Main line terminus in OO

[mightbe]

Earlier someone made the laughable suggestion that helices were unheard of in model railroad design until 25 years ago. Perhaps in the UK, but in North America helices have been common since people have been building layouts. That said, they're a massive pain and that's even accepting that most HO helices are 30" or more in radius. 

 

My real comment was this:

 

You've posted a scarm file. I don't use scarm. Can you post a version of the layout plans with a grid and then tell us what that grid is? I think most of what you want can be accomplished somehow. And I believe it can be done attractively and sensibly.

 

Quentin

 

Ps. Hornby/Peco platforms are not the way forward. If you're building a layout of this scale I can only hope you would want better.

Edited February 26, 2018 by mightbe

[jamespetts]

Thank you all again for your further replies. Taking these things one at a time: SCARM tells me that the total length of all track in this layout amounts to 316,942mm (that is, 316m). At 3h/meter, that would work out as 950 hours, or 316 days at 3 hours a day, suggesting that the track and wiring could be completed in 1-3 years, rather than 5-10 as earlier suggested. I realise that this is a very approximate measure (which is why I have used a magnitude of 3 margin of error), but it is the best available from such empirical data that there are at present. This might be an overestimate owing to the length of the platforms and carriage sidings in comparison to the points, although that might be balanced out by my lack of experience (although that significance of that would diminsh with time, of course).

 

In relation to helices - I was indeed referring to UK rail modelling: it is most interesting that they have been around in the US for rather longer. It is interesting that even in railway modelling/"model railroading", fashions drift eastwards across the Atlantic with time.

 

In relation to the SCARM file, I cannot find any way of exporting (as opposed to printing) with a grid. However, I can give you the measurements: the basedboards (marked in the blue outline) are, at the top, 7.5m on the horizontal and 1.1m wide at the widest point, narrowing to 0.9m at the narrowest part of the station throat. On the left, the width of the straight section is 0.4m. At the bottom, the width opposite the turntable is 0.67m, the width opposite the carriage sidings is 0.84m and the width at the widest point of the helix is 1.2m. The length of the lower section is 6.5m at its longest.

 

One thought has occurred to me this evening about one possible way of making a layout to this basic specification consume less space, which is to model the Midland mainline rather than the Great Western mainline. Trains on the Midland mainline had, by my research, only up to about 9 carriages (rather than up to about 13/14 for the main expresses on the GWR), and so would allow a platform length of ~3.1m, shaving about 0.6m off the ends of both platforms and carriage sidings.I do not think that that would allow carriage sidings on the same plane as the station, but it should at least be easy to fit in the engine shed in the same plane as the station. The carriage sidings might possibly partly occupy the rear wall area and thus leave the entire window side wall free for storage yards only.

 

A Midland mainline has some useful features: it allows for a plausible connexion to the City Widened Lines, there is an excellent range of ready to run stock that would have run on it (the main missing item being the Fowler 3p condensing tanks - but the equivalent are also missing for the GWR, albeit available in kit and 3d printed form, the latter taking a standard Bachmannn 57xx chassis, thus requiring only painting skills to complete, only the LNER/GN having a condensing tank of any sort), and there are good beginnings of Midland Railway era items of rolling stock to enable me to Edwardianise the layout in good time.

 

However, I wonder whether this would make much of a difference. The engine shed might be moved to the top left hand corner in any event (and access made easier by shaving off more space at the front of the baseboard in this area, skewing the lower level station inwards). This might well not allow for gentler curvature, although with 9 carriages, this might not matter much according to Denbridge's tests, and this difficulty looks likely to be able to be overcome with magnetic adhesion technology and/or ballasting. The most significant difficulties aside from corner traction/friction that have been identified all relate to the relationship between the upper and lower level and/or general size of the project, neither of which would be (or be much) alleviated by the expedient of shortening the platforms and train formations. Moving the engine shed as described above would, by my estimation, allow a minimum curve radius of circa 580mm (22.8") on the fast lines (where the long trains are likely to be).

 

Given that I am particularly keen on a layout incorporating a main line terminus with a mixture of express and suburban passenger operation incorporating a connexion to the Underground, it seems difficult to do away with the two level design. My real concern at present is the height separation between the base boards, which is more of an issue of the number of baseboards that I am planning to stack vertically (a total of 3 including the proposed N gauge layout) than the fact of having two connected levels in and of itself. I am not quite sure how to resolve that at present - it would be a pity to have to abandon the N gauge project, as it would be a wonderful thing to model railways as I remember them as a nipper as well as something from rather older times, and both I and others on the forum have spent some time in designing and redesigning the layout for that. I wonder whether somehow having the N gauge layout portable or collapsible (but able to be set up ~30cm above this layout when in use) would work?

 

One issue that I have not considered in detail yet is that of baseboard supports: it would not be ideal if access to the lower level were marred by large frontal support struts; it would be really very bad if access to the upper level were also marred by these support struts on account of an even higher N gauge layout. I had not considered this in detail as I was hoping to get the baseboards built professionally and therefore hoped that someone else might be able to solve this problem (rear supports with strong brackets, perhaps, or possibly wall mounting the N gauge layout).

