Designing a layout for the garage

[Bloodnok]

During a conversation between my other half and one of her friends (who just so happens to be into model railways), I was given the green light to occupy a lot more of the garage than I had previously dared to ask for. I'm no longer restricted to a narrow shelf down the left hand side. The garage measures 5.7m by 2.9m - which is way more than I've ever planned a layout in previously, and I'm now way out of my depth in terms of coming up with ideas.

 

There are (so far) only two conditions:

 

* Access from the utility room through the rear of the garage to the rear door (garden) must be maintained - this means a significant chunk at the rear right corner of the garage is unavailable.

* It must still be possible to fit a car in, though only when we are away for a period of time - e.g. on holiday.

 

Condition 1 will affect the layout when in operation, but condition 2 will not, so can be satisfied with (hopefully limited) dismantling. Any plan that uses space required for the car will have to have removable sections to allow vehicular access.

 

The resulting space I have access to is (outside dimensions) 3.1m by 2.9m by 5.7m, with the 5.7m section being permitted a maximum width of 1.3m at the far end. The missing corner is for the utility room access.

 

Fitting in the car while leaving 'shelves' down the sides of the garage will require limiting the combined width of both sides to 800mm. Whether that is 400mm each side or something else will be down to what fits the plan best. Anything that protrudes beyond that in the first 4.5m or so would have to be removable, but could stay up most of the time.

 

Anyway, that is the area I now have available to "play" with. It's full of stuff at the moment, but a lot of it is going soon, so there will be clear space. The challenge is to get something in place to reserve that space reasonably quickly - before additional junk piles up...

 

 

So, you ask, what does the railway need to do?

 

If I'm honest with myself, I want a continuous run. There will be times when all I want to do is watch the trains go round.

I'd like a station, a junction, and maybe some kind of freight interest too.

I'd like to keep to nice wide curves on the mainline, though I'll accept anything down to 2nd radius on branches and hidden sidings.

The date of the layout will be circa 1985, but I'd like to be able to operate anywhere between about 1975 and 1995 without the trackwork or signalling looking out of place.

As to area, I'm not picky - anywhere I can get away with a mixture of loco hauled and DMU passenger trains really

 

Currently acquired stock for the layout includes a whole mixture of Bachmann Mk1 and Mk2as, a pair of duffs, a pair of rats, and a Cl101 and Cl108 DMU. I also have stuff from my previous OO train set (last seen operating in about 1994), some of which may be renovated to run on the new layout as well.

 

Some initial doodling has come up with this, and this underneath for storage. (Roller door at left hand side, laundry lower right, back door to garden centre right).

 

The idea is the circular route around the garage is a secondary main line, the descent into hidden storage on the right is another secondary main line, and the other end of the hidden storage is a branch line.

 

I'm umming and arring about whether to make the descent to storage a spiral on both ends to get more "hand" space in the fiddleyard (it may be a bit tight to the board above at the moment) - and also whether I should add dead end roads for loco shuffling at each end of the fiddleyard, and how to arrange them if so.

 

On the scenic level, there's two things I'm concerned about. Firstly the lack of any freight interest. I'm looking at the two spaces marked "?" in terms of freight interest - probably the one near the station will be the easiest to open up.

 

I'm also concerned about the single slip. It just doesn't seem right to me. The purpose of this is to allow a branch line train to come up from the left hand side, into platform 3, and then continue onto the correct track on the mainline. Adding a full trailing crossover between the point for the bay platform and the junction eats up too much platform space. I'm currently trying to work a curved crossover in to the main line afterwards, but I suspect I may have to cut the webbing of some curved points and bend them to fit, to keep the curve a smooth curve, as nothing lines up in xtrkcad...

[Bloodnok]

This is the cleanest I've so far managed to come up with for the curved crossover. I also added a separate approach track, so that a train can approach from the bridge while another approaches from the FY. I'm slightly worried about fitting the new point at the entrance to Platform 3 with a motor (it'll be right in 'hand range' for fiddling with the fiddle yard)...

[edcayton]

are you going to set the layout high enough that the car will go underneath? This would certainly reduce the amount of dismantling to get the car in. Also,are your drive and garage floor horizontal (mine aren't) and are you prepared to push the car in and out? I once had a garage that was too narrow to open the car door in, but because I like open cars I did this. It meant that I had a choice of car storage OR workshop and it worked OK for a couple of years.

