Portable train set layout 5ft x 2ft 6in - critique please

[moawkwrd]

10 minutes ago, Moccasin said:

Pacifics could pass through on express trains, leaving a local stopper to call at the station.

I’ve thought about a single track oval with double track on one end and a terminus station inside the loop. The single track part of the oval then becomes an avoiding line for the station. 

Yes, that could work - if Peco expand their TT range to include a single slip then I could replace the diamond crossing to add a runaround loop which would be better. I know Tillig do the double slip already but it's expensive and would require use of Peco flexitrack to make up the gaps due to the different geometry. 3 kinds of track on one layout would probably be jarring. Would rather wait for the Peco version and rebuild entirely with their track... by which point I'd hopefully have the skills and rolling stock for it.

Edited March 31 by moawkwrd

[Postman On The Rails]

1 hour ago, moawkwrd said:

Yes, I've since also obtained the MS Models version which is very nice. It's seems better sized (smaller) and to scale.

I can use the ITG version as a test bed for painting etc.

I have a water tower but not put together yet, basically to cover up a peco twist loco point motor that I couldn’t fit underneath

[taunmarc88]

I’d say keep your TT stock for now. I am still undecided on how to proceed as I have more fun when I set my old OO up on the table but I’ve been waiting for tomorrow’s announcements first. I do believe however that I will keep all my locos and rolling stock - if I do end up going OO again for now it will be lovely to have some of the original releases from the TT range in the cupboard should I then do a TT layout in the future and I can also justify buying the odd loco if I really love it (such as a green 08 and any tank engines). I did think of getting one of those IKEA glass cabinets to display it all in.

For me the main sticking point is that originally I thought TT would allow for a smaller layout but the reality is not the case. TT demands wider curves and longer runs as the models are suited to longer trains. In OO the flying Scotsman pulling two carriages around a 6x4 is something we are used to but in TT I wanted up to five or six carriages and that requires everything to be longer. I’m likely to do a 6x4 OO again and then see where I am after that project. 

[StuLarge]

27 minutes ago, taunmarc88 said:

TT would allow for a smaller layout but the reality is not the case. TT demands wider curves and longer runs as the models are suited to longer trains. In OO the flying Scotsman pulling two carriages around a 6x4 is something we are used to but in TT I wanted up to five or six carriages and that requires everything to be longer

I would counter that by suggesting TT allows one to dream big. But the reality of our situations is always the sense check.

My sense check is situational, financial and spatial. As a parent I'm supposed to prioritise not me things, long trains all those wagons £££, that's a nice shed I could... But the bikes and lawnmower 🤦🏼‍♂️

I am very pleased running my loco and 3 coaches around my dining table. As was I pleased with the Scotsman and two in 00 on the carpet, and TT3 (never more than 3 coaches) as a Kid.

It was only when I tried emulating the bigger dreams I had seen at exhibitions or in magazines (and that required a change to N) that I became disillusioned and gave up. Fortunately this coincided with cars and girls 😂

Sometimes dreaming big isn't something we can do alone. And this is where clubs, or for example modular standards come in to play. Allowing the bigger dreams to be lived, all be it on occasion.

If you are having doubts, put it away for now, you can always get it out again later.

If you find what's right for you after some reflection there will always be a box of things that can be traded.

 

[moawkwrd]

Thanks guys

I took up the old layout yesterday afternoon - the track pieces are soaking in some soapy water waiting for me to attack them with a toothbrush. Mostly fine but I did manage to break one piece - must have used neat PVA when ballasting!

I get what you mean about wanting longer trains in smaller scales - I’ve always had similar when I’ve dabbled in N gauge. That’s why I think my new plan might be a winner as it doesn’t really allow for longer trains to be run. Having a size constraint is sometimes good.

I likely won’t sell any of my rolling stock yet - perhaps some rationalisation following tomorrow. Really need a commitment from Hornby to fill out non-mainline services - at the moment everything except the Class 08 pushes people to want to run long trains on at least double track lines which as you said, defeats the point of TT. I wonder though if it would have been more or less successful if they’d launched with smaller engines instead and a selection of actually tabletop layout plans (the website even mentions 3ft x 2ft as a layout size as a benefit) Possibly not.