 

I wonder in the circumstances whether I am better off not using the N gauge layout as the basis for practising with things, and whether I am better just buying a little Setrack and practising wiring and automation on the floor (can surface mounted point motors work with layout just resting on the floor?) before the shed is even built, although I am not sure how useful that that would be.

 

Incidentally, as to a stickied post - I can see that the layout building time might be too approximate to sticky, but the results of the locomotive haulage tests are surely useful to lots of people?

 

Edit: In relation to Peco platforms, my approach was to use the prefabricated platforms initially, and, if those prove unsatisfactory, replace them in due course with something more bespoke, but for that work to fall into the category of "a lifetime of slight improvements" rather than work necessary for it to reach a basic stage of completion, which is the important milestone. I had planned something similar with the condensing tanks, to use the 57xx (or, if modelling the Midland, the Fowler 4p) until such time as I am able to acquire the skills to build the appropriate type of condensing tank from a kit/3d print.

Edited February 26, 2018 by jamespetts

[Dagworth]

First thing I'd do if I had your shed James would be to make the layout continuous all the way round the shed, leave enough space to open the door but then for the rest have either a lifting flap or a duck-under.

See what Clive has done on his Sheffield layout http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/87205-sheffield-exchange-base-boards-are-going-great-guns/?p=2964731

Then if you still want two layers you can have the fiddle yard below the mainlines but in front, and the upper level narrower so you can always get to the stuff below.

You then get rid of ALL the issues of tight curves, you can have much much longer gradients from one level to the other too.

Andi

Edited February 27, 2018 by Dagworth

[jamespetts]

Thank you for the suggestion. I should really want to avoid a lifting flap if at all possible to make the space easier to use (and easier to escape in case of fire); also, I am very keen on modelling a terminus; but did you mean only for the Underground lines to be continuous? How would you imagine that working; having the Underground lines come off on the inside?

[mightbe]

Edit: In relation to Peco platforms, my approach was to use the prefabricated platforms initially, and, if those prove unsatisfactory, replace them in due course with something more bespoke, but for that work to fall into the category of "a lifetime of slight improvements" rather than work necessary for it to reach a basic stage of completion, which is the important milestone. 

 

I'll be more blunt: the Peco platforms are hideous. You'll come to agree I'm sure, I just want to dissuade you early on from willfully creating visual blight on what is effectively half your scenic layout. Even if you included them and replaced them, that's money wasted and you're left with unrealistically regular 'holes' to fill. Look up historical OS maps of these stations--the platforms are quite irregular in width and the number of tracks between them, as well as the curvature of threading platforms into the throat. Your station looks very modern by comparison, and I struggle to visualize the early 1930s. (on the length of platforms, don't forget that a 12-coach train in  ** 1934 was a good deal shorter than 12 Mk1s.

 

Better to do it right the first time. It'll take several years before you need to actually build them anyway, and you'll doubtless be more pleased by the resulting appearance of the station. (Which is why I've been asking for something I can work from to show you precisely what I mean.)

Edited February 27, 2018 by mightbe

[LongRail]

There is a lot of reference to full length trains I don’t think that can sensibly be achieved in the space you will have available I would suggest that you consider what you want to achieve in terms of operation and then work out what length of train you can get I think you are trying to be too ambitious at the outset.

 

Would be worth buying some track and carry out a few experiments first with the track loose laid.

 

 

One idea which always struck me was to have a round round layout with a terminus station in one corner on the outside of the curves with the main lines passing by

[Harlequin]

@James: Have a look at this thread: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/78114-dcc-concepts-powerbase/

It describes powerbase being used in conjunction with helices and gives some practical and theoretical info about possible train lengths.

 

To my eye, though, that sort of thing is just an ugly bodge to solve the symptoms of a problem rather than solving the problem itself.

 

I can see why a powerbase helix might be needed in existing layouts but adding one to a layout in the design stages is probably the sign of a bad design, IMHO. In the vast majority of cases there must be a better solution.

 

I suggest you need to think really critically about why you want certain features and the impact they will have on the overall design. Be ruthlessly logical and throw out anything that's difficult to justify.

 

A good design should hit the sweet spot between form, function and feasibility.

 

Shed First, though!

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

 

Shed First, though!

 

??? I think the thing that has come out of all this is that the shed is a bit too narrow for what James wants to do. This layout really needs the terminus down the middle of the room (like Clive's). But in 00, that needs a shed at least 12' wide. I don't know if James' land gives him any flexibility.

[Harlequin]

??? I think the thing that has come out of all this is that the shed is a bit too narrow for what James wants to do. This layout really needs the terminus down the middle of the room (like Clive's). But in 00, that needs a shed at least 12' wide. I don't know if James' land gives him any flexibility.

I keep saying that because if the shed design changes in any significant way then the whole concept of the proposed layout goes out the window and most of this thread will be wasted time.

 

I know it's a chicken-and-egg situation with shed and layout. If the layout design was rock-solid you could design the shed to match. With no firm layout design I think the best approach is to make the shed generally "layout-friendly" - wide enough for reasonable radii OO curves (realistically that means a circuit around the outside of the room).