 

Ed

[Bloodnok]

are you going to set the layout high enough that the car will go underneath?

 

Probably not - it's an interesting idea, but I'd rather have the layout at a more convenient height for operation. Setting the layout to clear the roof will mean it's not far off eye level - and that doesn't account for that pesky permanently raised aerial. To clear that would put it firmly above eye level.

 

I do intend to be something like 4 foot to track level - enough that the bottom of the baseboard will be mid way up the windscreen. The layout would thus clear the bonnet fairly easily, and will be above the widest part - the wing mirrors...

 

This would certainly reduce the amount of dismantling to get the car in. Also,are your drive and garage floor horizontal (mine aren't) and are you prepared to push the car in and out? I once had a garage that was too narrow to open the car door in, but because I like open cars I did this. It meant that I had a choice of car storage OR workshop and it worked OK for a couple of years.

 

Garage floor is flat (or pretty close) - I'll survey it a bit more precisely when it comes to making board legs, but it's certainly not far off.

 

Drive isn't anywhere near flat - I expect I would have to drive the car in.

 

I have a cheat available though - the utility room attached to the side of the garage. The garage and utility room are actually the same L shaped room, and as long as the drivers door clears the corner of the wall, I won't have a problem getting out . This is also where setting the layout above the bonnet helps, as I can pull the car further forward. Though I expect driving under the layout may just be a tad scary...

[craw607]

just a thought could you build your layout on a pulley system

that when you need the car in you could raise your layout

[Bloodnok]

just a thought could you build your layout on a pulley system

that when you need the car in you could raise your layout

 

Pulleys would work for a single board layout - but constructing a rigid single board for a layout of this size would be quite a challenge in itself. I'd rather build it in sections, for ease of working on it if nothing else...

 

 

Anyone have any comments or suggestions on the trackplan?

[Kenton]

Anyone have any comments or suggestions on the trackplan?

Took me a while to find it - but yes.

 

I am concerned about the radius of the curves on both left and right bein too tight in a scenic area.

But what concerns me most is that I don't think your gradients are negotiable on either side but especially on the left side. From where the point joins the upper level to the point at which the track goes under is only some 2-3ft.

 

I assume the double track tunnel becomes single in the hidden area - that is one point at least that is going to be very difficult to access and the trains in that area difficult to reach for the inevitable re-railing.

 

The long (lift-able?) senction is a bit dull ? unless you can make a feature of it - then it becomes fragile.

 

 

Pulleys may be the answer to your problem if the layout can also be hinged on the wall. If the layout can be offset enough from the walls and hinged on them then they can be folded up to the wall for storage. If you are using sensible materials the weight should not be excessive. I could be broken into suitable manageable lengths.

 

I assume the garage door is not an obstacle here and that it doesn't open inwards.

[Bloodnok]

Took me a while to find it - but yes.

 

Hmmm. Maybe I need to make the links more obvious.

 

First scenic plan

 

Revised scenic plan with better(?) station throat - eliminates single slip

 

Storage Area

 

(These are links because I fully expect a max picture width on the forum, and to get them inside it would mean either a.) I'd have to break them up too much, or b.) I'd lose too much detail).

 

I am concerned about the radius of the curves on both left and right bein too tight in a scenic area.

 

The inner track on the right, and the left single track are both marginally larger than 2nd radius. I could probably get this up to third at the cost of a little storage space, but width is my enemy - particularly at the right hand side.

 

But what concerns me most is that I don't think your gradients are negotiable on either side but especially on the left side. From where the point joins the upper level to the point at which the track goes under is only some 2-3ft.

 

That assumes the upper is level

 

I'd planned to have both tracks on the corner boards on an incline. I've got just over two metres of incline to get my separation in the left corner. I hope to give the impression that a.) squeezing under the bridge is a tight fit, and b.) the branch is quite steep - I want to make it appear very much a minor branch, whereas the other one at the right hand end is of a much better construction.

 

I assume the double track tunnel becomes single in the hidden area - that is one point at least that is going to be very difficult to access and the trains in that area difficult to reach for the inevitable re-railing.

