I am a complete novice and this is my first build attempt ever. I thought it best to build something to test my skills and use as a learning aid for soldering, understanding points, wiring, DCC etc. before building full-on with scenery etc. This is just a plain design with no frills other than what you see really. I would like to build it on a baseboard of approx. 1800mm x 750mm and set out the track onto woodland scenic 'N' track bed ST1475, 3mm x 1¼" which will be glued to the ply baseboard top. I would also like to use Peco Code 55 with concrete sleepers to keep the design modern.
UNLESS you kind folks advise me differently of course!
Have I got things right/wrong, will this design be possible/practical? Also: How far apart should the rails be set to keep things to scale? & how far should track be set from a platform edge?
Your thoughts ideas and constructive criticism would be most welcome before I start please. Please excuse the drawing quality.
(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/1137/layout4m.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/823/layout4m.jpg/)
Hi get yourself a Peco 6ft way gauge. Cost me about £0.25 from a local model shop and is great for keeping a nice even track spacing.
As for platform spacing, use your widest loco/wagon to test how much clearance it needs before it catches.
As an experiment the plan looks OK but I'm not sure about the kinks in the inner sidings. Is there a purpose to that ???
I would also move the scissors crossover to the right so it is before the inner sidings, as that way you can run something from the Up line (outer oval) into the sidings without going all round the layout.
I'd suggest you use electrofrog points as, if you can wire them up correctly, they will provide better running.
As Buckle247 says, use your widest loco to set platform clearances (either borrow or buy the latest Farish 08 ;))
Thank you, points taken onboard. No particular reason for the kinks, I just couldn't draw a nice curve :-[
Although you've said you don't want to add scenery to this layout, why not start with the intention of developing and perhaps extending it if it works reliably? If the layout works well then it saves the time and money of building a replacement (if you're anything like me it will take a lot longer than you expect!). If it doesn't then you scrap it and are no worse off than if you'd built a trial layout. Thinking about how it will look and work in its final form also helps to get a good plan.
The rest of my comments are related to realism, so may not be relevant if you stick with a pure test track.
In that context I'd suggest that some of the tracks (such as the ones along the bottom edge) are gently curved rather than dead straight, as this will make it look more of a model railway and less of a trainset.
Distances between tracks on the prototype can be as little as six feet rail to rail, which works out at about 23mm between centrelines of adjacent tracks in N. The Peco Streamline track spacing is about 27.5mm and can sometimes look a little too wide (Setrack spacing is even wider). It is possible to lay the tracks closer together, and even to modify points so they connect tracks at this lesser spacing, but they will need widening out on tight curves. And I wouldn't fancy trying to modify a scissors crossing for closer track spacing.
I'd also query why you plan to use a scissors crossing. They are very unusual on the modern railway, only found where lack of space prevents the use of two separate crossovers and this tends to be at low-speed approaches to major stations rather than out on the main line.
Is the upper part of the layout intended to be a set of hidden sidings? If not then the three sidings at the top aren't very realistic, as sidings would normally be grouped with a single access off the main line. This and certainly the one at the bottom would be protected by a trap point or a short headshunt so trains can't roll out onto the main line.
If the top part is a station with carriage sidings then there should also be at least one crossover so trains terminating here can get onto the other track to return to where they came from.
I'd probably add a couple of loops in that station area, that will give you a bit more operational flexibility.
And what about an additional freight lop running into those inner sidings ?
That's a nice plan to start with, however I notice that you plan to use a scissor crossing. I might be inclined to modify that out until you are very confident with your electrical skills plus they aren't cheap. Why not use opposing points to start with, much easier to wire and isolate and more prototypical.
When you buy your Peco track gauge, buy two. Very useful for doing long runs.
Thank you, opposing points it is.
I am not sure what loops are, can anyone explain for me please?
[smg id=3010 type=preview align=center caption="justintime"]
The additional opposing points add the run around loops to allow a loco to switch ends and tracks. The freight loop runs behind the island platform of your station. This is just a basic plan, you can have varying ways of doing the same thing.
Is this the sort of thing or have I made it too complicated?