 

Clive's layout is the latest of many previous versions, AFAIK, and he has the luxury of a big square-ish room. Whereas this is James' first since childhood. Different kettle of fish!

 

CJF designed many layouts where a high-level terminus sits against one wall and the circuit around the room runs partially below it. That seems like a good pattern for limited space.

 

(BTW: Can you tell that I'm bored at work??? ;-)

Edited February 27, 2018 by Harlequin

[Pete the Elaner]

Better to do it right the first time. It'll take several years before you need to actually build them anyway, and you'll doubtless be more pleased by the resulting appearance of the station. (Which is why I've been asking for something I can work from to show you precisely what I mean.)

That's a nice thought, but none of us have built our ideal layout first time.

Many of us may have ignored the 'start small' advice, ending up scrapping something half-finished because our standards & expectations had moved forward well before we complete anything, leaving us with an inconsistent mess.

I had a couple of continuous layouts when I was younger but I never had anything satisfying until I built something smaller & worked my way to building something a little bigger.

[Pete the Elaner]

Thank you all again for your further replies. Taking these things one at a time: SCARM tells me that the total length of all track in this layout amounts to 316,942mm (that is, 316m). At 3h/meter, that would work out as 950 hours, or 316 days at 3 hours a day, suggesting that the track and wiring could be completed in 1-3 years, rather than 5-10 as earlier suggested. I realise that this is a very approximate measure (which is why I have used a magnitude of 3 margin of error), but it is the best available from such empirical data that there are at present. This might be an overestimate owing to the length of the platforms and carriage sidings in comparison to the points, although that might be balanced out by my lack of experience (although that significance of that would diminsh with time, of course).

 

In relation to helices - I was indeed referring to UK rail modelling: it is most interesting that they have been around in the US for rather longer. It is interesting that even in railway modelling/"model railroading", fashions drift eastwards across the Atlantic with time.

 

You can't even predict how long it will take unless you have already had plenty of practise...which you haven't.

You will encounter problems which require a break of 1-2 months to think about, re-design & re-fresh your enthusiasm.

 

If you have never built something like this before then 1-3 years is way too long & you will lose interest & you will sell all your stuff.

 

A helix is quite an advanced structure for a modeller. They take up lots of space. The temptation is to make one smaller than you actually need, then trains won't run around them & you're left with something useless, masses of work to correct & not enough room to fit something which is big enough.

 

Please don't try to build such a large layout right now. You will never finish it.

I have seen it many times: Modellers who refuse to settle for something small, instead building something larger which gets half-finished then abandoned.

 

Another thought: Do you or have you ever belonged to a model railway club? If not, then please consider it. It is an excellent way to gain practical experience & guidance from others.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Pete the Elaner

[Denbridge]

I keep saying that because if the shed design changes in any significant way then the whole concept of the proposed layout goes out the window and most of this thread will be wasted time.

 

I know it's a chicken-and-egg situation with shed and layout. If the layout design was rock-solid you could design the shed to match. With no firm layout design I think the best approach is to make the shed generally "layout-friendly" - wide enough for reasonable radii OO curves (realistically that means a circuit around the outside of the room).

 

Clive's layout is the latest of many previous versions, AFAIK, and he has the luxury of a big square-ish room. Whereas this is James' first since childhood. Different kettle of fish!

 

CJF designed many layouts where a high-level terminus sits against one wall and the circuit around the room runs partially below it and that seems like a good pattern for limited space.

 

(BTW: Can you tell that I'm bored at work??? ;-)

Interesting that CJF keeps coming up. What isn't picked up is that most of his plans were designed around trains of only 4, maybe 5, coaches

[njee20]

If you have never built something like this before then 1-3 years is way too long & you will lose interest & you will sell all your stuff.

 

 

I didn't, and haven't, indeed I'd quite like to build a larger layout, despite not having got anywhere near 'finishing' mine. I'd have derived far less enjoyment from a smaller layout which may now be at a more advanced state of completion. YMMV.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I take Pete's point about this project being too big if it takes more than a year to build (just getting operational, not any scenics). But it really ought to be possible to design it in such a way that it can be built in several stages.

 

I think James states earlier that he is involved with a club. If not, he should start one! A project like this will be much better with a team.

 

Looking at the various threads in more detail, I see that James first started thinking about this a couple of years ago and that there are pictures of both the loft and garden. Having seen those, I think I would be inclined to convert the loft to building regs standards which will add to the value of the house and put the N gauge layout up there.

 

That's probably a two-year project in itself during which time he will have plenty of time to refine the 00 project. Like others, I would be inclined to a single level if at all possible and keep it somewhat simpler. I think a "Paddington" may be easier to achieve than a "Kings Cross" if one wants to have LT interest. In fact, I think I may have a cunning plan....

[scottystitch]

James, 

 

With regards getting trains from the top level to the bottom level (and vice versa), rather than a helix or an incline, have you considered possibly compressing your station by a few inches, and instead of dropping the through line under it, have it swing through 90 degrees at the extreme right of your plan whence it would connect with a cassette. You would then be able to move the cassette onto the lower level and drive the train off.

