Help with proposed layout idea

[BetweenTheTunnels]

I am seeking some thoughts, help and suggestions for a proposed small layout idea.  I'll be honest from the start and say I havent done much with layouts, although had numerous plans, for a few years now, but something (usually a lack of money and/or time!) gets in the way.

 

Having been signed off work on sick-leave for a few weeks, and not feeling like doing an awful lot, I know I am likely to go stir crazy if i dont have something to do, so the thought has turned to trying to do a 'quick and simple' layout, which wouldnt take too long to get to a reasonably complete stage, would allow some running, and equally I could then go back and improve sections if I wanted in the future.  With being 'off work', finance for this going to be very limited - brand new models are out of the question for example - as is space. I've no where to leave a layout up permanently, so what ever I come up with needs to be able to be packed away.

 

I have looked extensively at rmweb over the past week or so, scoured back copies of model railway magazines I've borrowed from a friend and generally searched the web and just about come up with a zero of something that interests me.  The straight branch terminus seems to simple and lacking in operational fun, while at the same time im not a fan of things being dead straight, it seems to look unnatural to me.  I came across a 2mm circular layout based somewhere on the Woodhead route that looked good, although equally I dont want a tail chaser, i get bored just watching things go round and round! Yes I know im as awkward as they come.

 

Initial idea

What I did wonder however is whether the circular layout could be adapted somehow into an end to end, over two levels?  I could get a 6' (maybe 6.5') diameter circular board in the lounge quite easily, and if it broke down in two three or four boards it could be stored easily too.  Trains would therefore move from A to B (or A to C via B) for example, ie with a purpose.  I've no real stock so scale wise its an open house. In some respects I thought going N gauge may be the answer so that it would give space for a loco and wagons and the curves woudnt be too tight, but searching eBay, locos all seem to be expensive (well expensive for what i can afford to spend). A narrow gauge setting like 009 seems to have the same issues.  Looking at OO gauge, I came up with some Hornby wagons and 4-wheel coaches that were all under £5 (ok postage to think about but the aim is just to get things from a single place if possible).  Im also willing to look at repainting and detailing things, so it didnt really matter whether they were in poor condition or even Thomas items as I could adapt them.  Loco wise there seemed to be plenty of locos such as Hornby Desmond type things or even some older Triang 0-4-0s, which again could be detailed or modified in time, for small amounts of money which would be doable.  Equally if anyone knows anyone who is selling such things, or good second hand shops or websites please feel free to say, im all kind of new to this having not done railway modelling for 20+ years really.

 

Im not too concerned as to the background, be it BR or a private company - something industrial or even a light railway type setting would work.  I did wonder about a sand quarry to a canal quayside or something of that style - there must be others i havent thought of.  In terms of train lengths they probably couldnt be more than a loco and four or five wagons, but thats fine for me.

 

If i did go OO a friend has said he has loads of nickle-silver Peco Code 100 metre-lengths that he no longer wants that I could have, and he thinks he has some points as well, which could be another tick for OO.  Another friend has very kindly said he can lend me a Gaugemaster OO gauge controller that he does not use if i wanted it, and has offered to do the wood work for me when i work out what I want - Im one of these people who can cause themselves a lot of harm with a paperclip!!  So maybe 4mm DC is the best (or is it cheapest) route?

 

Its not going to be a perfect scale representation of a real location in something like EM - far from it, probably totally fictional, but more based around occupying me when i feel like doing something and having some fun. I appreciate that is a really wide brief and it needs narrowing down, but i would welcome any thoughts, ideas, suggestions or pointers towards things to look at.  Hope somebody may have some comments....

 

Thanks

Richie

[ITG]

A 6’ round (or square) board is going to have a central area which is difficult to reach, unless you mean it to have a central operating well. Generally, 2’ seems to be the optimum operating space for most folk.

In 00, assuming use of 2nd radius size curves at approx 18” means that to turn 180 degrees requires at least 3’ (allowing for edge clearance) so between these curves you are only going to have 3’ of straight. Not impossible to do something with that, but aligning infrastructure such as a platform on 18” curves will struggle to look realistic due to clearance required for stock. So your idea of industrial layout is probably more workable. An end-to-end U layout would allow more space as you haven’t got to fit in curves on all 4 corners.

If this is a first layout, I’d be wary of introducing two levels. It will certainly introduce added complexity with alignment of separate boards. Plus, you need to consider steepness of gradient in this space; no benefit having two levels if locos struggle to climb up there, although if running short trains may be ok.

Unless you have experienced of fixing, refurbing, repainting models, be wary of cheap pre-owned items - they may cost you more in the long run! You can certainly find bargains but there’s also rubbish on sale as well.

Good luck.

[Chimer]

Hum .... what can be done in this space given your constraints?

 

I do a lot of planning without building anything, but I did actually build this and ran it for a year or two.  It was 00, 5'3" x 4'9" on 4 boards, 3 of which were bare boards with track.  I used bits of loose settrack to get across the board joints as I didn't reckon I could manage the better ways of doing it.