Edited April 1 by moawkwrd

[Hobby11]

We've had this discussion lots of times earlier in the forum. Hornby were launching a completely new (to the UK) scale so needed stuff that would be easily recognised, liked and would sell, especially to non enthusiasts. Hence their choice of the A3 and A4. Now it's established I would expect to start to see more variety and the sort of stuff you and others are hankering for, smaller locos. BUT and it's a big BUT(!) don't expect lots of stuff to suddenly appear, despite what you have seen on the programme on Hornby it takes several years and many man hours to design, test and manufacture each loco and Hornby don't have thousands of staff on their books just doing TT120. It'll be a gradual process over 5 to 10 years. The big hope is that another manufacturer decides it's worth taking it up and then we can possibly halve the timescale, but until then look on it as a long term scheme.

With regards to double/single track, have you looked at the Severn Valley or NYMR recently? Single track, long trains, mainline locos! For mainline rather than heritage then look at specials on the Welsh and Scottish single lines.

[moawkwrd]

13 minutes ago, Hobby1707822967 said:

We've had this discussion lots of times earlier in the forum. Hornby were launching a completely new (to the UK) scale so needed stuff that would be easily recognised, liked and would sell, especially to non enthusiasts. Hence their choice of the A3 and A4. Now it's established I would expect to start to see more variety and the sort of stuff you and others are hankering for, smaller locos. BUT and it's a big BUT(!) don't expect lots of stuff to suddenly appear, despite what you have seen on the programme on Hornby it takes several years and many man hours to design, test and manufacture each loco and Hornby don't have thousands of staff on their books just doing TT120. It'll be a gradual process over 5 to 10 years. The big hope is that another manufacturer decides it's worth taking it up and then we can possibly halve the timescale, but until then look on it as a long term scheme.

With regards to double/single track, have you looked at the Severn Valley or NYMR recently? Single track, long trains, mainline locos! For mainline rather than heritage then look at specials on the Welsh and Scottish single lines.

I get all of that, but the entire year of releases ahead (depending on whatever gets announced tomorrow) is still also mainline stuff. For a scale that's entire purpose is to be table top, to get more people into the hobby who don't have the space available for OO, it's a contradiction if it means that for a suitable layout for the rolling stock available you still need roughly 6ft by 3ft minimum (and ideally more). You've already got more than one (myself) person in this thread expressing frustration with the situation and thinking of selling up. If that's true across other new entrants to the hobby then Hornby have shot themselves in the foot.

They could've easily pivoted the range away from mainline after the initial and first few releases, but then it wouldn't be the first time we've seen woeful planning by Hornby. Class 31 instead of 37 first for example, Tank engines instead of Coronation or Class 50.  It's not like they're obscure models with a limited market. Hopefully tomorrow brings something suitable in that respect with not too long a lead time.

Heritage railway or intermediate station on a branch line to a busier terminus is what my latest plan is going for I think, to allow for stopping freight trains and passing passenger trains to make sense.

Edited April 1 by moawkwrd

[Moccasin]

Some great points being made here. I’ve been in similar quandaries that aren’t helped by nostalgia “forcing” me to get the new HST. 

As @Hobby1707822967 says, there are plenty of single line modern image lines around. Especially after the 80s when BR pruned things to save costs. With the Class 50s coming, the Waterloo-Exeter line is single track on western sections and operated 50s with modern stock. Wales and Scotland both still have single track mainlines with locomotive hauled trains - the Inverness routes (including northern extension to the ECML). A locomotive and 3-4 coaches is not unheard of and takes up about 750mm/2.5ft

It’s also possible to build rationalisation into your back story. Doesn’t take much to build non-operational track implying previous double track now operated as single line.

I do appreciate that’s not quite what’s been discussed here, but don’t let things get in the way of enjoyment, or the perfect be the enemy of the good etc..

(I can’t talk as all my stuff is currently packed in a box in the wardrobe!)

Edited April 1 by Moccasin
Poor mental arithmetic

[moawkwrd]

Some more fiddling with the plan. Someone over on RMWeb pointed out that I'd essentially designed an Inglenook shunting puzzle with a loop for passing trains. I think it'll work quite well operationally. I've added in a deadend siding coming from the tunnel to hint at the above - previous double track that's been removed along the line.

Fingers crossed for a small tank engine - if we get that and perhaps some more goods wagons from H or Peco this year, it'll be golden.

[Hobby11]

3 hours ago, moawkwrd said:

I get all of that, but the entire year of releases ahead (depending on whatever gets announced tomorrow) is still also mainline stuff. For a scale that's entire purpose is to be table top, to get more people into the hobby who don't have the space available for OO, it's a contradiction if it means that for a suitable layout for the rolling stock available you still need roughly 6ft by 3ft minimum (and ideally more). You've already got more than one (myself) person in this thread expressing frustration with the situation and thinking of selling up. If that's true across other new entrants to the hobby then Hornby have shot themselves in the foot.