 

A loco and three coaches would require a cassette of around 48" though so it might be unwieldy. It might also require some reworking of the layout of the lower level, but it remove the complexity and expense (and "wasted space") of a helix.

 

Just a thought, though.

['CHARD]

Interesting that CJF keeps coming up. What isn't picked up is that most of his plans were designed around trains of only 4, maybe 5, coaches

 

That IS an interesting factoid.  My secondary main line would be ideal in CJF terms if it weren't for those pesky inter-yard Class 4s that run round the clock, the sleeper and single daylight Class 1.  Oh, not forgetting the cartrains, and parcels.  Selective compression is vital. 

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your replies. To deal with the issues in an orderly manner: the first difficult question is the extent to which the shed should be built to fit the model railway, or the model railway should be built to fit the shed. The latter may result in a quicker construction of the shed, but would be unsatisfactory if a small adjustment to the shed that would be relatively inexpensive to order now but which would be impractical to alter after the shed has been built would make a large difference to what I am able to do.

 

The main constraint is the width: to fit between my newly installed, concreted in washing line and the fence, the maximum external width has to be 2.9m (giving an internal width of 2.7m; I might have mistakenly given the internal width as 2.5m above). The length is a little more flexible: the current planned length of 7.7m external (7.5m internal) was arrived at after consideration of what would not excessively overshadow the rear of the house or conservatory (albeit I do not much use the conservatory). It could possibly go up to about 8.0m externally (7.8m internally).

 

Within that, there are then the constraints inherent in the idea that I am trying to implement, being a main line terminus in London with an element of the Underground (sub-surface lines), together with engine sheds and carriage sidings for the main line station. This would inevitably require a through station for the Underground, but a terminus station for the main line. That is why I thought initially of something like Paddington, with its platforms 15/16 (and originally also 13/14 - and I note that the last time that I visited Paddington, platform 13 had been demolished, but I digress). However, this would then require somewhere for the trains disappearing down the Underground lines to go, which is why I had designed initially a height separated reversing loop and later (on realising that the height separation was inadequate) a helix. If there is to be a height separated level, I might as well make use of that and have an interesting area on the lower level, too, with an Underground station representing somewhere on the City Widened Lines (which would also have the advantage of allowing the representation of multiple companies' rolling stock, such as the LNER N2s and suburban carriages, to add some interest and variety).

 

Given the desire to automate the layout, reversing loops are essential, and there is only so much width available, so it is not possible to have two 3rd/4th radius loops opposite one another, albeit it is (with a narrow section as depicted in the latest design) possible to have one of the 3rd/4th radius reversing loops opposite a 2nd/3rd radius helix. The need to have the level separation at the buffer end of the terminus for the Underground lines then dictates that there needs to be a linear gradient between the main lines and the buffer end of the terminus, which then puts a constraint on the minimum distance between the point in the station throat when the lines to the Underground diverge and the end of the platforms. On the current design, that is either 2.3% or 1.9% (depending on whether one starts from where the track becomes straight or whether one starts further back towards the junction), so there is room for this to be shorter, but not much shorter. With Midland length platforms, it would be at around 2.6%, which is probably acceptable for the shorter trains that would be using it.

 

The initial idea of a Paddington like arrangement with a separate Underground line into the station and locomotive change facilities for suburban trains was potentially problematic because of the need to rise from the lower level, have flat platforms and junctions, and then descend again, there being insufficient space to do this satisfactorily, so I revised the design to something more akin to St. Pancras or King's Cross's access to the City Widened Lines (as distinct from Paddington's access to the Inner Circle), removing the upper Underground platforms and electrification, and sending steam trains down into the lower section to join a more interesting semi-terminus on the City Widened Lines section.

 

My strong preference to avoid hatches and duck-unders and strong dislike of unrealistically short trains also impose constraints on the design, the former requiring a U-shaped layout and the latter requiring a certain minimum platform length.

 

It is from those basic ideas and constraints that the current design has evolved. As indicated above, a further possible evolution would be to shorten the platforms and carriage sidings and represent a Midland/LMS terminus rather than a GWR terminus, as the Midland ran shorter trains (no more than 9 carriages from what I have discovered). This would potentially allow the engine shed to be moved onto the same plane as the station and the carriage sidings to be altered (although I am not sure quite how or to what extent) to allow for a straighter fiddle yard and earlier termination of the station throat so as to give gentler curves on the main line section (although there would still be the need for the 3rd radius curves in the reversing loop). One possibility that I have yet to evaluate properly is whether this would also allow the helix to be offset from the upper level fiddle yard reversing loop sufficiently (by shortening the fiddle yard) to allow the upper/lower level helix to be 3rd/4th radius, which would reduce both curvature and gradient, although it is not clear that the awkwardness of this arrangement, even if offset, would outweigh such difficulties as there might be with magnetic adhesion systems for the relatively small number of locomotives that would have to be equipped with them.