 

 

For "realistic operations", I could run a two coach passenger train from one of the sidings (A) on the bottom board through the station into the other siding (B).  Then stuck another engine on the other end, and ran it back to A.  Then a third engine took it to B again, and the first engine would go next.  So any individual engine appeared to go A - B - A - B.  The third short siding (C) was used to shuffle the light engines around as necessary, while the train was in the station, or to swap engines on and off the layout using a locolift.  For variety, I sometimes used a two-car DMU instead of loco-hauled stock.  An extra siding to hold this off-scene would have been very helpful.

 

I also had a pick up freight which occasionally ran a clockwise circuit from the goods loop back to the goods loop.  It would then be resorted, dropping off a couple of wagons and picking up others as determined by shuffling cards.  Wagons to be left behind had to be in specific locations (vans in the goods shed, coal wagons by the staithes etc).  Passenger ops could carry on while the yard was being shunted (in practice this usually meant leaving a passenger train circling unattended).

 

It was DC operated and used cab control, organised in sections so it was possible for the passenger to leave the station running anti-clockwise while the goods left the yard running clockwise.  Just to prove to myself it could be done ......

 

Ultimately, it wasn't sufficiently satisfying operationally to keep in being, but it did prove I could cope with esoteric concepts like cab control and live frog points ....

 

Hope this may spark some ideas!

 

Chris

[Pete the Elaner]

Nothing wrong with planning things you will never build. If you find planning interesting, then why not?

 

A model of a real location was mentioned. Railways take up more space than many realise. Trying to squeeze them down a little makes them look compressed.

 

I decided to make a list of things I wanted from a layout, then ranked them in order of what is important to me. Discard any which are not compatible with each other (ie. you can't run scale length main line trains into a platform which is only big enough to serve 2 coaches; a level crossing will not work if the layout is based in a cutting. What space you have will probably be the top of your list & may well eliminate many things you would like to do - it does for most of us).

The list will now be very personal & the actual layout design should be fairly easy from this point onwards.

[BetweenTheTunnels]

Thanks for your comments guys.

 

13 hours ago, ITG said:

A 6’ round (or square) board is going to have a central area which is difficult to reach, unless you mean it to have a central operating well. Generally, 2’ seems to be the optimum operating space for most folk.

I was not specifically thinking of a central operating well, but yes I dont think a solid 6' section is a good idea, as it wil be wasted space, add to the weight (and as you say) unreachable.

 

13 hours ago, ITG said:

So your idea of industrial layout is probably more workable. An end-to-end U layout would allow more space as you haven’t got to fit in curves on all 4 corners.

If this is a first layout, I’d be wary of introducing two levels. It will certainly introduce added complexity with alignment of separate boards. Plus, you need to consider steepness of gradient in this space; no benefit having two levels if locos struggle to climb up there, although if running short trains may be ok.

A U shape could be worth considering, but yes im thinking freight more than passenger operation.  Its not my first layout, but first for a fair while.  I was thinking that the two different levels could split the scene up a bit with gradual inclines, but as we are only talking a loco and four or five wagons, i dont think it should be too much of a challenge.

 

10 hours ago, Chimer said:

Hum .... what can be done in this space given your constraints?

 

I do a lot of planning without building anything, but I did actually build this and ran it for a year or two.  It was 00, 5'3" x 4'9" on 4 boards, 3 of which were bare boards with track.  I used bits of loose settrack to get across the board joints as I didn't reckon I could manage the better ways of doing it.

 

 

Ultimately, it wasn't sufficiently satisfying operationally to keep in being, but it did prove I could cope with esoteric concepts like cab control and live frog points ....

Thanks Chris, Not quite what i was thinking, but it certainly provides food for thought.  I do like the idea of being able to shunt about separate to the main line however.

 

9 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

A model of a real location was mentioned. Railways take up more space than many realise. Trying to squeeze them down a little makes them look compressed.

 

I decided to make a list of things I wanted from a layout, then ranked them in order of what is important to me. Discard any which are not compatible with each other. The list will now be very personal & the actual layout design should be fairly easy from this point onwards.

Hi Pete,

Thanks yes, I totally agree. A real location is a non-starter, for reasons of being able to produce something relatively quickly, aside from that of space. 

 

Richie

[BetweenTheTunnels]

I have today been thinking about the comments passed here and some of my own.  Following the circular layout idea through I have come up with two thoughts, possibly based around O-16.5 narrow gauge (or a light railway scheme) both of which would predominantely be freight operated.  The first is purely a circular thought.

 

 

While the second adapts it to give a slightly longer run and get away from curves.

 

 

The idea in both cases being that there is three (or possibly four in the case of the latter design) different scenic sections to give some variety.  One could be a sand quarry or terminus station, one could be a canal scene, one could be a river scene the other a cutting or maybe an additional industry or something.

