Layout design - Driving myself nuts 31/8

[Bufferstop]

First radius curves, in fact any curve which is tighter than the rest is easier to take if there is a "transition curve" into it. This is a tracklayers term for a curve which slowly gets tighter then does the opposite when coming out of it. It can be approximated by laying R3,R2,R1,R2,R3, or you can do it in one with flexi track. Using flexible track has the advantage that you can avoid a joint in the tightest part. As others have pointed out older models "get away" with it by having lateral movement in the centre axle. Using a transition slowly eases the free to slide axle across.

[Mountain]

Well all my locos are older ones, and will be for the foreseeable future.

So next decision is now DC or DCC. Gone between the two for a while. The plan is fairly simple which would lean me towards DC but might equally be easy in DCC. Maybe if i'm going to build bigger and better in the future (well thats the plan) maybe doing DCC slowly wont be such a hit on the pocket.
Decisions, decisions.

Haha. That is probably one of the most common decisions new and even older modellers are asking themselves. To DCC or not to DCC. That is the question!
Having used both and been split between the two, I have to say that for me personally I have a love for traditional DC, but I had to go trough the DCC stage and experiment for a few years to find this out, but I can see senarios where DCC really comes into its own such as a large club layout with many operators, and others where I have to question "Why has the user even decided to use DCC on such a small simple layout?" Horses for courses and personal preference. There is no wrong or right answer. More about getting the best out of whichever route the individual decides to take.
One thing I can say is that DC in general is overall going to be cheaper with the rare few exceptions which no doubt some DCC enthusiasts who may probably have never really understood how to get the best out of DC track wiring may claim that DCC is cheaper... But I am sorry as I have found that though on larger more complex layouts that DCC can be simpler to wire (Or the theory of it can look simpler), DC is internally simpler and does not require one to be flicking through manuals trying to learn ones DCC system as DC is pretty straight forwards and needs no user manual!
But regardless of either decision one decides enjoy! I have recently ordered two old classic DC controllers just because I love them!
And yet I have a pretty hot DCC system with various extras if I wanted to use it. (Plan to part with the system in the future when I have parted with my last DCC equipped loco).
Do I regret buying DCC? No! I enjoyed it. I am just old fashioned!

[barney121e]

I have gone back to the plan i really like. My board is 8x4. My only issue is i am wondering if the platform in pic A is too long, and is one in pic B better?

Just after views

Cheers

[Flashbang]

Is there to be a platform for the inner loop trains? If so, that will have to be much shorter than the outer loops platform, due to the inner loops siding point.
Also to note, a train can't get from the outer loop to the inner loop unless it propels back over the only cross-over in the station area, as the outer loop would conventionally be clockwise running. I would consider installing a second cross-over allowing direct access outer to inner in the opposite hand to the one already shown. A pair of right-hand curved points located on the left curve should solve this.

[barney121e]

Is there to be a platform for the inner loop trains? If so, that will have to be much shorter than the outer loops platform, due to the inner loops siding point.
Also to note, a train can't get from the outer loop to the inner loop unless it propels back over the only cross-over in the station area, as the outer loop would conventionally be clockwise running. I would consider installing a second cross-over allowing direct access outer to inner in the opposite hand to the one already shown. A pair of right-hand curved points located on the left curve should solve this.

The inner loop is 1st radius so i dont envisage using it much. So the two outer lines will be the main running lines. The thought for running round is for it to happen off scene if that makes sense.

I have now discovered a video of the original plan. Have produced in software and here it is.

[Mountain]

I think it will be nice. First radius is a good space saver so as long as you have a second radius loop as well you should find you can run most things.
Is only a few items that won't go round first radius anyway, and rare to find a factory made model that won't go round 2nd radius (They have been known but are usually large and at the top end of being pretty expensive).
I used to (When in 00 gauge) instinctively know the rare few locos and rolling stock that would not run on first radius and know what to use where. Actually found it was a few modern coaches and the odd very long wheelbase modern van that I had issues with being a B.R. diesel era modeller as I believe that when I last had a 00 gauge layout, even the then new class 46 by Bachmann managed the sharp curves if I remember correctly? I did but a lot of the central motored stock (E.g. 37's, 47's etc) after that but by then I had no layout and much I hardly ever (If that!) ran so I don't know if they can do 1st radius. All my older stuff bought before the year 2000 did.

