Train set track plan

[sub39h]

Hello fellow RMWebbers,

 

I decided in the latter parts of 2012 that I wanted to see how the hobby had developed since my departure as a teenage boy 15 years ago. Impressed by the quality of the models, I decided I wanted to get back into the hobby. I am interested primarily in ECML around 1990. I have visions of a grand layout with a massive fictional ECML through station where I can run full length HSTs and the like, but I decided I should probably learn to walk before I try to run. (Space might also be an issue!)

 

I am getting married in the summer, and two of my cousins have young children interested in trains who will be attending. I thought this would be the perfect opportunity to build a small layout for them to have fun with (and probably break) and for me to try my hand at my first permanent layout. It is by no means meant to be prototypical and uses set track heavily (because I have a lot of it lying around). It will be built on a single piece of 2440mm x 1220mm ply from Wickes or similar, with some small legs to keep it off the floor and to allow me to run wires underneath.

 

Minimum radius is 438mm (2nd radius). Ideally I wanted 3 loops but cutting to two loops and having a third platform on the station allows me more operational potential and allows me to run longer trains. I am guessing I should be able to get 3-4 coaches in a loco hauled train. The sidings in the middle will be for a refuelling point and goods shed.

 

Control will be DCC as I want to experiment, and I have a Bachmann Dynamis handset amongst some of my recent purchases. It seems simple enough that the kids should understand it. Points will be hand operated. 

 

I would love your feedback and ideas for improvement.  

 

Thanks

[Kris]

For a quick layout it offers lots of potential. The only real improvement I would suggest would be to add a head shunt for the goods yard. 

 

I would be concerned that there would be quite a bit of work required to get this working with the time scale that you have mentioned and the scenic embellishments that you want. 

[sub39h]

Thanks very much - I have been playing with it already since posting and swapped the siding so it faces the other way. In the process I added a headshunt as per your suggestion. 

 

In regards to the scenery, well the plan would be to get it working so they have something to play with, and the scenery can be built up later whilst I learn the ropes. 

[Flying Pig]

I'm not convinced that's an improvement.  The sidings are now very short; the headshunt isn't long enough to be useful for shunting and the facing connection from the main line is arguably less realistic.  It does avoid the facing curved crossover you had before though, so hmmm...perhaps bin the headshunt, move the level crossing to the opposite end of the straight and you can add a couple of standard straights to each siding.

 

The spur off the middle road in the station looks good, but is it long enough to be useful and could you possibly lengthen the loop (and thus the lower platform) if you omitted it? Although you might then end up with a completely symmetrical station layout which wouldn't look as interesting.  Hmm.. again.

[DCB]

Try to get hold of a Peco 60 plans for small railways book which has some very good plans in or the PSL book of Model Railway Track Plans  both by CJ Freezer

Your plan is very Thomas the tank engine and crams a lot of points and short sidings into quite a large space but has no real operating potential except letting Gordon and Henry run 3 coach expresses while Percy shunts trucks. The presumably bi directional centre road arrangement is almost unheard of in prototype practice and would most likely be  be a turnback siding as per Chippenham in steam days.

Using Set Track wastes a lot of space, Code 100 streamline 2ft radius points are shorter than set track and give a narrower track spacing allowing more sidings or loops, the short Y point is even shorter and the Double slip and 3 way point also save space.

The PSL book has a very good layout for 2X4 in N gauge 4 X 8 in OO on the cover .  You only need double track and a siding and pair of trailing crossovers for interesting operation if the far side of the layout is a hidden sidings and loops and isolated sections, passenger  trains can terminate, start or reverse in such a station or a freight or stopping passenger let a faster train past and you can shunt the siding, Very few prototype stations had head shunts to allow shunting clear of the running lines.

[sub39h]

I'm not convinced that's an improvement.  The sidings are now very short; the headshunt isn't long enough to be useful for shunting and the facing connection from the main line is arguably less realistic.  It does avoid the facing curved crossover you had before though, so hmmm...perhaps bin the headshunt, move the level crossing to the opposite end of the straight and you can add a couple of standard straights to each siding.