 

Given that the 6ft diameter of the boards woudl allow a 4-5ft diameter circle (including allowance of it tightening to run within the outter one at one point) it should be easy on the locomotives.  Potentially the curved boards could split into four 3'x3' sections which would give storage.  The extra bit being a 4ft x 15" or 18" width, as a separte board.

 

Still food for thought.

 

Richie

 

[DCB]

For some reason this didn't post about 6 hours ago but   

 

You have plenty of room for a fun layout,  Just look at all the CJ Freezer plans in 60 plans for small railways etc many of which are 6 X 4 and have 18" minimum radius with 2 ft radius points.

I wouldn't use the multi level plans as modern RTR doesn't climb hills.  A continuous run with a hidden fiddle section can operate like an end to end with two fiddle yards, you can't run continuously on an end to end..

For me 4 wheel coaches on brake van chassis are a step too toylike, but small locos  0-6-0 tanks with short 50/55ft coaches, Triang Clerestories, Ratio that sort of thing look good on small layouts in a way long coaches like BR Mk1 corridors and GWR B sets don't.

I would look at 1960s and 70s Railway Modeller and M R Constructor  etc magazines  which was a much more fun time railway wise for the layout and 2021 magazines at 50p a pop from your nearest preserved railway  for scenery.  I make station signs on the PC and have them printed as photographs at Tesco for about 50p a throw, 50p for maybe 10 or 15 signs.

A colliery railway with workmen's trains of old coaches, all sorts of small locos, some bought new, some second hand from main line railways, Peckets, Panniers, Austerities, all sorts of small diesels, ,anything except GWR 101 and King George  which are a step too near Ivor the Engine, and the like.  

[DCB]

One of the Rev W Awdry's (Thomas the Tank etc author)   "Ffarquar" layouts was very clever.   A terminus with a Fiddleyard and a connecting link masquerading as quarry line to allow continuous running for testing running in locos etc.  Looked good,  His locos didn't have faces etc.  At the other extreme David Jenkinsons "Garsdale Road" showed what could be done with a main line in a small space.  Probably too big for your space,  but a scaled down version on a secondary line could work  Thinking Cambrian, MSWJR or Banbury - Cheltenham here.  MSWJR had 3 coach trains and Manors, 43XX and SR "U Boats"

[Harlequin]

Curved baseboard edges are difficult and expensive to build (properly). Gradients will add further to the complexity, cost and time to build and may introduce reliability problems or compromise train length.

 

Keep it simple! The track itself can still be curvy within rectangular plans and level while the ground around it rises and falls.

 

A 4mm scale narrow gauge railway might suit - i.e. 009. It would allow your track to be a bit more wiggly in the small space, semi-industrial, serving quarries and quaysides. The infrastructure like stations and engine sheds, etc., is smaller, so easier to fit in. There are masses of 4mm scale scenic elements you can buy and there are some really beautiful new loco and rolling stock models available in 009 now (but they aren't cheap!).

 

Edit: I see that you had already discounted 009. Sorry.

Edited September 10, 2022 by Harlequin

[DCB]

If cash is short a second hand £20 Hornby 00  Jinty is just as charming in its own way as a £150 Heljan 009  L&B 2-6-2T . at under 20% of the price

The 6ft round board is a nightmare to build,  The framing has to be very complicated, especially if the centre is open but its saving grace is it can be rolled around and pass through standard 6ft 6" doorways,,

Again if cash is short internal doors are 6ft 6" high, generally 2ft 6" wide and double up nicely for a 6ft 6" X 5ft or so baseboard,   They readily available in a skip near you, and in DIY stores, but are just that bit too tall to go through  normal domestic doorways hence the popularity of the 6X4 heavily braced 2 X 1 framed monsters which aren't portable in any sense of the word

[Kris]

There are many ways of creating a circular board. Over 15 years ago, when RM web was in its infancy there was a challenge run. I can't remember the exact details but I think that it was to build a layout in under a certain size. I got creative and started to build a circular board, one that was very narrow to comply with the rules. To make it more interesting I did include gradients, lots of them, to the extent that there was very little track that was not going up or down. It was hard to make but had the potential to be a lovely little layout. Unfortunately I moved to a much smaller property (where there was no space for the layout) to before the layout got close to a completed stage. 

I did build in n gauge rather than OO but with careful planning many things can be achieved. 

 

 

 

 

The main beam of the layout was built with a lamination of MDF, curved and glued together. Very strong but a real pain to do.  

[Harlequin]

Here's a quick sketch idea:

 

Four identical boards (in plan), each 4ft 3in by 2ft, join together to make a total size of 6ft 6in by 6ft 6in. Two of the boards are dropped so that scenery elements can be below rail level while rail level remains fixed.

 

I imagine that operating would mainly be done from the outside.

 

Edited September 11, 2022 by Harlequin

[BetweenTheTunnels]

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts and inputs. I've gone back to the drawing board with pens and the back of envelopes to take the comments and ideas on board and see what I can come up with. @Harlequin thanks for the rough sketch. It is not really what I was looking for (but there again, do I really know what im looking for I ask myself!) but could well be an impetus for where to go with this project.