[RAF96]

In my experience over many layouts you can never have either platforms or sidings which are too long. A moderate length train comprising express loco and four coaches is getting on for five feet long.
My biggest mistake has been not making my storage sidings drive through. They are currently single end access and a pest in reality to use.

[Bigmet]

...My biggest mistake has been not making my storage sidings drive through. They are currently single end access and a pest in reality to use.

Heartily seconded. Candid advice time, dump the first radius loop, go second radius minimum and have a twin track layout. In the space allocated for the fiddle yard it will be possible to have six parallel through roads, splitting the lines on the curves, as you have done at top right.

This way four trains can be running or held in the FY while one is shunted without interfering with the others, five trains is about the maximum before 'logjam' occurs in the FY. Obviously a loop in the station, and/or a bay siding increases the operational possibilities, and a second crossover will be good for run arounds in the station. That's probably blown the budget...

[Bigmet]

...only a few items that won't go round first radius... I did buy a lot of the central motored stock (E.g. 37's, 47's etc) after that but ... don't know if they can do 1st radius. All my older stuff bought before the year 2000 did.

Current RTR product is mostly able to go around R2 'out of the box', but beware of long locos and vehicles, especially where the wheel tops of bogie mounted wheelsets are inside bodywork.
BoBo diesels are generally a good bet; Bachmann's class 20 as an example will go round 10" radius, if prepared to sacrifice bufferbeam hoses which would foul the couplings: in short the owner has to make their own decision on what is acceptable.

[barney121e]

...My biggest mistake has been not making my storage sidings drive through. They are currently single end access and a pest in reality to use.

Heartily seconded. Candid advice time, dump the first radius loop, go second radius minimum and have a twin track layout. In the space allocated for the fiddle yard it will be possible to have six parallel through roads, splitting the lines on the curves, as you have done at top right.

This way four trains can be running or held in the FY while one is shunted without interfering with the others, five trains is about the maximum before 'logjam' occurs in the FY. Obviously a loop in the station, and/or a bay siding increases the operational possibilities, and a second crossover will be good for run arounds in the station. That's probably blown the budget...

Definitely a budget blower. As this is my first layout build, i have been through so many plans it all got rather confusing. I do have this plan, with a double track.

However i think keeping it simple would be way to go. Appreciate first radius isnt ideal, but got at least 3 trains which run on it ok. Some of what you suggest sounds interesting but from a plan point of view i just cant see it in my head. With only 8ft by 4ft as well i am stuck for space.

[Mountain]

One thing I would avoid unless neccessary are curved points as trains can tend to de-rail on them. Ordinary left hand or right hand points will be fine.

[barney121e]

One thing I would avoid unless neccessary are curved points as trains can tend to de-rail on them. Ordinary left hand or right hand points will be fine.

On the double track plan above, if i dont use the curved points the geometry falls apart. Maybe the first plan is better, more simple? Here is first plan with runaround fy for outer line

[Mountain]

That will work as long as you don't have a wall at the back. If so you need to check trains can clear the outer siding at the back without hitting the wall, so start laying track there first if there is a sall to check all will clear it. Plan will work.

Curved points... I have used them but found (As others have found) that due to them having longer flangeways in their frog, they tend to be more prone to wheels bouncing which can cause things to de-rail. If I make my own track I can adjust individual rails (Via solder) so I have more scope to try things, but in general when it comes to ready made sectional track, if there is that one piece of track where things come off it is the curved points. I have been told that 3 way points can cause issues but my 3 way point worked fine. My few curved points did however cause the occasional problem and at times more than the occasional problem so I used it in my sidings instead.
I don't say "You must not use them". Is more that if you want nice running, ordinary points have a better success rate.

Another suggestion which may save you money is to lay flexible track for the straighter areas of track and cut to the desired length. Flexible track is usually cheaper, and also has the advantage that it can be used in those positions that ordinary trainset track geometry just can't reach.

