Having been on the forum a few weeks now, and joining in a few topics, I got interested in madon37's shed layout as I am doing a similar project.
The shed is 20' x 10' and all I was using it for was dumping all the rubbish we didn't want in the house. So I decided to split it in two, use the front half for DIY and a railway room in the back. I began this project over two years ago, but got really busy with work and such, and the shed once again became a dumping ground.
But on visiting Model Rail Scotland this year my enthusiasm returned I cleared out the rubbish in the shed and got to work in resurrecting the work I had previously done.
I had gotten quite far I had insulated and plasterboarded the back room and constructed the baseboards. I had also began to lay some track.
As I like to watch the trains go by I have decided on a tail-chaser, but in such a small space, I have decided to use and old idea of an inverted figure 8 design to maximise running length.
So here is some pics of the resurrected layout, I will post and explain the plans later. (they are kind of still in the development phase)
This is the front of the shed looking to the railway room at the back.
The railway room itself - sorry about the mess at the moment
Here is a neat little trick my phone can do - a panoramic view
Nice to see some of your progress. Like Steve said very good and strong bracing there. Like the idea of the figure of 8. Looking forward to more picture updates! I will be keeping an eye out on this thread! (No pressure then mate
The curves may seem a bit sharp but there is nothing less than 2nd radius in the plan. Although not prototypical the sharp curves mean longer straights for the hidden sidings and these curves should be out of sight in the final layout.
I'm using peco flexitrack and short radius points for the lower section, and hoping to use medium to large radius points for the top section where the station and goods yard will be. (If I have a goods yard)
Sorry you can't see the pictures. I am using Mozilla Firefox and they are showing up on that, but I tried it on Internet Explorer and I get 3 X boxes so I don't know, they are standard jpegs and should work, I've changed them to gifs can you see this?
I'm not sure it's about 1:30 give or take just enough to take it 75mm (2 3/4") higher than the lower level. As for woodwork skills a lot of failures over the years have helped me learn the hard way. I really enjoy working with wood having made dollhouses for my daughters, made to measure furniture for my house etc. I probably should have went down this route careerwise years ago but didn't.
I have the idea that the scenic section which will be directly above the lower storage lines should be removable to enable regular track cleaning, but if there are any derailments, I'm hoping that there will be enough room to get my hand in without taking the scenic area off.
N.B. The front part of the picture gives the illusion that the rails do not meet. This picture was taken in 3 parts by my sony ericsson phone and matches the pictures up automatically but it didn't do very well matching the front of the layout.
Hi Alan. Those boards are certainly built to withstand an earthquake and very nicely done.
I think you might find that you have that gradient a little too steep however. If I might make a suggestion, and provided it's not too late to make the changes, if you were to drop the lower track at a 1:60 gradient and then have a 1:60 gradient up to the high level section you will end up with the same vertical spacing between levels and your locos will be able to haul longer trains up the gradients. It will also look better.
Thanks for that. I must admit I have been worrying about the gradients. I only have the gradients on the straight sections of track but so far all engines even tho they slow down, can pull a 6 coach train up the incline. The engines seem to struggle more with the 2nd radius curves than the gradient. I will however have a look at this again. and see if i can improve the gradient. Also the inclines themselves are not going to be scenic so I'm not worried about the look of them. They are purely functional to give me an inverted figure 8 for a longer run.
I am also using a Duette as the power supply, I wonder if a feedback controller would improve the performance of the engines uphill.
I don't think a feed-back controller would make that much difference as it's all about the power to weight ratio. i.e. the power of the loco versus the weight of carriages. If your locos are slowing down round the curves then I would check to see if all carriage wheels are free-running or if the loco drive wheels are binding on the rails. It could be a back-to-back problem.
For the inclines I would give some thought to the double incline I suggested earlier as this will make for much easier climbs for your locos.
i do agree with Expat though check your back to backs and possibly couplers on inclines if they are binding in any way it would put some strain on the loco .... gradients can allow a double heading run though if one loco is not sufficient.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could
be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Model Railway Forum
A forum community dedicated to Model train and railway owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, displays, models, styles, scales, motors, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!