 

What I will need to do is produce a modified version of the layout plan based on Midland train lengths to see what this would allow me to do. I would then need to consider whether slightly  lengthening the shed would allow me to achieve similar advantages for GWR train lengths and what the preferable option between the two is. I note that one of the advantages of modelling the Midland mainline in LMS days is that there is very good availability of suburban rolling stock, whereas this is not the case for the GWR, where I should either have to use old (Triang era) suburban stock, or convert B set brake carriages with custom sides.

 

As to the idea of a cassette: given my preference for automation and the space that a cassette would take, as well as its lack of reversing ability, I do not see that as being feasible at present.

 

In relation to build time, I note that the total length of trackage in the upper section alone is 177,374mm (or 177.3m), which, at 3h/m would take 177 days at 3h/day, so the upper section could, if this extrapolation is correct to within a factor of about 2.5, sensibly be completed within a year, and the upper section would be operable in its own right even if the lower level has not been completed. I agree with the idea that there is great advantage to proceeding in a modular fashion.

 

As stated above, I am not quite sure what to do about attempting to build a smaller layout first. I had been quite keen on the idea of the N gauge layout proposed above, but I am increasingly concerned about whether it is possible to get three levels (whether connected or not) all with adequate height separation. Taking the suggestion to research US multi-deck model railroads, I find that the recommended separation between levels is 45-50cm, which is good for two decks, but makes the top deck too high (almost as tall as me, and I am quite tall) for three decks.

 

I now wonder whether the N gauge layout idea would cause more problems than it solves and whether I should be better off either just experimenting with loose track or perhaps wiring up one of the old layouts that I have in my attic to practise wiring skills at least before moving onto the ultimate planned layout.

 

As to cunning plans, I should be very grateful to know more about such things, as I am generally fond of cunning plans.

 

As to model railway clubs, I belonged to one as a teenager, but not at present. I am considering joining one, however; either one near where I live (which appears to be very small and has not been able to put on any exhibitions lately owing to lack of space, and which also appears to concentrate on finescale), or possibly The Model Railway Club, as its premises are not too far from where I work in central London.

 

Finally, as to prefabricated platforms, the idea was very much to start with prefabricated things and improve on that as and when my modelling ability and time develops and allows respectively (which is why completing the upper section, requiring no Underground stock, first and modelling the Midland, which has a full range of ready to run suburban carriages, seems attractive at present).

[Joseph_Pestell]

Thank you all for your replies. To deal with the issues in an orderly manner: the first difficult question is the extent to which the shed should be built to fit the model railway, or the model railway should be built to fit the shed. The latter may result in a quicker construction of the shed, but would be unsatisfactory if a small adjustment to the shed that would be relatively inexpensive to order now but which would be impractical to alter after the shed has been built would make a large difference to what I am able to do.

 

The main constraint is the width: to fit between my newly installed, concreted in washing line and the fence, the maximum external width has to be 2.9m (giving an internal width of 2.7m; I might have mistakenly given the internal width as 2.5m above). The length is a little more flexible: the current planned length of 7.7m external (7.5m internal) was arrived at after consideration of what would not excessively overshadow the rear of the house or conservatory (albeit I do not much use the conservatory). It could possibly go up to about 8.0m externally (7.8m internally).

 

Within that, there are then the constraints inherent in the idea that I am trying to implement, being a main line terminus in London with an element of the Underground (sub-surface lines), together with engine sheds and carriage sidings for the main line station. This would inevitably require a through station for the Underground, but a terminus station for the main line. That is why I thought initially of something like Paddington, with its platforms 15/16 (and originally also 13/14 - and I note that the last time that I visited Paddington, platform 13 had been demolished, but I digress). However, this would then require somewhere for the trains disappearing down the Underground lines to go, which is why I had designed initially a height separated reversing loop and later (on realising that the height separation was inadequate) a helix. If there is to be a height separated level, I might as well make use of that and have an interesting area on the lower level, too, with an Underground station representing somewhere on the City Widened Lines (which would also have the advantage of allowing the representation of multiple companies' rolling stock, such as the LNER N2s and suburban carriages, to add some interest and variety).

 

Given the desire to automate the layout, reversing loops are essential, and there is only so much width available, so it is not possible to have two 3rd/4th radius loops opposite one another, albeit it is (with a narrow section as depicted in the latest design) possible to have one of the 3rd/4th radius reversing loops opposite a 2nd/3rd radius helix. The need to have the level separation at the buffer end of the terminus for the Underground lines then dictates that there needs to be a linear gradient between the main lines and the buffer end of the terminus, which then puts a constraint on the minimum distance between the point in the station throat when the lines to the Underground diverge and the end of the platforms. On the current design, that is either 2.3% or 1.9% (depending on whether one starts from where the track becomes straight or whether one starts further back towards the junction), so there is room for this to be shorter, but not much shorter. With Midland length platforms, it would be at around 2.6%, which is probably acceptable for the shorter trains that would be using it.

 

The initial idea of a Paddington like arrangement with a separate Underground line into the station and locomotive change facilities for suburban trains was potentially problematic because of the need to rise from the lower level, have flat platforms and junctions, and then descend again, there being insufficient space to do this satisfactorily, so I revised the design to something more akin to St. Pancras or King's Cross's access to the City Widened Lines (as distinct from Paddington's access to the Inner Circle), removing the upper Underground platforms and electrification, and sending steam trains down into the lower section to join a more interesting semi-terminus on the City Widened Lines section.