There are two other elements that I may suggest which may help on the scenic side though one is limited in space to make one if them work effectively, and the first is that with a basic oval of track on a board, if one avoids running the straight track to be dead parallel to the edge and instead has it run at a slight angle (So the oval is staggered slightly...You don't have space to do this or it won't all fit in), one avoids the "Train set" look as straight track running directly parallel to a boards edge can sometimes make ones mind think "Train set". A similar trick is to put a few curves on the straight length of the board area to decieve the eye. Unfortunately these ideas will mean that your station will be effected or your sidings may not fit, but one thing you can do which makes your railway look larger than it is and I have seen this done a few times, is to run a track that goes off the side of the layout (Obviously do not use it as one does not want trains to fall off the edge) so it decieves the eye into thinking the railway is larger than it is. Even if it is a line that has sleepers across it near the edge so it looks dissused will give a similar effect.
Not sure if you cn use the second idea or not, but you may be able to do it. Just a few ideas that I first saw in an American Model Railroad magazine and I have tried them on my layout... Curved the track a bit and had one line go to the edge. (Can pint on a level crossing gate onto the backscene to mke it look like the track goes somewhere).
Don't feel you have to do these things as it is what works best for you. Getting trains to run and enjoy is more important.

[barney121e]

That will work as long as you don't have a wall at the back. If so you need to check trains can clear the outer siding at the back without hitting the wall, so start laying track there first if there is a sall to check all will clear it. Plan will work.

Curved points... I have used them but found (As others have found) that due to them having longer flangeways in their frog, they tend to be more prone to wheels bouncing which can cause things to de-rail. If I make my own track I can adjust individual rails (Via solder) so I have more scope to try things, but in general when it comes to ready made sectional track, if there is that one piece of track where things come off it is the curved points. I have been told that 3 way points can cause issues but my 3 way point worked fine. My few curved points did however cause the occasional problem and at times more than the occasional problem so I used it in my sidings instead.
I don't say "You must not use them". Is more that if you want nice running, ordinary points have a better success rate.

Another suggestion which may save you money is to lay flexible track for the straighter areas of track and cut to the desired length. Flexible track is usually cheaper, and also has the advantage that it can be used in those positions that ordinary trainset track geometry just can't reach.

There are two other elements that I may suggest which may help on the scenic side though one is limited in space to make one if them work effectively, and the first is that with a basic oval of track on a board, if one avoids running the straight track to be dead parallel to the edge and instead has it run at a slight angle (So the oval is staggered slightly...You don't have space to do this or it won't all fit in), one avoids the "Train set" look as straight track running directly parallel to a boards edge can sometimes make ones mind think "Train set". A similar trick is to put a few curves on the straight length of the board area to decieve the eye. Unfortunately these ideas will mean that your station will be effected or your sidings may not fit, but one thing you can do which makes your railway look larger than it is and I have seen this done a few times, is to run a track that goes off the side of the layout (Obviously do not use it as one does not want trains to fall off the edge) so it decieves the eye into thinking the railway is larger than it is. Even if it is a line that has sleepers across it near the edge so it looks dissused will give a similar effect.
Not sure if you cn use the second idea or not, but you may be able to do it. Just a few ideas that I first saw in an American Model Railroad magazine and I have tried them on my layout... Curved the track a bit and had one line go to the edge. (Can pint on a level crossing gate onto the backscene to mke it look like the track goes somewhere).
Don't feel you have to do these things as it is what works best for you. Getting trains to run and enjoy is more important.

Both ideas make sense but lacking space for first idea and second i think might struggle space wise to.

Me and flexi track don't get on at moment. Someone did tell me to use flexitrack on straight bits and setrack on the curves, which i think is wise advice.

Might just keep it as is now, it is a 1st layout, so hopefully with skills i learn i can improve on second layout.

[Mountain]

If one pins track lightly down one can experiment and add or remove and move track as needed. One can just paint grey or brown etc underneath where the track goes to represent ballast so one can have fun and make alterations as one decides.
I used to do this with all my layouts until I was happy with the results, as no matter how good ones plans were, I found I wanted to alter them as I would get further ideas, which is all part of the fun!