There was lots of fluff on social media when it was first announced that lead many people to think that there'd be masses of locos and stock coming out in short order. That was never going to be the case and it was wrong of people to push that agenda. But unfortunately it's stuck, as has the notion (rumour?) that Hornby can produce lots of stuff in short order.

Of course there's going to be people expressing frustration, for whatever reason, but that isn't going to change things. The fact is Hornby will, initially, produce stuff that sells and, like it or not, that's going to be mainline stuff. However they've already said that the smaller stuff will come along in time, it'll be too late for some but just right for others, that's the way of things!

 

BTW I do like that fiddle yard, especially the inside siding coming just out of the tunnel which leaves things open to double up if you want to in the future, make sure you leave the level crossing wide enough for two tracks and keep the road out of any future potential track bed. Maybe even make it look like it used to be double but one track has been lifted?

Edited April 1 by Hobby1707822967

[moawkwrd]

6 hours ago, Hobby1707822967 said:

BTW I do like that fiddle yard, especially the inside siding coming just out of the tunnel which leaves things open to double up if you want to in the future, make sure you leave the level crossing wide enough for two tracks and keep the road out of any future potential track bed. Maybe even make it look like it used to be double but one track has been lifted?

Thanks - yes that's the intention. There's a lot of scope with this plan to get the scenery just right in terms of setting the scene.

Been playing around today with the plan in real time now that the track has dried.

I think it works well - the sidings give me max 4, 5 and 7 wagon lengths which is plenty and there's ample room for 3 carriages and an engine at the station. Obviously passing traffic could be much longer up to the lengths of the fiddleyard sidings.

Roll on tomorrow and if all goes well, I'll be ordering some packs of new fishplates, 1st radius curves and a roll of cork to get started. I intend to hold off ballasting for much longer this time around... Need to find a low relief station building or something I can adapt to sit at one end of the platforms slightly.

Edited April 1 by moawkwrd

[Hobby11]

Get a full size kit and cut it down before assembling for low relief, I've done it plenty of times in the past.

[moawkwrd]

So some further work on this plan - when I was working on the original, someone suggested Bredon, a classic OO 7ft x 4ft layout, as inspiration. I couldn't get it to work originally but I had another go and after a few adjustments, have arrived at the plan below -

It's called Bretton.

Still not final but I think it's better than my other plan which was a bit too... symetrical looking and sparse. I think this fits in a bit more railway without completely filling the space. It still retains the three sidings (five actually) for shunting off the inner loop which can be a branch line that runs alongside the mainline through the right hand tunnel. The station is therefore a junction.

To make it fit somewhere - I'm guessing the origins can be ex-LNWR/GC somewhere in the North, since absorbed into the LNER. That way my green Class 08, J50 and Pacifics won't be too much of a rule 1... although I fully intend to run my HST, Class 50 and blue Class 08 too of course.

Control I think I'm going to go back to DC. HM7000 is nice but expensive, and I find more often than not I turn sound off. This layout isn't so complicated that multiple locos would need to be in the same place, so I think DC could work nice. I intend to use wire in tube point control in the scenic areas. Fiddleyard can be hand operated.

I've ordered some more track pieces that I'll need either way as well as new fishplates for my existing track so I can start playing trains as I further refine the layout.

[taunmarc88]

That looks very good. Plenty of options for use in the sidings and it looks more prototypical having it at odd angles I think.
Interesting that you are thinking of going back to DC. I have had the same thought, in fact I’m playing with mine as DC at the moment. It’s easier and as you say cheaper. 
Looking forward to seeing this layout idea develop.

[Martin-369195]

What radius curves are you using?

[moawkwrd]

Thanks!

I've since made some further changes with great advice from the other place -

Fiddleyard has an extra set of points to allow anti-clockwise running from the inner branch loop. An extra spur off the inner fiddleyard siding. Simplified station/goods sidings. Think that'll work a lot better.

[moawkwrd]

5 minutes ago, Martin-369195 said:

What radius curves are you using?

1, 2 and 3.

The inner branch loop is radius 1 so will be limited to 0-6-0s. My Pacifics make it round 2nd radius without much fuss, not sure about 1st - has anyone tried it? They would need to use that section for left hand running so could be an issue but then the idea is that it's a junction anyway, not twin track so left hand running isn't absolutely required.

