Proposed oo layout

[westport]

Hi All,

Please see attached proposed layout for OO scale. Available space is approx 11 x 5, plus a couple of inches. Any thoughts\comments\suggestions welcome. I am new to the railway modelling scene, and I am not striving to be 100% prototypically accurate, or aiming to model any one particular era, but would still like to build a layout that makes reasonable sense and provide various running opportunities.

Looking forward to any comments.

Cheers from Westport

[Dave]

Hi Westport. Looks good, but you have a reverse loop with the track going across the centre of the layout. You will need an auto reverse loop module or you will get a short as a loco travels through it.

Are you going DC or DCC?

[westport]

Hi Dave,

Planning to go DCC so this shouldn't be a problem. Glad to be able to fit a reverse loop in the absence of a turntable.

[Broithe]

Planning to go DCC so this shouldn't be a problem.

 

Is that true?

 

The inside rail is connected to the outside rail, and vice versa. I don't see it working.

[Dave]

It will definitely cause a short, the Gaugemaster DCC 40 will do the trick.

 

http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=DCC40

[westport]

Thanks lads, small bit of confusion here, I was aware that a reverse loop module is required, that's what I meant when I said there would be no problem when going DCC...keep your suggestions coming

[Broithe]

Ah, right.

[Dave]

Ahh, sorry thought you might have missed that.

[westport]

Cheers Dave

[Junctionmad]

While you have got a lot of track into a given space , the layout has no equivalent or near equivalent prototype comparison , it's essentially a four track mainline with an unusual small mpd/goods.

 

Some keys things. Lack of head shunt , perhaps you could indicate which lines are what running directions, ie up and down ( are you implementing left up running )

 

The ladder and crossover array , is rather " extensive " , as it designed to in essence facilitate bi-directional running which would be extremely unusual.

 

Personally I can't see the point of the reverse loop. It not really consistent with turning locos for the station

 

I would rationalise the ladder , and place a crossover on the " north " side of the station , if the track geometry allows it.

 

By the way , the radius of the inner double track is 18-" or less, that a tight tight curve.

 

Again,it's your railway , I merely present my observations

[GSR 800]

Also what about storage for rolling stock. A fiddle yard or storage sidings would come in handy. Would a station work on such a tight radius?, it would be hard to get large logos around without derailing. As junctionmad said by directional running is unusual and not prototypical, also the amount of point work to get to such a small MPD seems a bit of a waste. What if you put the station where the viaduct a girder bridge is and them at the start of the curve, this would allow a central platform which could facilitate longer trains.

[Junctionmad]

Just noticed the " curve " to the halt , has a radius of 1foot !!

 

OP. You have too much track for the size. Why not rework the plan as a double track station on the southern straight side , with associated mpd, goods etc , you could still have a branch to a halt for added " complexity. " hence an interesting three or four bay station.

 

in fact you could do an interesting , all platforms on one side of the double track which has several examples in Ireland , say plat 1and 2 on the long main line with two or more bay platforms for junctions work. That gives you and interesting scissors crossover to reach and exit both main platforms.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Junctionmad

[westport]

Hi Folks,

Certainly lots to think about there, any chance of a couple of sketches to help visualise what you have in mind?

[Junctionmad]

I'll sketch up something tomorrow

[Junctionmad]

how about something like this , you can add scenic areas like you viaduct etc

 

the station layout allows both up and down trains to access both platforms 1 and 2 , and by reversing plat 3, the refuge siding allows a station pilot to release the engine on the branch train.

the layout allows both up and down to switch running lines within station limits so as to allow through trains to run without disturbing the trains in at the platform.( well there are a few restrictions !) The bay platform is designed primarily as a shuttle to the halt/branch , but with some creative shunting a small goods train can access the branch line ( once it fits in the bay platform )

 

An added complexity would be to replace the crossovers at each end with either double cross overs on outside slips etc or scissors even, allowing completely symmetrical running through the station . ( thats an exercise for the reader !)

 

 

goods trains access the yard by the loop and in certain cases some complex shunting ( but thats the point isn't it )

 

you can add scenic areas and viaducts etc to you hearts content

 

there is no stock storage , but the layout is designed to be access and used from the centre of the baseboard as in reality abiyt 3 -3'6" of width of baseboard is all that you can reach over.

