Layout blog

Hi everybody, I am a new member here and here is my current project that presently lacks a name, location etc, suffice to say it is 1920+ Steam.

I previously modelled in N so during the planning stage I had to adjust my thinking into what I might fit in a negotiable space so ended up with an L shaped terminus to fiddle yard design as shown in the attached plan.

There are no turning facilities so the branch is intended to be primarily run by tanks, there are two platforms, a fairly large MPD and a goods yard so certainly a very busy location, no carriage storage so not a holiday destination although Platform 2 could be used or one of the goods roads at a stretch.

The platform lengths are designed to be compatible with the traverser length, the goods headshunt is a little short but I wanted to scenically break it from the traverser, there is always a problem IMOP of the eye following the train into un-prototypical territory!!

The traverser is arranged to enable locomotives to be swapped from one end of a train to the other without hand in the sky intervention hence there is a 1ft long fixed section after the 4ft long moving section and some stub roads at the entrance end.

The radius of the station approach as ever is limited by the space available and the length of station approach pointwork, this is further complicated by an awkward baseboard joint, much editing has been done to get this far! The platforms are skewed to ease the entry and the goods roads deliberatly left straight to open out the goods yard space. The plan does not really include scenic detail apart from the platforms as I find it esier to add in situe rather then planning it.
To be continued.

Baseboard construction is modular to allow removal to a new location, the maximum module size being 6ft x 2ft as just about manageable through doorway's and around landing twists & turns etc, would probably also suit a shed. Due to most of the layout being either a station or traverser a flat top baseboard was chosen rather than open frame. The top is 12mm marine ply from a local woodyard that I have used previously and found to be very stable, this is reinforced by 25x12mm pse seasoned timber that has been used in various layouts at least 15 years since purchase so is also stable, the top is simply screwed to the underframe in case god forbid it is ever disassembled so the materials can be re-used.  The following pics show the baseboards in various stages of construction (seems the captions are missing so manually added underneath each)

Keeping things flat, any weights will do


Trial assembly of 1st two modules

Baseboards assembled, point patterns in place

The traverser uses ball race drawer slides modified by removing all the stops so that they are able to extend in both directions from the centre, care is needed to limit the stroke else the balls fall out!!
To be continued

Whilst the points are awaited various bits of infrastructure have been added including the power supplies, servo controller for the points and a set of very awkward connectors joining the first two baseboards as there is an loft access doorway that extends within 10mm of the layout underside.

Power supplies

Servo controller

1st Loco

I should mention my version of DC control is rectified 16Vac with no smoothing applied via simple darlington potential divider current amplifier, I know this same circuit is used by many others and certainly in my N gauge experience is far better then any PWM circuit. So the large aluminium box contains many 16Vac transformers, the smaller box perched on top is a 40W fanless SMPS providing +5V for servo's & 12V for ancillaries (like frog relays).
To be continued

Hi Roger

Welcome from a fellow BR(NE)R modeller.

I am a fan of the Bachmann V1/3 model and would recommend saving up for one of the new versions - see below;



The difference between these two versions is amazing, particularly the chassis.  That said, I have a couple of the old ones and they perform really well.

Your track plan resembles a plan from 1976 appearing in the Railway Modeller (contributed by Philip Knife IIRC) with a Southern theme.  It is a plan I have always liked an even started building it once.  Where you have a gas works, he had a dairy.

I, like others on here, look forward to watching your layout progress.

Barry

[user=2213]fourtytwo[/user] wrote:

Hi everybody, I am a new member here and here is my current project that presently lacks a name, location etc, suffice to say it is 1920+ Steam.

I previously modelled in N so during the planning stage I had to adjust my thinking into what I might fit in a negotiable space so ended up with an L shaped terminus to fiddle yard design as shown in the attached plan.

There are no turning facilities so the branch is intended to be primarily run by tanks, there are two platforms, a fairly large MPD and a goods yard so certainly a very busy location, no carriage storage so not a holiday destination although Platform 2 could be used or one of the goods roads at a stretch.

The platform lengths are designed to be compatible with the traverser length, the goods headshunt is a little short but I wanted to scenically break it from the traverser, there is always a problem IMOP of the eye following the train into un-prototypical territory!!

The traverser is arranged to enable locomotives to be swapped from one end of a train to the other without hand in the sky intervention hence there is a 1ft long fixed section after the 4ft long moving section and some stub roads at the entrance end.

The radius of the station approach as ever is limited by the space available and the length of station approach pointwork, this is further complicated by an awkward baseboard joint, much editing has been done to get this far! The platforms are skewed to ease the entry and the goods roads deliberatly left straight to open out the goods yard space. The plan does not really include scenic detail apart from the platforms as I find it esier to add in situe rather then planning it.
To be continued.