 

Yep, that was concerning me too. Access to that area is important. Aside from the station throat questions, I think this is my most concerning issue with this plan - I need more opportunity to shed height on the way down to the FY to get more space down there.

 

The long (lift-able?) senction is a bit dull ? unless you can make a feature of it - then it becomes fragile.

 

I was hoping to make it appear to be a bridge, but at the length it is (best part of 2m) it's going to be decidedly awkward to work with.

 

I assume the garage door is not an obstacle here and that it doesn't open inwards.

 

It's a roller, so it does need a foot or so of clearance into the room at the top if you're planning to head to the ceiling - but it's not like an up-and-over door would be, needing loads of space.

[Bloodnok]

Okay, following feedback, I went away to think about this.

 

I'll skip over the Mk2 plan - that didn't solve enough of the problems. Here is the Mk3 plan (assuming I've figured out the file uploader...)

 

Scenic area:

 

Storage Yard:

 

Key things to note:

 

* Curve radius now larger - the minimum is now 500mm, appx equivalent to "3rd radius".

* "Main" track now goes to the storage yard and back each time - the branch is the "continuous" run on top.

* The two turn Spiral in the top right, plus the longer run from storage on the other side gives a LOT more space between levels. Should be no problems with access to the stock in the lower level now, even with point motors above.

* The bridge is nearly half the length it was - should be a lot easier to handle now. I'm thinking of something like a steel arch with the track running through the middle - something that could believably be a 100m span in full size (which approximately what this will scale up to).

* I now have 7 long storage roads (getting on for three metres long!) - three each way and one bidirectional. This arrangement will give me less conflicting movements now I've reverted to a more conventional roundy-roundy with the fiddleyard part of the mainline rather than accessed via the branch.

 

All sounds good so far. Unfortunately:

 

* The far side now extends out enough it also has to be removable to fit the car in. This sponsored by the wider radius curves plus moving the other 'dogbone' storage entrance to the far corner. All boards marked 'X' would have to move (Interestingly, the layout becomes a plain T2F in this condition. Maybe I should work in a facing crossover on the way to the spiral?). I expect to be able to move the (presumably) freestanding corner board up to the 'access' space at the lower right when the car is required to be present - other boards would be treated to foldaway legs, and will stack away. Somewhere. (Maybe underneath the two spirals?)

 

 

I'm expecting to build the two large spiral boards open frame to enable easier gradients (and allow access to hidden track from underneath lightweight scenery), the station boards with a solid top for convenience, and the others I'm not sure - open frame would give plenty of opportunity for trains on embankments or on bridges, which appeals...

 

The idea with the two stations would be to keep them as opposite as possible - so that you don't see both at the same time when in the operating space. So while I will wrap the small station onto the curve a bit, I don't want it growing too far around. I'm also going to treat the larger station as an urbanish area, and the small station as a ruralish area.

 

The yard on the lower side would be represented in a rather run-down state, nearly out of use - with only a few engineers wagons turning up occasionally. (Someone will probably be along shortly to lift it and extend the carpark, but before they do, let's park some of our oldest, most rusty wagons in it - that kind of thing.)

 

I'm not happy with the loco stabling sidings by the larger station - I'll have to re-work that. I may remove the 'disused' platform, and provide something with fewer, but longer, roads there. If I can get it so I can park 2 and 3 car DMUs around this station somewhere, that'd work a lot better than just locos.

 

Comments and suggestions welcome...

[Kenton]

OK much more comfortable - only two possible problems and one (not a problem)

1. Why bother with the circle top right lower board - you ar never going to be able to reach the corner and all it serves is a "holding circuit" - for trains about to stop in the FY anyway.

2. The other end of the FY has points on curves - fast trains do not negotiate these curved points particularly well and are frequent causes of derailments. I would forgo some of the length on the front FY tracks

 

(I'm still doubtful on the gradients between levels .... )

 

The not a problem ... that bridge (viaduct/causeway) would it be better as double track? seeing the sight of two long trains passing at speed across it

 

Certainly an ambitious plan with a great deal of operation challenges.

[Bloodnok]

OK much more comfortable - only two possible problems and one (not a problem)

1. Why bother with the circle top right lower board - you ar never going to be able to reach the corner and all it serves is a "holding circuit" - for trains about to stop in the FY anyway.