 

My strong preference to avoid hatches and duck-unders and strong dislike of unrealistically short trains also impose constraints on the design, the former requiring a U-shaped layout and the latter requiring a certain minimum platform length.

 

It is from those basic ideas and constraints that the current design has evolved. As indicated above, a further possible evolution would be to shorten the platforms and carriage sidings and represent a Midland/LMS terminus rather than a GWR terminus, as the Midland ran shorter trains (no more than 9 carriages from what I have discovered). This would potentially allow the engine shed to be moved onto the same plane as the station and the carriage sidings to be altered (although I am not sure quite how or to what extent) to allow for a straighter fiddle yard and earlier termination of the station throat so as to give gentler curves on the main line section (although there would still be the need for the 3rd radius curves in the reversing loop). One possibility that I have yet to evaluate properly is whether this would also allow the helix to be offset from the upper level fiddle yard reversing loop sufficiently (by shortening the fiddle yard) to allow the upper/lower level helix to be 3rd/4th radius, which would reduce both curvature and gradient, although it is not clear that the awkwardness of this arrangement, even if offset, would outweigh such difficulties as there might be with magnetic adhesion systems for the relatively small number of locomotives that would have to be equipped with them.

 

What I will need to do is produce a modified version of the layout plan based on Midland train lengths to see what this would allow me to do. I would then need to consider whether slightly  lengthening the shed would allow me to achieve similar advantages for GWR train lengths and what the preferable option between the two is. I note that one of the advantages of modelling the Midland mainline in LMS days is that there is very good availability of suburban rolling stock, whereas this is not the case for the GWR, where I should either have to use old (Triang era) suburban stock, or convert B set brake carriages with custom sides.

 

As to the idea of a cassette: given my preference for automation and the space that a cassette would take, as well as its lack of reversing ability, I do not see that as being feasible at present.

 

In relation to build time, I note that the total length of trackage in the upper section alone is 177,374mm (or 177.3m), which, at 3h/m would take 177 days at 3h/day, so the upper section could, if this extrapolation is correct to within a factor of about 2.5, sensibly be completed within a year, and the upper section would be operable in its own right even if the lower level has not been completed. I agree with the idea that there is great advantage to proceeding in a modular fashion.

 

As stated above, I am not quite sure what to do about attempting to build a smaller layout first. I had been quite keen on the idea of the N gauge layout proposed above, but I am increasingly concerned about whether it is possible to get three levels (whether connected or not) all with adequate height separation. Taking the suggestion to research US multi-deck model railroads, I find that the recommended separation between levels is 45-50cm, which is good for two decks, but makes the top deck too high (almost as tall as me, and I am quite tall) for three decks.

 

I now wonder whether the N gauge layout idea would cause more problems than it solves and whether I should be better off either just experimenting with loose track or perhaps wiring up one of the old layouts that I have in my attic to practise wiring skills at least before moving onto the ultimate planned layout.

 

As to cunning plans, I should be very grateful to know more about such things, as I am generally fond of cunning plans.

 

As to model railway clubs, I belonged to one as a teenager, but not at present. I am considering joining one, however; either one near where I live (which appears to be very small and has not been able to put on any exhibitions lately owing to lack of space, and which also appears to concentrate on finescale), or possibly The Model Railway Club, as its premises are not too far from where I work in central London.

 

Finally, as to prefabricated platforms, the idea was very much to start with prefabricated things and improve on that as and when my modelling ability and time develops and allows respectively (which is why completing the upper section, requiring no Underground stock, first and modelling the Midland, which has a full range of ready to run suburban carriages, seems attractive at present).

 

Just on the last one, I have to agree with the others - no manufactured platforms. Not difficult to make your own but it gives you so much more flexibility in design. Firstly, most platforms have some curved track (a lot at Paddington) and secondly most termini of the sort you are contemplating have some wider platforms where taxis picked up passengers and lorries transported mails and parcels to/from the train.

 

My "cunning plan" is that you should model Paddington in low relief i.e. just that part of the platforms which is outside the train shed. The tracks hidden by the train shed can be put round a sharp curve out of sight. I will do another rough sketch.

 

With regard to the N gauge,, you don't necessarily need a big vertical permanent separation above Paddington. You are not going to be operating the N and the 00 at the same time. So you could have the whole N gauge layout on a pulley system so that it can be raised out of the way when working on / operating the 00.

 

Edit to add: Given the scope of this project, it would seem a bit strange to constrain it on the basis of the situation of a washing line - even one as well-engineered as that.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell

[Denbridge]

Thank you all for your replies. To deal with the issues in an orderly manner: the first difficult question is the extent to which the shed should be built to fit the model railway, or the model railway should be built to fit the shed. The latter may result in a quicker construction of the shed, but would be unsatisfactory if a small adjustment to the shed that would be relatively inexpensive to order now but which would be impractical to alter after the shed has been built would make a large difference to what I am able to do.