 

Roger,

I've updated and corrected my comments on Point Geometries and moved them to my Topic here:
Link to comments on Point Geometries

Colin

Hello Barry, well like everybody I searched through just about everything I had (loads of RM's and a few trackplans books) once I had an idea how much space was available. The inspiration that led to the layout really came from Oakbourne in the Nov 2007 Railway Modeller. I liked the operating potential, the two platforms and sense of space, so then it was a case of squashing it in to my space along with expanding the goods facilities a bit (I have always enjoyed shunting). When I first started I was thinking along the lines of a tank plus two coaches but I seem to have been able to double the number of coaches.

As for the loco it's interesting to me as I discovered it has a split chassis which for some reason seems to draw adverse comments, in N gauge I found them very useful for increasing weight. Anyway time will tell but I think given an end to end layout the chances of significant wear is much reduced so I am hopeful it will have a long and happy life. Of course one of the risks buying s/hand is you don't know if you are getting something that has been run to death somewhere before, I always look very closely at the wheels and if there are no clear pictures of those pass.

 Your new version looks very nice, is it also a split chassis or have they changed that ?
I will probably get around to blackening the tyres one fine day as well :)
 

[user=2170]Colin W[/user] wrote:

Roger,

I've updated and corrected my comments on Point Geometries and moved them to my Topic here:
Link to comments on Point Geometries

Colin

 

Hi Colin, thank you very much for the information. I am hoping my new points will arrive any day now so will be able to check how well they match the templates I printed earlier, as it's my first outing in OO I don't have the store of experience and parts to re-use that I had in N gauge so it's all a bit of a step in the dark.

Regards
Roger

Sorry Roger, only just picked up on something you said earlier. The captions you add when you upload a photo are only displayed under your photos in the gallery ? Not in post, so yes you have to add in any text you want to acompany a picture in post. I think it also aids the search facility ? 
Cheers

Matt

Your plan looks interesting Roger - loads of operating potential there.  I'm afraid you lost me the moment you started talking about what is inside that pretty looking aluminium box …………  I tend to leave those bits to people with a better  understanding of witchcraft ………..  

Regarding the split chassis locos, whilst I may be mistaken, I think the "problems" you refer to are simply to do with converting them to DCC rather than a basic problem with the loco.  I have both an old "split chassis" version awaiting conversion and the current DCC version which rides on a completely new chassis - not split.   Both run extremely well although I haven't compared the weight - that might be interesting.  :hmm

Now I am really annoyed and a word of warning for peeps ordering online, I ordered my points a week ago and have been watching for the postman, nothing again today so I Emailed them and they have not even shipped the order yet despite the whole order showing in stock on there website. Excuse for non-shipment…….waiting for stock!!!

I suppose someone is going to say Covid prevented them keeping the website up to date, what a let down….

 My reckoning another week hanging around for an unknown quantity of points followed by another unknown wait for the remainder, it would have been nice to know upfront.

It seems nobody else has code 100 electrofrog points at a reasonable price ATM anyway  :sad:
 

Hi Roger,
   
  A shame your selected supplier has been dishonest regarding their stock levels. Unfortunately, Peco have not been making trackwork for a while due to the pandemic restrictions, so it may be quite a while before your supplier obtains further stock.
   
  I would be inclined to insist on a return of your money and it may well be worth ringing Great Eastern Railways  Home | Model Railway | Norwich | Great Eastern Models who apparently certainly have stock available for Code 75 track (tip thanks to Chris of Teasel Bay fame) and possibly Code 100 as well. Chris says that their service is excellent and they mail orders without delay.
   
  Good luck and I hope you are able to make some progress soon.
   
  Bill
   

Hi Bill, Thanks for the commiserations, I know of Gt Eastern, only about 25 miles from me so I Emailed them with a list and see what they have……. Your not the 1st to say Peco are not actually shipping and I note neither Hattons nor Sheffield have stock over a week later than my first peek, that's why I was overjoyed to find someone who's website said they had stock. There now saying they have weekly deliveries from Peco but not what of, as you say if there still fooling around tomorrow and I can find someone else I shall cancel.

Edit
 Just got a reply from Gt Eastern, closed today but pretty sure they have stock, will confirm tomorrow yeyyyy
I will just cancel whatever the other buggers have not shipped 1st time.

I also find it extremely annoying when websites are out of date.  It rether defeats the object of shopping online.
I had a similar experience with a Zimo decoder and a German supplier.  Their prices looked good and the website said it was in stock.  I waited ages before they shipped - "waiting for stock" was the excuse.

Regarding Liverpool and Peco points, I think I'm still on their "inform me when stock arrives" and have been for several months !