(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/4686/layout4ac.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/705/layout4ac.jpg/)
A stupid question if you know the answer: When talking about a curves radius is it A or B below please?
(http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3268/radiusy.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/radiusy.jpg/)
Your track plan is looking good. As to your question:- A is your answer.
Have you thought about downloading a program called SCARM? It is free track planning software and wont take long to get used to using, it will give you a better idea of what will realistically fit into the space you have available. Also Mixy, who wrote the software, is a member on here so if we cant answer your questions he will help if he can. The user guide is excellent though and worth a quick read through :thumbsup:
Quote from: Jack9465 on December 29, 2012, 06:43:03 AM
Your track plan is looking good. As to your question:- A is your answer.
It is half way between A and B, it is the centreline you take for the radius.
cheers John.
Quote from: scotsoft on December 29, 2012, 09:47:14 AM
It is half way between A and B, it is the centreline you take for the radius.
I thought that's what the question was too, until I looked more closely at the diagram. A is the radius, B is the diameter, but both are drawn to the inside rail.
Jack, what John is getting at is that if someone is talking about e.g. a 12" radius, they mean to the point midway between the two rails, in the middle of the sleepers. Not to the inside rail, which is what you've drawn. The other part of the answers you've already is correct - the radius is the distance from the centre of the circle the track would make to the centre line of the track, not the distance from once side of the circle to the other.
In short, make line A just a little bit longer to the track centre, and that's your measurement!
Apologies, I'm only on my second coffee :computerangry:
I was seeing the diagram as a single track not two :smackedface:
cheers John.
I've got to say, to date my best decision has been joining this forum, everyone is so friendly and helpful so a big thank you from me. :NGF:
Is there a minimum radius I should not exceed if running anything from a Shunter to a Deltic for example?
The small shunters will go round a six inch radius with no problems, the bigger locos and coaches will require bigger radii otherwise - derailment.
When you buy a loco or coach the manufacturer will generally state a minimum radius.
What you will probably be advised from our members, is to have the biggest radius you can fit onto your baseboard.
It will all depend on what you are going to run as to what you can get away with.
Decisions, decisions, decisions :'(
cheers John.
Quote from: scotsoft on December 29, 2012, 11:19:21 AM
The small shunters will go round a six inch radius with no problems, the bigger locos and coaches will require bigger radii otherwise - derailment.
When you buy a loco or coach the manufacturer will generally state a minimum radius.
What you will probably be advised from our members, is to have the biggest radius you can fit onto your baseboard.
It will all depend on what you are going to run as to what you can get away with.
Decisions, decisions, decisions :'(
cheers John.
Thanks John. Decisions indeed, there's a lot more to modelling than meets the eye and you guys make it look so easy. At least it will keep me from under the wifes feet :angel:
On the subject of layout planning software you could also try the free-download version of Anyrail (http://www.anyrail.com). Very easy to get started with and contains all major track-libraries ;) You're limited to 50 track pieces on the free version but if that's not enough either buy the full version or do what I did - plan the layout in two halves and be a cheapskate! :D
Paul
Hi
I'd endorse using the AnyRail program. For me it was a lot easier to get to grips with than SCARM but that's probably me not being the cleverest of PC users!
Do watch out for your curves. Diesel locos can usually cope with a much tighter curve than the larger steamers that may derail on anything tighter than c11" radius. Try and check the limitations/recommendations of a loco before you spend a fair bit on adding it to your collection.
I'd also suggest you do think about scenics before you lay track. It can look a lot more realistic having the track going through scenery rather than 'over' it and so looking a bit like an afterthought.
Good luck with the plan. As it's been said many times to many N Gaugers, it's your layout so do what you enjoy.
Keep us posted and let's have some pics too, if you can.
Dave G
Quote from: justintime on December 28, 2012, 11:58:27 PM
Is this the sort of thing or have I made it too complicated?
