Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm hoping to be able to move my 00 gauge layout up into the loft this summer, so I am starting early on the planning for the new layout.

The basic premise is that this is the operating base of a preserved line running over the old GWR route connecting the Berks & Hants line with the GWR network, via the town of Devizes. Westwood Junction (based on my existing layout incidentally) is where the railway connects to the main line between Swindon and Bath. The MPD will largely be as it is on my existing layout, with some changes in alignment, extra detail and the Peco turntable replaced with the Fleischmann example.

I am reverting back to a circular layout as I feel this is more to my idea of a model railway than an 'out and back' type (just my own personal preference here

There will be a lower level where I can store the majority of the carriages and wagons plus allow extra operational interest e.g. banking of trains back up to the higher level. I have also added a section of broad gauge demonstration track (separate to the 00 gauge track so that the H0 spacing doesn't become too obvious).

This layout will also feature a short section of branchline up to the higher level to the small Bromham Village station.

Anyway, here are the plans!

Main level dimensions are 10ft x 8ft, with the boards being 4ft x 2ft each (probably sundeala).

Main level:



Lower level:



Upper level (branchline):



Points X, Y and Z are interconnected between the relevant plans.

All criticism of these ideas are welcome


I must stress though, that the area available in the loft may change due to family budgt constraints/builders opinions etc. Worst case scnario is that the loft gets re-tiled but the layout doesn't move up there and has to be removed from the spare room.

Regards,

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
QUOTE (dbclass50 @ 9 Apr 2007, 13:07) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>just wish my track plans were anywhere near as neat !
I didn't get an 'A' in Technical Drawing for nothing you know!


I might have to lose the lower level in order to reduce the budget and complexity of the baseboard construction, but I'll play that by ear so to speak.

Regards,

Dan
 

·
Chief mouser
Joined
·
11,775 Posts
QUOTE (Dan Hamblin @ 12 Apr 2007, 18:28) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I didn't get an 'A' in Technical Drawing for nothing you know!


Neither did I - but mine was an awfully long time ago. Mind you it does have some uses.

Regards

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I have been doing a little bit more planning work, and I have come to the conclusion that the branchline is not viable because the trackwork at the top end of the station precludes the branch bay platform from being any longer, meaning that it is very difficult to berth a two coach train plus engine in there. Also the space available for a run round loop at the village station terminus is a bit tight.

So the new plan is to change the gauge to OO9, as I have quite a bit of stock from a previous layout plan that never came to fruition. I can use Peco N gauge turntables (with the handrails ommitted) at both ends of the line in order to turn the locomotive. There will also be a two road shed and servicing facility at the village station. This should also provide a bit extra space for the village itself


That means that there will be three different track gauges used on the layout - OO, OO9 and 4mm broad gauge!

Regards,

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
Dan, I wish you every luck building and running that layout. I must say it's very ambitious. Can I ask what the distance between levels is and how steep you intend the gradients to be?

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Gradients are going to be a bit of a problem, as I reckon that 1:16 or 1:19 will be needed to get between the main layout and the intermediate levels on the lower boards. I have to rig up a test track first to see how my locomotive and rolling stock will cope with gradients like this, but as I normally run 4 coach trains it shouldn't be a major problem, although some of the freight trains may be!

I have a back up plan involving the use of a banking locomotive (best off using DCC for this but I have a few of the older Bachmann models with the split chassis which will be a pain to convert) or simply double heading on the upward climb and running the leading engine back down to the lower level again.

It is actually quite modest compared to my usual habit of trying to cover every square centimetre of baseboard in track! See images below:





The first picture was my first permanent (ish) layout, while the second was it's replacement, the boards from this having been slightly altered to form the foundation of my current layout.

Regards,

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
Blimey Dan, 1 in 16 is going to be some climb even for a 4 coach train. I hope there's not going to be a curve anywhere in that climb or it's my guess you really will have a problem. I have a ruling gradient of 1 in 36 on my layout between levels with a 90 degree 36" radius half way up and although my diesel can manage 9 coaches with relative ease the steamers struggle with 5 on. I'll be interested to know how you get on with your test track. Good luck.

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I knocked up a rough test track today using all my spare track and a ton of old magasines to provide the base. I rechecked the calculations and it is a rise of 74 mm over a distance of 4ft (sorry to mix the units but thats how my brain is working at the minute).

Using an initial test rake of two Hornby/Tri-ang Mk1's, a Replica Mk 1 buffet and a Dapol GWR Centenary coach; my Hornby Clan Line model could just about get them up the gradient, with a run up and a lot of slipping, similar story with my Hornby King James II model (with the old tender drive and traction tyres) and Hornby Q1. I did actually manage to get my Bachmann J72 to haul three of the coaches up the gradient with minimal slipping, but this does have a heavier split chassis design.

I used the Q1 to bank both the King and the Merchant Navy in turn with the first test rake and there was very little, if any wheelslip.