 

Its designed using SCARM, with PECO geometry ( ugggh), with the exception of the scissors crossover, which has to be guntered out of four PECO points and a crossing, there are several examples on the web ( RMWeb etc) , showing how its done. ( make a bit of a talking point, too). average radius of the main curves is around 20" -22' , even if my ability with SCARM isn't great and they need a little tidying up!!!

 

extra long trains can of course straddle plat 1 and 2 , ( race specials etc, spring show, or GAA finals !!! )

 

 

I knocked together the signalling in a few minutes so , it may not be perfect !!!!!

 

some tweaking of the geometry would also ease a few curves etc

Edited September 1, 2015 by Junctionmad

[timmycork]

11x5 is a good size to work with, guessing you can walk around it, would you think about putting up a backscene up through the middle? Maybe do a country theme at one side and a city theme at the other. Think gradients could be troublesome on a layout this size and original plan is trying to pack too much in, I was told on here think model railroad and not model train set

[burnthebox]

Westport, I'm watching this with great interest as I'll be hoping to be drawing my own layout within the next few week's, well done on what you have drawn up for yourself so far, the boys on here will I have no doubt will give you some very helpful pieces of advoice when it comes down to drawing up a plan, I haven't got a bully's notion as to what's what in planning a layout, so keep it up, you'll get your plan sorted & the best of luck with it, all I'm hoping for is to get a couple of trains running around some tracks, now what do's that tell you, you have even got to put a plan on here, I cannot even do that !!!

[westport]

Hi All

New version of proposed layout plans. No inclines, viaduct and girder bridges will cross gap and sit on drop down section, disguised with scenery etc.

Various tunnels and cuttings on left and right hand sides. Branch line leads to halt on RHS just out of view, using a small section of 45 degree angled wall in the room. Enough room for a small platform and halt here.

 

Any comments etc welcome. Steam era preferred but as said before, not looking for 100% prototypical accuracy, just an interesting model railway with some interesting running\modelling opportunities.

 

Regards

Westport

[Noel]

Hi Westport.

 

Good luck and enjoy the planing for your layout. I only comment because you have requested same, and hope its of use. One of the mistakes some of us myself included make is to have too much visible track density that may not actually increase the operating potential. Getting the ratio of visible storage sidings to running track is a personal preference and a balancing act.

 

Not sure what track work you are planning to use, but if you use flexitrack and streamline points rather than set track you will manage to better utilise the available 11ft x 5ft, which is a good size, and also avoid the layout looking too geometric. Also use of curved points at the start of curves can save a lot of space as well as add to visual appeal. Again this is just a personal preference, but consider avoid having all non curved track dead straight. Using track work such as peco streamline code 100 or code 75 also allows for closer track separation and can avoid the set track toy train set look as well as save space.

 

Best advise I can give is to plan, plan, plan, before cutting, nailing or gluing anything down. I used to make up "dry loose assembled" sections of track and point work to test how they might fit and look before committing to fixing anything down. You can use paper templates, but there is nothing like actual track to give you visual feedback. If you loosely tack down your finished track work before committing to ballasting, you can test operate it and make any changes before permanently fixing it and ballasting. You just never really know how operating options really work until you get to operate and shunt trains and rolling stock. Hope this makes sense and is of constructive help.

 

Noel

[westport]

Thats great Noel, I really appreciate that. Am planning to use Code 75 flextrack throughout. And you are right about loosely laying down track before permanent fixing, this makes perfect sense. However I was hoping to have a reasonably accurate plan in place before constructing the baseboard, so as to avoid having a support in the way of where a point needs to go. But maybe this is the wrong way of going about it? Maybe the baseboard needs to be assembled with the minium of cross beams, until plan is finalised?? Your thoughts on this are welcome.

Cheers

Westport

[Dave]

Hi Westport. Code 75 track looks a lot better and more to scale than code 100.

When I am designing layouts for clients I set the spacings on the grid on Anyrail to match the cross braces in the baseboard. This way I know I won't run into trouble when track laying.