 

The main constraint is the width: to fit between my newly installed, concreted in washing line and the fence, the maximum external width has to be 2.9m (giving an internal width of 2.7m; I might have mistakenly given the internal width as 2.5m above). The length is a little more flexible: the current planned length of 7.7m external (7.5m internal) was arrived at after consideration of what would not excessively overshadow the rear of the house or conservatory (albeit I do not much use the conservatory). It could possibly go up to about 8.0m externally (7.8m internally).

 

Within that, there are then the constraints inherent in the idea that I am trying to implement, being a main line terminus in London with an element of the Underground (sub-surface lines), together with engine sheds and carriage sidings for the main line station. This would inevitably require a through station for the Underground, but a terminus station for the main line. That is why I thought initially of something like Paddington, with its platforms 15/16 (and originally also 13/14 - and I note that the last time that I visited Paddington, platform 13 had been demolished, but I digress). However, this would then require somewhere for the trains disappearing down the Underground lines to go, which is why I had designed initially a height separated reversing loop and later (on realising that the height separation was inadequate) a helix. If there is to be a height separated level, I might as well make use of that and have an interesting area on the lower level, too, with an Underground station representing somewhere on the City Widened Lines (which would also have the advantage of allowing the representation of multiple companies' rolling stock, such as the LNER N2s and suburban carriages, to add some interest and variety).

 

Given the desire to automate the layout, reversing loops are essential, and there is only so much width available, so it is not possible to have two 3rd/4th radius loops opposite one another, albeit it is (with a narrow section as depicted in the latest design) possible to have one of the 3rd/4th radius reversing loops opposite a 2nd/3rd radius helix. The need to have the level separation at the buffer end of the terminus for the Underground lines then dictates that there needs to be a linear gradient between the main lines and the buffer end of the terminus, which then puts a constraint on the minimum distance between the point in the station throat when the lines to the Underground diverge and the end of the platforms. On the current design, that is either 2.3% or 1.9% (depending on whether one starts from where the track becomes straight or whether one starts further back towards the junction), so there is room for this to be shorter, but not much shorter. With Midland length platforms, it would be at around 2.6%, which is probably acceptable for the shorter trains that would be using it.

 

The initial idea of a Paddington like arrangement with a separate Underground line into the station and locomotive change facilities for suburban trains was potentially problematic because of the need to rise from the lower level, have flat platforms and junctions, and then descend again, there being insufficient space to do this satisfactorily, so I revised the design to something more akin to St. Pancras or King's Cross's access to the City Widened Lines (as distinct from Paddington's access to the Inner Circle), removing the upper Underground platforms and electrification, and sending steam trains down into the lower section to join a more interesting semi-terminus on the City Widened Lines section.

 

My strong preference to avoid hatches and duck-unders and strong dislike of unrealistically short trains also impose constraints on the design, the former requiring a U-shaped layout and the latter requiring a certain minimum platform length.

 

It is from those basic ideas and constraints that the current design has evolved. As indicated above, a further possible evolution would be to shorten the platforms and carriage sidings and represent a Midland/LMS terminus rather than a GWR terminus, as the Midland ran shorter trains (no more than 9 carriages from what I have discovered). This would potentially allow the engine shed to be moved onto the same plane as the station and the carriage sidings to be altered (although I am not sure quite how or to what extent) to allow for a straighter fiddle yard and earlier termination of the station throat so as to give gentler curves on the main line section (although there would still be the need for the 3rd radius curves in the reversing loop). One possibility that I have yet to evaluate properly is whether this would also allow the helix to be offset from the upper level fiddle yard reversing loop sufficiently (by shortening the fiddle yard) to allow the upper/lower level helix to be 3rd/4th radius, which would reduce both curvature and gradient, although it is not clear that the awkwardness of this arrangement, even if offset, would outweigh such difficulties as there might be with magnetic adhesion systems for the relatively small number of locomotives that would have to be equipped with them.

 

What I will need to do is produce a modified version of the layout plan based on Midland train lengths to see what this would allow me to do. I would then need to consider whether slightly  lengthening the shed would allow me to achieve similar advantages for GWR train lengths and what the preferable option between the two is. I note that one of the advantages of modelling the Midland mainline in LMS days is that there is very good availability of suburban rolling stock, whereas this is not the case for the GWR, where I should either have to use old (Triang era) suburban stock, or convert B set brake carriages with custom sides.

 

As to the idea of a cassette: given my preference for automation and the space that a cassette would take, as well as its lack of reversing ability, I do not see that as being feasible at present.

 

In relation to build time, I note that the total length of trackage in the upper section alone is 177,374mm (or 177.3m), which, at 3h/m would take 177 days at 3h/day, so the upper section could, if this extrapolation is correct to within a factor of about 2.5, sensibly be completed within a year, and the upper section would be operable in its own right even if the lower level has not been completed. I agree with the idea that there is great advantage to proceeding in a modular fashion.