(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/4686/layout4ac.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/705/layout4ac.jpg/)
Not so much over-complicated, more over-optimistic about what you can fit in the space you stated as 1800mm x 750mm ;)
To give you an idea of the restrictions you have on space I had a little play in Anyrail. I tried to stick to your original plan as much as possible but taking into account basic rules like minimum 2nd rad curves, not using short points on mainlines (too unrealistic), etc. There are other 'rules' I haven't stuck to like avoiding facing crossovers as this will further restrict operation and is only really relevant if you're modelling steam era - modern lines with electronic-interlocking have largely made this practice obsolete as can be seen on most mainlines these days ;)
So, onto the plans!
The first is sticking with the island-platform idea:-
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/MGalleryItem.php?id=3014)
Next is the same but with more-conventional separate platforms, although one ends up a bit shorter than the other:-
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/MGalleryItem.php?id=3015)
And finally to demonstrate what Edwin_m mentioned on Page 1 about curving the bottom tracks for more realism:-
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/MGalleryItem.php?id=3016)
No doubt others will see many faults with these plans, I'm no expert on railway-practice and don't profess to be, just hope it helps in some way ;) Best really to download it yourself and have a play :thumbsup:
Paul
Wow thank you Paul, thats very kind of you to go to all that trouble. I was thinking that I may have to expand the baseboard size to 7'x 3' to give me a bit more room so I will work on that size from now on. Did you save the designs you made? If so I was wondering if you would be kind enough to email them to me, so I can have a play with them too? :thankyousign:
E-mail sent :thumbsup:
Paul
Email received thanks Paul. :beers:
Thanks Paul for taking the trouble to help out a new member, that's what this forum is all about, mutual help and assistance as and when needed, Justintime you've now got a good start and I'm looking forward to seeing this develop. :NGF:
Thanks to a lot of help from Sprintex & Co I think I may have come up with my desired Track Layout. I have increased the size of baseboard to 7' x 3' and although it needs some tweaking (I'm still getting to grips with AnyRail) I hope the plan will work. I think it will also give me the option of adding scenery etc. at a later date. What do you folks think? Any suggestion for improvement or idea's/opportunities I may have missed?
Thanks again for all the friendly advice and help I have received, it's very much appreciated, cheers, Ian. :NGF:
(http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/1848/layoutfinal1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/845/layoutfinal1.jpg/)
On the topic of adding future scenery, the platforms look fine, but do have a think about where the station buildings are going to go, and how passengers get from the station to the outside world (albeit off-scene). I completely missed that, and I'm going to end up with a slightly cramped and credibility-stretching station as a result :doh:
Good point Tim, thank you. I could probably shorten the top two sidings and bring the connecting track further round the platform to allow for a footbridge etc. if that makes sense?
I think if you lose that inside loop around the lower platform you would have access to your station area for the fare paying passengers, then at a later date, if (and when ;D ) you build scenery it wouldn't be too difficult to either put a road crossing or bridge in.
The secret is not to tweak too much because that leads to procrastination and the world of "what if I did....." . We've all been there done that and ended up with a layout way bigger than we started out with. ;D
When the time comes you could print off your Anyrail plan in a smaller scale to help make up your points switch board, that's if you have such a thing planed.
Thanks for the idea and tips Jack, much appreciated.
You could have the passengers exiting the platforms through underground subways, they have this in York station for some platforms ;)
cheers John.
Good idea or perhaps let them have access from the 'North East' end of the platform via a footbridge.
Whiteswan (Caz) has done a fantastic high level station with footbridge down to the platform(s).
Lots of scenic possibilites!
Dave G
Thanks again to Sprintex who has helped me adjust the design following the ideas/tips you folks have kindly given an updated plan is below.
I think it's getting there? :laugh3:
(http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/5651/layoutfinalwithbridge.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/203/layoutfinalwithbridge.jpg/)
updated 18:10 30/12/12
i like the look of that it's coming on well
Dave
Thank you bbdave, much appreciated. :beers:
Hi Ian,
If you look at the middle square along the bottom of your grid you have a set of points that lead to the sidings, if you replaced that point with a three way you could mirror what you have and end up with five sidings.
I guarantee you will need the space as you will acquire extra locos and rolling stock sooner than you think due to the addiction.
If you don't understand what I mean, tell me and I shall attempt to illustrate what I am trying to get over ;)
cheers John.