[Noel]

Thats great Noel, I really appreciate that. Am planning to use Code 75 flextrack throughout. And you are right about loosely laying down track before permanent fixing, this makes perfect sense. However I was hoping to have a reasonably accurate plan in place before constructing the baseboard, so as to avoid having a support in the way of where a point needs to go. But maybe this is the wrong way of going about it? Maybe the baseboard needs to be assembled with the minium of cross beams, until plan is finalised?? Your thoughts on this are welcome.

Cheers

Westport

 

Hi Westport

 

You are quite right the design of the baseboard and track plan need to be taken into account. How much depends on whether the baseboard will be fixed, moveable (i.e. house move), or fully portable. If the latter, joints in the baseboard need to avoid points and if possible the joint in the baseboard at track joins should be as perpendicular to the track as possible to make track alignment easier when reassembling layout boards. That's a whole subject in itself. As you said consideration should be given to positioning of points to avoid joints and structural cross members which make point motor installation and ongoing servicing easier. Routing and trunking for under board cabling also worth thinking about. In some cases it may not be possible to avoid placing a point over a cross beam, but there are ways of siting a point motor a few inches away from a point (i.e. rods, rod and tube, like model aircraft controls, etc).

 

There are many different and equally valid methods of constructing baseboards, from one level table style to 3D layered open systems using lots of foam or timber lattice structures. All I can suggest is the old proverb "keep it simple"

 

Noel

[jhb171achill]

The access to the station from the outer circuit main line seems somewhat convoluted - might it be an idea to have the station on the outside lines?

[Noel]

The access to the station from the outer circuit main line seems somewhat convoluted - might it be an idea to have the station on the outside lines?

 

PS: I liked JM's plan with the option to remove the reverse scissors half way down the platform. That plan has a lot of operating potential.

[Junctionmad]

Hi All

New version of proposed layout plans. No inclines, viaduct and girder bridges will cross gap and sit on drop down section, disguised with scenery etc.

Various tunnels and cuttings on left and right hand sides. Branch line leads to halt on RHS just out of view, using a small section of 45 degree angled wall in the room. Enough room for a small platform and halt here.

 

Any comments etc welcome. Steam era preferred but as said before, not looking for 100% prototypical accuracy, just an interesting model railway with some interesting running\modelling opportunities.

 

Regards

Westport

 

it seems to be organised for right line running, i.e. the assuming UP is the top track at the station, this would facilitate trailing point access to the storage, sheds etc , otherwise the loco would be trapped, as it went in facing. ( I suppose it could use the platforms to run around )

 

Also the branch line needs a connection to the mainlines, in reality it would never be just separated like that , perhaps the halt would be nearer top right to have a visual break with the main station

 

you could consider a connection to the first rolling stock storage siding back onto the running line to create a run round

 

as Noel said it might be better to avoid too many parallel straight track sidings in the station area, it was rarely that way in real life, Some stations had considerable amounts of parallel track but most hadn't

 

looks quite good other wise

Edited September 21, 2015 by Junctionmad

[westport]

it seems to be organised for right line running, i.e. the assuming UP is the top track at the station, this would facilitate trailing point access to the storage, sheds etc , otherwise the loco would be trapped, as it went in facing. ( I suppose it could use the platforms to run around )

 

Also the branch line needs a connection to the mainlines, in reality it would never be just separated like that , perhaps the halt would be nearer top right to have a visual break with the main station

 

you could consider a connection to the first rolling stock storage siding back onto the running line to create a run round

 

as Noel said it might be better to avoid too many parallel straight track sidings in the station area, it was rarely that way in real life, Some stations had considerable amounts of parallel track but most hadn't

 

looks quite good other wise

 

Cheers Folks,

An updated plan to be posted soon, in the meantime here is a rough sketch to indicate why I have positioned the halt in the bottom left hand corner, it is to make use of the available space, there is a small triangular spot I thought would make a good area for a halt. Regarding the connection from the branchline to the mainline, good idea, any suggestions as to the best place\way to do this??

 

Cheers

Westport

layout sketch.pdf

Edited September 30, 2015 by westport