 

As stated above, I am not quite sure what to do about attempting to build a smaller layout first. I had been quite keen on the idea of the N gauge layout proposed above, but I am increasingly concerned about whether it is possible to get three levels (whether connected or not) all with adequate height separation. Taking the suggestion to research US multi-deck model railroads, I find that the recommended separation between levels is 45-50cm, which is good for two decks, but makes the top deck too high (almost as tall as me, and I am quite tall) for three decks.

 

I now wonder whether the N gauge layout idea would cause more problems than it solves and whether I should be better off either just experimenting with loose track or perhaps wiring up one of the old layouts that I have in my attic to practise wiring skills at least before moving onto the ultimate planned layout.

 

As to cunning plans, I should be very grateful to know more about such things, as I am generally fond of cunning plans.

 

As to model railway clubs, I belonged to one as a teenager, but not at present. I am considering joining one, however; either one near where I live (which appears to be very small and has not been able to put on any exhibitions lately owing to lack of space, and which also appears to concentrate on finescale), or possibly The Model Railway Club, as its premises are not too far from where I work in central London.

 

Finally, as to prefabricated platforms, the idea was very much to start with prefabricated things and improve on that as and when my modelling ability and time develops and allows respectively (which is why completing the upper section, requiring no Underground stock, first and modelling the Midland, which has a full range of ready to run suburban carriages, seems attractive at present).

Hi James. I know you think that I am being deliberately critical, but I'm not. I'm simply trying to help with what is achievable. Your shed problem is not the length, you have plenty of that, it is the width. you have a bit under 9' width which most would consider tight for a main line layout (10+coaches)with 180 degree curves. In the same space, you are trying to cram in not 1, but 2, 180 degree curves at the RH side of your plan. I'm sorry if you think I'm being anti, but i firmly beleive you are trying to square the impossible circle by trying to get a quart in a pint pot.

[gordon s]

This thread may also give you ideas.  The first four words set the scene. "Started 30 years ago"

 

In a loft 24' x 12' it is full of track and a model of Kings Cross to boot.  There is cracking pic of the control panel and the wiring showing what might be involved.  It's all Peco track and has numerous complex formations.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/109884-the-kings-cross-layout-mid-50s-to-mid-60s/page-1?hl=+kings%20+cross

Edited February 27, 2018 by gordon s

[Denbridge]

This thread may also give you ideas.  The first four words sets the scene. "Started 30 years ago"

 

In a loft 24' x 12' it is full of track and a model of Kings Cross to boot.  There is cracking pic of the control panel and the wiring showing what might be involved.  It's all Peco track and has numerous complex formations.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/109884-the-kings-cross-layout-mid-50s-to-mid-60s/page-1?hl=+kings%20+cross

That extra 3' makes all the difference There are also a load of videos on YouTube. I've been following this layout with interest for some time. Points to be noted as potentially helpful is that his minimum radius (apart from the Moorgate loops under Kings X appear to be between 2'6" and 3' certainly on the main running lines. His gradients are fairly shallow, using the length to achieve them, mainly avoiding them on curves. He runs trains of up to around 8 coaches, at least, with steam very successfully. A great layout

[njee20]

It’s also very track heavy, with very limited scenery. Exactly what people have been gnashing their teeth over on here...

[Denbridge]

It’s also very track heavy, with very limited scenery. Exactly what people have been gnashing their teeth over on here...

There is actually a fair bit of scenery. Yes it is track heavy in the Terminus and yards, but a fair bit of scenery on the layout as a whole. It also has a lot of operational interest. Suggest you look at the full thread and the dozens of videos. Not my cup of tea, but the design and construction is impressive.

[Silver Sidelines]

Five years for planning and day dreaming - I suggest 'it' all takes time and then needs practice.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/880/entry-15713-in-the-beginning-%E2%80%93-layout-design/

 

Ray

[gordon s]

It’s also very track heavy, with very limited scenery. Exactly what people have been gnashing their teeth over on here...

 

 

That was exactly my reason for posting the link.  It may gives James some ideas of what is involved in building a layout that is track heavy, so he can see what it is likely to look like and just how much work is involved.  The opening four words summed it up, 'Started 30 years ago'.  I'm sure there is more to it than that, but we all know layouts start out as one thing and get changed and updated as you go along.  A layout of this size is not a one, two or three year project. 

 

It is probably 10, 20 or even 30 years work and develops as each year passes.

 

I have no problem with track heavy layouts as my own efforts went down similar routes.  Multiple levels, gradients and complex pointwork all took their toll.  Even now my 'simple' plan has a similar number of turnouts to James with around 80 required plus the associated motors and wiring.

 

One thing James did pick up on though was the size of the baseboards and where the joins will come.  Even on my 'simple' layout I had tremendous difficulty in building the boards so that the joins avoided pointwork and the necessary cross bracing.  Eventually I realised that there were several places where I had to have pointwork over a join, so there was no choice but to bolt the two boards together into one large board.  That then became quite unwieldy and difficult to move about, but there was no other alternative.

 

Add to that additional levels and the problems escalate considerably as aligning one pair of tracks on the same plane is one thing, but now make that numerous tracks on a least two levels and that really takes considerable expertise.

 

None of these are insurmountable, but they do take years of experience and considerable skill to resolve.