 

The spur off the middle road in the station looks good, but is it long enough to be useful and could you possibly lengthen the loop (and thus the lower platform) if you omitted it? Although you might then end up with a completely symmetrical station layout which wouldn't look as interesting.  Hmm.. again.

 

Thanks for your input. I do agree with you that the sidings are probably too short, but before they were encroaching on the station area and I didn't really know what else to do. It's certainly an area that I will be playing with further before I finalise a plan. 

 

The spur off the station's middle road is currently 300mm long. It can be made longer. The intention was for it to house a loco so that any loco hauled train that terminates on the middle road has a loco that can hook up to it to depart in the opposite direction but I wondered if I had enough space to actually perform this manoeuvre. It can be omitted, but I wouldn't be able to make the middle loop longer without making the curve on the left hand side too sharp. For the kids' rolling stock the middle platform will probably be used as a passing loop or a storage road. With my stock I will probably use it for DMUs only. I might leave the spur and have it overgrown with maybe a rusting truck on it or something. 

 

Try to get hold of a Peco 60 plans for small railways book which has some very good plans in or the PSL book of Model Railway Track Plans  both by CJ Freezer

Your plan is very Thomas the tank engine and crams a lot of points and short sidings into quite a large space but has no real operating potential except letting Gordon and Henry run 3 coach expresses while Percy shunts trucks. The presumably bi directional centre road arrangement is almost unheard of in prototype practice and would most likely be  be a turnback siding as per Chippenham in steam days.

Using Set Track wastes a lot of space, Code 100 streamline 2ft radius points are shorter than set track and give a narrower track spacing allowing more sidings or loops, the short Y point is even shorter and the Double slip and 3 way point also save space.

The PSL book has a very good layout for 2X4 in N gauge 4 X 8 in OO on the cover .  You only need double track and a siding and pair of trailing crossovers for interesting operation if the far side of the layout is a hidden sidings and loops and isolated sections, passenger  trains can terminate, start or reverse in such a station or a freight or stopping passenger let a faster train past and you can shunt the siding, Very few prototype stations had head shunts to allow shunting clear of the running lines.

 

Hi and thanks for your insight. I have the PSL book (and possibly the 60 track plans booklet) but have chosen not to copy it as it seems to use an older Peco geometry that is smaller maybe? Either that or CJF was being rather optimistic with the spaces he quotes! One plan I copied like for like and it physically could not have fit in the space quoted using modern track. Therefore whilst it has been referred to for reference and inspiration I have decided to come up with my own solution. I will look at it again on your advice. 

 

I could use narrower track spacing, but as I wouldn't be able to really widen the curves on the ends I would imagine that coach overhangs would conflict? And if I were to use Peco small radius points but space them out to set track's 67mm the areas containing points would end up longer. Plus as I mentioned this is a test bed and therefore I'd rather ruin my old set track than buy shiny new points and ruin those! 

 

The layout is not meant to be prototypical by any means The central road of the station is meant to allow a DMU or similar to terminate in either direction or act as a passing loop to allow an express through or as a storage road for a train. You rightly point out it is meant to be bi-directional. Not being familiar with real railways but having a little common sense I would imagine that this arrangement would be considered too risky in the real world, but it at least provides some visual interest and allows for up to three trains on the mainline with one train able to go around the loop in both directions whilst the other trains are stopped at the station.

 

It's funny that you mention Thomas because I have purchased Thomas and James for this layout. Gordon and Henry were out of my budget unfortunately! I would love Diesel for the siding shunter but I can't find him. 

 

 

Thanks again to you both

[Kris]

I would recommend getting a new class 08 rather than Diesel. You'll end up with a much better loco (something you might be able to use with a future layout) that has an accurate chassis.

[sub39h]

The problem is that finding one in an appropriate livery for my era is hard - and I know that prices need to go up to support better working conditions for Chinese workers but some of the prices for new Hornby 08s is sort of eye watering. It's just an 0-6-0 shunter and some of the prices are approaching three figures! 