Did you mean something like this John? Cheers, Ian.
(http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/4097/3wayadded.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/51/3wayadded.jpg/)
Quote from: scotsoft on January 03, 2013, 06:04:43 PM
Hi Ian,
If you look at the middle square along the bottom of your grid you have a set of points that lead to the sidings, if you replaced that point with a three way you could mirror what you have and end up with five sidings.
I guarantee you will need the space as you will acquire extra locos and rolling stock sooner than you think due to the addiction.
If you don't understand what I mean, tell me and I shall attempt to illustrate what I am trying to get over ;)
cheers John.
Please can I beg to differ, as this is justintime's first layout keep it simple. Three way points, while ideal, add extra complication. There isn't much leeway when mounting point motors to get it slightly misaligned, although a Hex Frog Juicer could make it easier :hmmm: . Maybe at a later time perhaps with a little experience under the belt?
Quote from: scotsoft on January 03, 2013, 06:04:43 PM
...
I guarantee you will need the space as you will acquire extra locos and rolling stock sooner than you think due to the addiction.
cheers John.
He's absolutely right! I'm having to rework my yard area since the 'small, low cost, era 3' layout expanded into 13 locos, loads (sorry ;D) of wagons and ever-expanding rakes of coaches with equally growing era range, currently 3 to 5!
Brilliant! :claphappy:
Dave G
Jack9465 will have more experience than I have since I use Kato Unitrak, so I would heed his advice and keep it simple.
I apologise for putting complicated ideas into your head :-[
cheers John.
No problem John, I like the idea but like you say Jack is probably right. It's worth keeping in mind for expansion later though.
Thanks Jack, I'm sure you are right, getting the track laid and soldered as it is will be hard enough I guess.
I have to ask though, what on earth is a "Hex Frog Juicer". I hope it's not a hexagonal shaped object you squeeze frogs in to extract their juice! :laugh3:
You are thinking of a liquidiser and that gets rid of the lumps at the same time :smiley-laughing: :smiley-laughing: :smiley-laughing:
:laughabovepost: :laughabovepost: :laughabovepost:
Quote from: justintime on January 03, 2013, 06:49:35 PM
I have to ask though, what on earth is a "Hex Frog Juicer". I hope it's not a hexagonal shaped object you squeeze frogs in to extract their juice! :laugh3:
Ah the old jokes are the best! ::)
If you use a three way points, you
must use frog polarity switching. Because of this you have to get your point motors absolutely center to the points throw bar so as to align the switch that is part of the seep point motor or the Peco point motor for them to work well.
Because you have opted to use DCC you can fit a Hex Frog Juicer (HRJ), which takes no more skill than soldering a wire to the frog of your points, (3 way points have them fitted by Peco) and literally connecting them up to the Hex Frog Juicer which can handle up to 6 different frog polarity switching automatically.
There's a video in this link http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=7707.msg87301#msg87301 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=7707.msg87301#msg87301)
It looks complicated but it is literally a matter of connecting two wires to your DCC bus wires and then six individual wires to six different point frogs (3 way has two frogs).
While 'normal' points work out of the box, they rely on clean contact of the switch blade to the track to switch the polarity of the frog, having frog polarity switching helps with this, enabling good creep motion of locos across points.
Fitting point motors well, can be frustrating, HFJ's take away some of the frustration. Some will say there are cheaper ways of achieving the same outcome and yes there are, but HRJ's are simple to fit and work first time. I currently have three under my board with possibly another one to follow.
That's one for the ribbit counters.
http://www.tamvalleydepot.com/products/hexfrogjuicer.htm (http://www.tamvalleydepot.com/products/hexfrogjuicer.htm)
Electrofrog points need the polarity of the frog area (where the rails cross) switching to match the setting of the point - either the left wheel or the right wheel passes through this area and the power has to be switched to suit.
Peco rely on the contact of the point blades to do this but this can become unreliable especially if the track is painted or ballasted. Hence many people fit an auxiliary switch or relay to do this. A Hex Frog Juicer is another alternatlve (for DCC use only) which is more costly but needs less wiring. Particularly useful for complicated track layouts where it is difficult to figure out how to switch the polarity.