I suppose that's what happens when one likes cut-price purchases……..I try to avoid paying list price - something to do with being 50% Scottish and 50% Yorkshire …… :cheers

Hello Roger.  Regarding your plan in the opening post.  Forgive me but it rather gives the impression that you are trying to fit in as much track as possible, whereas the prototype railway would get away with the least possible.  More track = more expenditure in initial cost and upkeep.  For what is basically a single platformed station, there appears to be an excess of trackwork.  For instance, the loco facilities look rather cluttered and could be reduced to two sidings to free up some space.  I would question having a cattle dock on the gas works line.  One cattle wagon in situ would completely block all traffic to and from the gas works. They wouldn't be very happy!  Personally, I would locate the cattle dock nearer the goods shed.
Why the need for the long siding between the goods shed and the platform?  If you removed it you would have a larger goods yard. Removing that extra siding would also save you the cost of a turnout. I would also shorten both the goods shed siding and the rear siding to make space on the rear top left for some scenery - maybe some buildings to denote the town in which the station is located.  

Why the curved siding running parallel to the 'main line'?  Removing that would save you (and the railway company) the cost of a turnout.  The Gas Works line could be used as a headshunt for the goods yard if required.

Just my views Roger.  Obviously feel free to ignore them if you wish. 

Best wishes,

Terry

Hello Terry, I indeed went through all those very thought processes, actually compared with some of the track plans I have looked at the layout is quite uncluttered. At the end of the day I think it comes down to operating potential with two or more operators, having fewer sidings in the goods yard makes it less interesting to operate and less able to accommodate more wagons as there is comparatively little storage off scene. The same goes for the MPD, fewer roads means less room for storage. I think going all the way back to the layout that initially inspired me "Oakbourne" would follow your very sensible line of thinking although it too has the goods road adjacent to platform 2 (this could also potentially double as a carriage siding for visiting summer specials).

The gasworks and goods headshunt are not fixed in stone but rather fluid, I do need a goods headshunt rather than shunting via the mainline as might be prototypical for this size of station as otherwise two operators will get in each others way. I agree about the cattle dock, again at this stage the location is somewhat fluid, I had even thought of using the stub in the platform 1 runround but decided the waiting passengers would not be impressed by the smell.

Regards
Roger

Due to lack of points I started track laying in the traverser. My method of fixing rails at baseboard joints is ordinary steel panel pins, driven into pre-drilled holes (0.75mm hole for 1mm pin) adjacent to the rail (if necessary cut the pin shorter after driving in with heavy side-cutters), then using a very hot iron with a 1/4" chisel bit heat and tin first the pin then flow onto the rail really quickly. Beware to look away when cutting the pins, the bits go supersonic and you don't want that in your eye! Some pictures  :)


Track cutting is another conundrum, fortunately I have a very ancient small diameter mini-drill so use it in conjunction with 25mm diameter carborundum disks, the resulting angle on the track end is acceptable IMOP, more pictures




And finally progress today

  Hi Roger,
   
  We all have our favourite methods for trackwork at board joints, which hopefully will never get knocked or damaged when parted!
   
  For those trackwork cuts needing extreme accuracy, I like a fine toothed razor saw in conjunction with a small block of wood with two slots cut into one side to hold the rails secure and also as a guide for the saw to do its work. A couple of track pins either side of the intended cut also helps keep the workpiece still. Slow and steady then gives an accurate every time and a few passes with a needle file safeguards against burrs. Job done.
   
  This is my personal choice based on my desire for maximum control of the operation and is not intended as a put-down on the Dremel, which is a fine tool I use often, just not yet on the railway.
   
  The traverser is looking very neat. How are you handling the power transfer?
   
  Bill

Great work Roger.  :thumbs

Those joints look almost square to me, even though you mentioned "angle"
I too use that method for joins but, using a Dremel, I do indeed get an angled cut - obviously the Dremel body is fatter than your mini-drill ……………. :roll: :roll:

I note you use just a single pin for soldering to - is the track already glued to the baseboard ?  In such situations I use 2 small brass screws per rail, screwed down to sleeper top level, under the rail itself thus giving me 2 soldered points per rail either side of my cutting line.  Having said that, I never glue my track down, relying initially on track pins to hold it in place until that job is taken over by the ballast.

 Bill - your razor saw method is the recommended method but, having used it myself I find it has 2 draw-backs - firstly, it's oh so very slow and I'm so terribly short of patience ……………………….. :oops: and secondly, the resulting gap in the rail is so small, it's hardly a gap at all - fine for "normal" track joints but I'm not too sure it's big enough if you really do want to separate the rails at that point - for a lifting section, sector plate or traverser for example.  Even yours Roger, done with a slitting disc, looks very tight on clearance to me …………… :hmm

What did you use to get your track so straight ?  Eve n using a long spirit level, I find it difficult over very long lengths …………. :roll:

Track pins flying around not to mention sharp shards of cutting disc when they invariably shatter!  A cheap pair of protective eye goggles might save you a trip to the eye hospital.  You only get one set of eyes and they are worth protecting.  I would urge you to invest in a pair of Xuron track cutters.  A square cut every time and minimal cleaning up of the rail ends afterwards.
Terry

For cutting rails as baseboard joins, I use one of these to add to my dremel
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/163983817550?hash=item262e327b4e:g:tHQAAOSwai5d8LkX&frcectupt=true