 

Anyhow taking on board the critcism above I have a new variant of the layout with longer sidings and a longer headshunt. The leftmost siding/headshunt will be where the loco comes in and refuels, a shunter will take its wagons into one of the right two sidings where it will be loaded/unloaded and wagons moved about using a second shunter that sits in the 2nd siding from the left. The loco can then park in the middle siding (third from left) and then the wagons brought onto the headshunt where they first came in. The loco can then attach and take the train back out onto the mainline.  

[Flying Pig]

That's an awfully complex way to shunt the goods.  This would be a more typical layout, I think, though perhaps a bit old fashioned for your 1990 period.  It's set up for trains running on the inner circuit (which can be shunted by the train engine) and not really convenient for those running the other way.

 

 

To allow trains running in either direction to use the yard, you could go the whole hog with a very common layout from the traditional era which might just have survived up to electrification on the ECML.  Actually, the trailing crossover should be formed by a single slip replacing the diamond, but that's not feasible with Setrack.  The diamond is a Hornby R614 left-handed one, as the Peco universal type didn't quite fit.

 

 

BTW, I realised when drawing these how big your board is going to be. Any thoughts on handling and storing it?

 

 

[sub39h]

Thanks for your continued input.  I wasn't sure having the level crossing going over the siding was a reasonable solution, but given the space I have it may be the only way. I'm not too bothered about the siding being only useful in a single direction because if you'll note using my solution once a reformed goods train leaves the siding it has no way of returning so it in essence has the same problem - again a limitation of the space. 

 

The complexity probably isn't prototypical but it was meant to be a sort of "shunting puzzle" for me to play around with. Still I wasn't happy with the siding lengths still and yours seem to be longer so I will definitely be incorporating some of your ideas in the next revision.

 

In terms of storage the board will be left at my parents house and I'll work on it when I go back (which is fairly frequent given I'm back at university studying a 2nd degree atm). The board will probably be housed in a fairly sizable spare room we have. When the board is not in use I should be able to prop it up against a wall or put it in the garage or under some furniture out of the way so that's not too much of a problem - I haven't worked out the specifics yet. I'm 6ft 2 and a bit of a gym rat so not all that concerned about moving the board on my own, but if I struggle my dad will be around to help me most of the time. Most scenic items (particularly buildings) will be made removable so that even when it is completed it can be partially disassembled to be stored flat.  

[Chimer]

On a different issue, if you lift a "single piece of ply" off the floor on "short legs", it's going to sag between the legs in every conceivable direction.  Conventional wisdom would say you need ply or softwood cross-bracing approximately every foot, which is going to add significantly to the weight (but you wouldn't necessarily need the legs as the bracing will give you the space underneath for the wiring).

[sub39h]

On a different issue, if you lift a "single piece of ply" off the floor on "short legs", it's going to sag between the legs in every conceivable direction.  Conventional wisdom would say you need ply or softwood cross-bracing approximately every foot, which is going to add significantly to the weight (but you wouldn't necessarily need the legs as the bracing will give you the space underneath for the wiring).

 

Hi thanks for that - I was planning on using legs at all 4 corners and some in the middle of the board. I was planning on using some cross bracing as well. I was planning on using both because I felt that having legs in the middle would be a stronger solution if someone wished to, for example, put a hand in the middle of the board to lean across it (such as a child may do). It also means less drilling of holes through the cross bracing to feed wires through. 

 

If I'm being naive or if there is a better solution I would I love to hear them. I am new to this after all! If you feel that cross bracing every 1ft and no legs is a better way then I will do it that way instead. 

[Chimer]

I wouldn't say no legs is better, just that legs without cross-bracing would be bad!  If you do use legs, extra ones (maybe every 2 feet) would certainly be a good idea for this size of board as with just 4 legs in the corners you could still get sagging even with cross-bracing, unless the bracing was really deep (especially if anyone leant on the middle of the board).  A leg in the middle without cross-bracing would be a mountain top!  If you are happy to "play" at floor level (not good for the back at my age!) then comparatively light cross-bracing (with holes drilled to take the wiring) will do the job (provided the floor is flat in the first place).

 

There are lots of excellent threads on here about baseboard construction methods, but I haven't seen any with an 8 x 4 board as the starting point.