Second test rake was 4 of the new Hornby Gresley coaches, these being slightly heavier than the previous rake. The King stalled near the top of the gradient, as did the Q1, Clan Line and J72. I then used the Q1 to bank the King and Merchant Navy individually and both times the climb was achieved with only slight slipping at the lead loco reached the top of the gradient.

The third test rake was 5 of the new Gresley coaches; all tests being with Clan Line and the Q1 acting as banking engine (reversed this time and coupled up to the trailing coach). Again, there was slight slipping on the lead engine as it reached the top of the gradient, but otherwise the train traversed the section ok.

I'll do a few more tests now with loaded freight wagons and report the results tomorrow.

Regards,

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
Dan, I'm assuming your test track is straight. If you introduce a curve as tight as 3rd radius you could see a very much reduced performance of all the locos mentioned for the same load. Looking at the drawing in your initial post it does appear that your gradients will contain curves so perhaps testing the traction capabilities of your loco's in a similar scenario would be prudent. I will be interested to see what results you return with freight loadings.

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
The only thing I couldn't model was the level curve at the foot of the gradient (3rd radius), due to the lack of suitable track for the test. I did though manage to replicate the medium turnout and curve at the top of the gradient (on the main board near the loco sheds), plus the main 2nd radius curve that heads around to the station. It's not ideal, but the best I could do with the available resources.

Right, freight testing:

The test rake for all this is a mix of 4 wheel wagons, each one loaded with simulated coal load (loose), totalling 10 wagons plus a brake van.

On their own, none of the locomtives involved in the passenger train tests could get the train up the gradient; stalling occurring with the engine just short of the summit, with the whole train on the gradient. I then carried out tests again using the Q1 as banking locomotive, and both the Merchant Navy and King class could get the train up the gradient with very little slipping - mainly in the area around the turnout at the summit.

I then carried out another test, this time with a Bachmann Std 4 tender engine (with split chassis) and the Q1 acting as banking engine. Both engines were coupled up to the brake van at the rear of the train, and the whole ensemble could climb the gradient at a slow crawl with only slight slipping from the Q1 as the other two engines stalled due to dirty trackwork. I wasn't able to clean it at this stage as the line wasn't tacked down.

I then carried out a test using three of my Tri-ang Battle Space wagons - two with the rotating gun turret that fires missiles and one that has a spotlight fitted to it. Each one has two 3-axle bogies (although one vehicle has only 2-axles per bogie). Surprisingly, the Merchant Navy could haul the train up unassisted, but with a lot of slipping. With the Q1 and Std 4 banking it, the train could climb the gradient at a slow crawl. The Battle Space wagons are very much out of gauge for the ramps between the main board and the lower level, so the test was just to see how the 3-axle bogies affected drag.

So, the requirement would probably be for a pair of engines to be used for banking duties (if they are not fitted with traction tyres), with only one probably needed if traction tyres are fitted. I will have to couple the banking engine to the train in order to prevent buffer lock as it reaches the top of the gradient.

Regards,

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
Well nobody can say you haven't tested your theories and not fully aware of what your up against Dan - at least in the gradient department! Well done. Personally I think you'd be better off re-designing the layout in an effort to ease the gradients but each to our own. The best of luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
The most dangerous thing you can do when layout planning - become 'blinkered'!

In an ideal world I would try and ease the gradients as much as possible; but I am hampered a bit by the length available in the loft, and more importantly the two chimney pieces at either end of the space designated for the layout. Maybe I could squeeze out an extra few feet...

Regards,

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
Well you have got a lot in one place Dan I see you have a lesser spotted HST shed from hornby a very rare item.

Your new layout should look good when its done.

Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
QUOTE (Dan Hamblin @ 2 May 2007, 19:51) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>In an ideal world I would try and ease the gradients as much as possible; but I am hampered a bit by the length available in the loft, and more importantly the two chimney pieces at either end of the space designated for the layout. Maybe I could squeeze out an extra few feet...

Regards,

Dan

Oh come on Dan, the solution is obvious - remove the chimneys


Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
If I tried that I think Mum would half kill me...


If I can, I will extend it about 4ft at the village end, that should ease the gradient to about 1:33.

Peter - I use the HST shed for the PW gang, currently it has the breakdown crane and a Thompson brake coach sitting in it. Repainted the outside walls in a dark shade of green so that it blends in better with the more historic buildings. I will get a second one for the new layout and pair them end to end.

Regards,

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
It will be worth the effort if you can get the extra space to ease the grades to around the 1 in 33 mark. I reckon you will get much more enjoyment operating the layout not having to rely on bankers all the time. Obviously banking the odd freight will be good though.

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Due to some confusion between the builders and ourselves, it appears that I won't now be able to get the 8 ft width that I wanted up in the loft. As a consequence the layout plan is now scrap and will have to be done again from scratch. I will until they have finished before measuring the space again


Regards,

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Update - the loft is now complete and the current plan is to use a modified version of he design on page 1 of this thread, but without the lower level and the addition of a small fiddle yard in the space where the ramps would have been.

I have spent the last two days ripping up the track on the old layout ready for use on the new one


Regards,

Dan
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top