Thank you gents for taking the time & trouble to explain and add the links. I think I understand the video and explanation but if I get confused I know where to ask :confused2:
There is so much to learn I can see this is going to be a very long, but I'm sure very enjoyable road. I am certainly hooked thats for sure. :thankyousign:
Yet another question, sorry. What type of soldering iron would I be wise to get? I have seen a pencil type at DCC supplies http://www.dccsupplies.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=2427 (http://www.dccsupplies.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=2427) (Xytronic soldering pencil 25W) but I am not sure if this is the sort of thing I should be getting for my soldering work (track, points etc). :hmmm:
There are recommendations here
http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=3667.msg41550#msg41550 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=3667.msg41550#msg41550)
I have the one that Mr Grumpy and Scotsoft use and find it to be great (and good value for money). I have been using it to solder 0603 SMDs
Thanks Pengy, thats good enough for me. :thumbsup:
I have now built my first baseboard. It's for a simple 2 x 4 oval for using as a test and running-in track. Before I attempt to go further, can anyone suggest what glue I should stick the track bed down with? I will be fitting woodland scenic track bed as it will be a good practice run for me before going for the full build. However I will be using gaugemaster ballasted underlay for the main layout. :thankyousign:
Quote from: justintime on January 06, 2013, 10:24:52 PM
I have now built my first baseboard. It's for a simple 2 x 4 oval for using as a test and running-in track. Before I attempt to go further, can anyone suggest what glue I should stick the track bed down with? I will be fitting woodland scenic track bed as it will be a good practice run for me before going for the full build. However I will be using gaugemaster ballasted underlay for the main layout. :thankyousign:
I personally wouldnt glue down the track. Use double sided sticky tape and where track joins another piece use tack nails to pin the track to the baseboard.
For example, on a long piece of flexi-track i would tack nail at both ends and in the middle, then with double sided used a quarter of the way down the length and three quarters of the way down down the length.
The reason i do it this way is because then i can up-lift the track easily if ever i was to dismantle the layout or make track alterations easier.
If you glue it down it is more difficult to retrieve track and messy to install.
This is my method, some may agree or disagree. :hmmm:
Hope this helps, all the best OwL :thumbsup:
The best advise I was given on this forum was Copydex. It's easy to take up track if its not quite right, clean off the glue both from track and board and redo. In the words of a furry friend - Simples!
I my opinion and that of others is that track pins need to be bined! They are hard to get up without damaging the track. If you need to use something to hold the track while any glue drys, use a screw that will fit between the sleepers.
I've used copydex also and would agree that it allows you to lift and relay later if you need.
I've been meaning to ask if others have also had the same bonus side effect that I've noticed - the vapour from the glue seems to ternish the track usefully but without seeming to effect the electrical/pickup properties. I have glued the track only in places, but I have wondered if this might be an alternative to painting the track...
Thank you folks. Am I right in thinking you glue the track to the underlay with copydex too then Jack?
I spot glue the track. I personally don't use underlay on my test track and I don't use underlay on most of the main layout either now. Having said that, on past layouts I've spot glued the underlay, let it dry then spot glued the track on the underlay. You only need to spot glue because when you come to ballast you will glue the track down completely.
One thing I've learned in the resent past is if you need to hold the track in place on the underlay, with the exception of cork, don't hold it too tight, some underlay can loss its shape.
Bear in mind that where you have platforms and the like you'll need to have the same depth as your underlay under your platforms or the rolling stock will be well above the platform level and your passengers will need step ladders to climb aboard.
I've used WS track underlay held down with a smear of Copydex and the track on that using the same glue. Easy to remove and clean up if you want or have to change. No tacks anywhere! But in the end, it's what works best for you.
Oh, I weigh the track down with a big heavy lump of leather clad lead while the glue sets. A four-pack of baked beans does a similar job! I also use a diluted Copydex mix when ballasting.
Good tip regarding track height and platforms if using an underlay. I use a thin layer of polystyrene insulation to build up station and track related buildings to the 'right' height.
Good luck and enjoy your build. Please let us have updates with pics if that's possible.
Dave G