Layout advice please

[Skelton Junction]

Seasoned modellers, may I pick your brains?

pic below of my settled upon initial layout (expansion planned winter ‘24/‘25)

1. The baseboard is 5’x4’ so is there enough length to incline and decline the outer track and if so what’s the gentlest gradient I can use to achieve 6 ish centimetres

2. At the mo, I’m using DC and swapping the connection over when required (only got the one locomotive). However, when 7000 arrives I’ll have to do those clips on the points and once done will the whole layout be ‘live’ or is power feed required in more than one place? I’ve R7337 on order.

[ntpntpntp]

1) be very careful with gradients, as soon as you start to introduce those you shorten the length of train the loco will be able to drag up the slope, and if the gradient is on a curve that adds even more drag.

Modellers typically aim for a 2% gradient, or maybe 3% at most. 3% can be a struggle for some locos to haul a decent train, especially those without traction tyres (eg. the TT:120 models we have so far). You need to do some gradient trials with your locos and stock I think.

With a 2% gradient (1 in 50) your 6cm rise needs 300cm or 9.8 feet, almost double the width of your layout so any gradient would of necessity include the curves.

With a 3% gradient (1 in 33) your 6cm rise still needs 200cm or 6.5 feet.

I always avoid gradients and just make sure the scenery undulates above and below track level for interest and realism.

2) For ordinary DCC and also for the Bluetooth HM 7000 system you'll want all the trackwork to be live. Those point clips are one method of getting the power further round all the trackwork, but to be honest you'll be better off fitting additional power feeds at strategic places around the ovals and sidings.

With traditional DCC some folk like to add feeds to almost every piece of track to ensure a good clean digital signal (I think that can become a bit overkill). At least with the HM7000 and bluetooth you're just looking for a reliable steady power source for the decoder.

[Too Tall]

I don't fall in to the seasoned modellers category by any stretch ... but ...

A: you are up against a brick wall, so 4ft does become a stretch to model/work on, even for us tall'uns (I know, I have a 4ft wide slot car track).

A 1ft deep cut out would ease it some.

But I know, sometimes you just want the real estate ;)

Relying on the fishplates to take power all round the track is best avoided if you can, I have just spent the day on the underside wiring all the drop points I added.

Mine is still analogue as yet, but I have made it all live as until I swap over I will only be running one loco a time anyhow (pretty much just testing and triple testing after each stage, points wires are, in servos/control as yet to be added).

I have already put the point clips in too.

I did run a loco and check continuity before hand to ensure it at least starts life all live without help !

I think, other than some sidings, I have no more than 5 joins (6 pieces of track) before a wired jumper. and all fishplates that were not snug were tightened or replaced.

I had one point on my engine shed area, that despite all my efforts at cleaning etc, refused to reliably supply power in one position. In the end I deemed it inconsequential as the wire clips got round that, and the location wasn't a key area.

[Rallymatt]

Pretty much what already been said.

I too avoid gradients because I don’t have enough space to achieve a max of 2%.

Fishplates are always a weak point.

Reach over is a big thing, things will always go wrong at the most awkward place to reach!

[Skelton Junction]

Thank you all.

I will endeavour to get power elsewhere on the layout when and where necessary

elevated sections are marmite, it appears. I like marmite and Skelton junction has one so I’m going 2 or 3% with that flexible foam stuff.

the baseboard is mobile and not fixed where it is pictured. It shuffles to the left allowing access down the right. Short term but long term fixed that way.

[Rallymatt]

I don’t like Marmite…. I love the stuff!

Sounds like you have already considered most of the important things, so you don’t need us making comments.

looking forward to the next pictures 😁

[Skelton Junction]

The track bed height is a smidge under 5cm on this bridge so I only need that as there’s nothing going to be moving under it, only statics. However, the woodland scenic inclines/declines are too wide (2 1/2 inches) for my layout so I’m hoping someone will produce a 120 scale version.

[Clement Matchett]

Something which I haven’t seen mentioned in the context of gradients, is the possibility of using a banker. Or more than one! As you can read in the 2nd Edn of the magazine, it was common practice in the steam era, and I have a photograph of three GW tank engines helping a Stanier 8F with getting its train up the Lickey, outside Bromsgrove. The Garratts did that job too.

So long as you are using DCC, that would work wouldn’t it? And if most of the TT120 locos are going to be without a front coupling, then we wouldn’t have to fret about uncoupling.

I haven’t got a gradient on my layout yet, but subject to any response to this, I soon might have!

[Skelton Junction]

Peter,

Whilst elevation remains an integral part of Skelton I have deferred construction to the next phase. I’m keen not to go over 2% gradient for aesthetics and functionality and with only a 5’x4’ board it may have looked a little too contrived for me.

Also, I haven’t seen a suitable 1:120 incline/decline product yet.

Hope this helps your thought processes

al

[Rallymatt]

I had a similar conversation about inclines the other day. In a small space they can start to look ‘toy train’ like. Incline products like piers etc are not really essential, most inclines on the real railway are banks of earth etc either open sided or with retaining walls, making it possible to make the incline out of card, timber and board etc and then add scenic detail as wanted. The most common use of piers in real life I have seen are at the unloading ramps and are freight oriented. Ironically the old line past me and part of the inspiration to High Fell is the Consett line which had massive inclines (all based on ground works) , an auto unloading facility (with piers) and extensive use of banking locos, 9f hauling 9 fully loaded 56t hoppers being banked by another 9f between South Pelaw and Stanley must have been quite a sight in the day! 😁

[Robc058]

I have used 2% incline polystyrene ramps as mentioned these are really too wide for TT. But I have cut away one side to narrow. This enables a slightly steeper gradient (needed anyway to climb to the viaduct) by reducing the spacing. Also it is on a curve (part 2nd, part 3rd) as well as straights. I will enclose the elevation with a mix of retaining wall and turf embankment. William Whitelaw makes the climb OK with 3 coaches, but the longer term intention is as a branch line mixed freight and passenger with a tank engine when available. In which case I think 2 coaches would suffice. It would also suit a DMU or GWR pannier with autocoach (please, Hornby?).

Prototype? You would not expect mainline /express on big gradients but many branch lines and light rail by necessity had sharper curves and steeper gradients. This due to terrain and the expense of cuttings and embankments. So the A1 and A4 will in future stick to the flat loop I think.

[Rallymatt]

DMU 🤞

[D9020 Nimbus]

Something which I haven’t seen mentioned in the context of gradients, is the possibility of using a banker. Or more than one! As you can read in the 2nd Edn of the magazine, it was common practice in the steam era, and I have a photograph of three GW tank engines helping a Stanier 8F with getting its train up the Lickey, outside Bromsgrove. The Garratts did that job too.

So long as you are using DCC, that would work wouldn’t it? And if most of the TT120 locos are going to be without a front coupling, then we wouldn’t have to fret about uncoupling.

 

 

Most of the locos likely to be used as bankers (0-6-0Ts) would probably have a front coupling—as would the last coach in the train. Even if not, you would still have to be careful of buffer-locking if the incline was on a curve.

Early in the BR period, "Jinties" were the regular bankers, together with the MR 0-10-0. The LNER 2-8-8-2 Garratt was tested on the line but doesn't seem to have been particularly popular, so the 0-10-0 was eventually replaced by a 9F.

When the route passed to the Western Region, the Jinties were replaced by 94xx Pannier tanks (a different type from the 57xx planned by Hornby). Later they were replaced by class 37s, then Hymeks, then class 37s again.