I do have the option of adding a couple inches width with an extension to the baseboard which could allow me to switch the curves to 2, 3 and 4 instead but that's a last resort.

Edited April 6 by moawkwrd

[Silver Fox 17]

1 minute ago, moawkwrd said:

1, 2 and 3.

The inner branch loop is radius 1 so will be limited to 0-6-0s. My Pacifics make it round 2nd radius without much fuss, not sure about 1st - has anyone tried it? 

My pacifics, the few I tried, all go around Tri-ang TT small radius curves which are about 2 or 3mm tighter than R1.

 

[Irishmail]

6 hours ago, moawkwrd said:

Thanks!

I've since made some further changes with great advice from the other place -

Fiddleyard has an extra set of points to allow anti-clockwise running from the inner branch loop. An extra spur off the inner fiddleyard siding. Simplified station/goods sidings. Think that'll work a lot better.

I quite like the Bredon layout, masterpiece of its time and showed what could be done with set-track pieces.   It could be used as three layouts in one,

1. Terminus - Fiddle yard, 

2. Continuous run Roundy Roundy

3. Inglenook Shunting puzzle using the branch line as the head shunt.

I may use a similar style of plan when I eventually do my TT layout, will be using Peco streamline track.

[Moccasin]

It’s not completely dissimilar to the one I developed as an option for my layout a few weeks ago, except that my station is intended to be a diagonal terminus in the middle to achieve more platform length. The left hand single track oval was envisaged as an avoiding/freight line and the right hand as a double track mainline.

[happy tt]

It's very much like my layout ,it has a main loop with sidings that form inside and outside loops.but not with  a fiddleyard but all landscape in that area instead for trains to run through.

my  station is on the inside edge of the main line at the front of the board  the goods dept is in the  same place ,so the goods dept is like a letter  Y with an extra Y added to it. so one main spur  and two side spurs off it for the  goods yard. and i have got a small town to  the right instead of  the tunnel mouth i do like your plan i might borrow it  when i build my new one .

the  point at the front of the board the track spurs  off goes along the edge  and does not bend in like you's. and goes past the small building and  along the front of the board until it reaches the left edge to meet up with the fiddleyard.

i am lucky i can have a small fiddleyard on the left by the use of a loose pin hinge, but i got to  keep the boards under 86cm  wide  X140cm long or high ,so they  will go in my  half of the 4 door wardrobe in my bedroom .The doors are 46cm each very tight ouch my fingers now you see it  - now you don't   😂  🫣 lol      happy wife happy life😊

[moawkwrd]

Finally got around to real life track planning since my new fishplates arrived… only managed to injure myself twice fitting them to the Peco points!

I went with a 2nd radius curve into the goods yard rather than 6th as it gave more space for the platforms which will be a wedge shape. Will need to make it myself, those ones are just for testing clearances. I figure a country station wouldn’t be so limited on space so a nice wide platform with the station building at one end and a platform waiting room in the middle will look quite good.

Happy with the fiddle yard too - essentially one branch siding and one mainline siding, and then a mixed siding for running trains end to end from either.

Will be reusing the boards around the edge to build the scenic break.

Edited April 13 by moawkwrd

[taunmarc88]

It’s looking good so far. Liking the idea of having the fiddle yard on the one board, you have quite a lot of room to store whole trains in. 

[moawkwrd]

Just planning how I'm going to wire it up (this for DC). Do the sections below make sense so that one train can run from fiddleyard to goods yard, and another can loop on the other track?

Or would it be better to have insulated joiners here instead so that more of the fiddleyard sidings are controlled by the mainline?

[moawkwrd]

Okay, wiring all done and trains are now running again!

It’s definitely not as straight forward as HM7000 or a DCC system but the Modelex controllers are lovely and the track cleaner really helps with slow running particularly over points. Just waiting for some drill bits to put the holes in the baseboard for the XLR sockets. Then it’ll just be the Gaugemaster M1s connecting to one side and the Modelex controllers connecting through DIN sockets on the front for the mainline and branch lines. Toying with the idea of running the cables for the handheld controllers through each corner of the fiddle yard as there is space to leave them there when not in use.

I’ll be using the 4th output from the M1s to convert to smoothed DC to run a Gaugemaster scenic sound module.

Next job to tackle is wire in tube point control…

Edited April 21 by moawkwrd