 

It's all about gaining height. The issue you pointed out with the height difference between the FY and the underneath of the station board being insufficient (which was a concern with the Mk1 and Mk2 plans) requires either a steeper gradient or a longer run. The gradient was already on the steep side as it was, so to get more height difference, I need a longer run. I don't have more space to use, so it has to be folded up into the existing footprint somehow. This is the most obvious way .

 

If I don't put this in, yes, construction will be simpler - but I'll still have that height problem I had previously, where the station and storage will be too close together. An entire extra circle will give me the height I need.

 

As to reaching the corner, it shouldn't be too difficult - the lower level will be open sided, so I can reach in from underneath. The board will also be an open frame one, so I could even stand up in the middle if I made the scenery lift-out...

 

2. The other end of the FY has points on curves - fast trains do not negotiate these curved points particularly well and are frequent causes of derailments. I would forgo some of the length on the front FY tracks

 

To cut this back to standard points by using a mirror image of the right hand entry will cost me 0.9m of storage space - over 7 roads, this is 6.3m, or appx 21 coaches. That's too much.

 

Juggling a board joint near the garage door allows me to make the junction just onto the straight there (ending up with another of those irritating 1.3m boards in the process), but gaining ever more length in the FY roads .

 

Doesn't look as neat or flowing, but it's hidden storage - reliability wins over appearance on this level .

 

(I'm still doubtful on the gradients between levels .... )

 

(Yet you're suggesting that I remove the spiral, which would either increase the gradient or reduce the height difference?)

 

To get 250mm separation between station and FY (top surface to top surface - i.e. that needs to contain one thickness of baseboard, point motors, space for hands, tallest item of rolling stock and thickness of track), I'm looking at 1 in 28. I think that's sufficient space for hand access. Even if I boosted it to 300mm, the gradient is still about 1 in 24.

 

This is steep, but there are places on the real railway that steep - think City Thameslink to Blackfriars or Lickey bank.

 

FWIW, I'll be using modern diesel locomotives with central motor drives, so I don't expect much problem physically hauling stuff up the gradients. Wanting to keep the gradient down is more about making it appear right when it becomes visible

 

The not a problem ... that bridge (viaduct/causeway) would it be better as double track? seeing the sight of two long trains passing at speed across it

 

Heh - Probably would be, yes

 

I've got the plan for the double track junction at the main station, so I could lift that off an earlier iteration and drop that back in fairly easily. (I keep all of my xtc files from earlier versions just for this reason). It'll cut a bit of length off the island platform, as I'd push it back so the crossing isn't across a board joint, but it's probably worth it. I'll still get a 6 car DMU in the bay and loco+5 on the mainline, and I can kill the facing crossover too if I'm going back to the diamond.

 

I'd have to come up with something at the bottom though. Going single lead won't give me 'two trains passing on the viaduct at speed', as one will be stopping. I'll need another Y plus diamond again to get that.

 

Why the Y I hear you ask? Well, I've found low angle RTR crossings unreliable in the past, I don't want to make the plan depend on hand built track, and I don't want to use the same points from the FY on a scenic running line as they look way too sharp.

 

Certainly an ambitious plan with a great deal of operation challenges.

 

It's certainly a big build, and I'll want to construct it in stages. I'm thinking the FY to Station section via the spiral at the far right might be the best place to start. Sure, it contains most of the hard thinking (how to construct that spiral, for a start), but it's nearly operable independently of the rest of the layout. Just an extra crossover and it would be a workable T2F on it's own. (That'd also mean I could, at a push, operate with the rest of the layout stored - possibly a handy trait, should we need the garage for something else unexpected).

 

It also means I don't have to clear 100% of the garage before I can make a start - which means there might actually be progress by Christmas...

 

Here's Mk3c of the design, with the revised FY using straight points, the revised stations, junctions and bridge to turn the link line into a double track, and a change to the stabling point to make sure I can get DMUs in there. I've also actually drawn the platforms in this time...

 

The larger station ought to hold 6 vehicles - so two 3 car DMUs, or loco+5. Smaller station should comfortably hold 4 vehicles - so a 2 or 3 car DMU will still (hopefully) look small when in the platform.