloping up towards the bridge over the gorge

 

I think the points and siding in the upper goods yard are probably complicating the rise since that part (the points) presumably can't go on a transition of elevation, meaning all the height needs to have been gained before the point?  In which case, I could probably sacrifice the point and siding and this would allow the track to continue rising another 25cm or so (based on my diagram and assuming a ~25cm flat bit for the goods yard itself). 

 

To be fair it was already looking a bit of a stretch to fit in a modelled bank, tunnel entrance, and stream/gorge with road bridge between the goods yard siding and the level crossing (even though your proper plan increases the distance to the level crossing by a track width or so) so this might be for the best anyway, and should push the yard up closer to 4cm in height, measured from the start of the curve). 

 

I reckon I would then "only" need to find another 3 cm between notching the frame and lowering the north side of the board wholesale to fit my tunnel in.