TT:120 Track Plan Book

[Hobby11]

This discussion has made me look at an old track plan book I have, "60 plans for small railways" by CJ Freezer which is actually very relevant for those who have little space for their layout. All the plans are in 00 scale, but that does mean they are easily converted into TT120, and you could either keep the original size and have more space or reduce the size accordingly.

[ateshci]

It is Australian BTW, but its purpose is to show how an out-and-back scheme could be established, and have a fiddle yard, which could be blocked from view.

[moawkwrd]

25 minutes ago, Hobby11 said:

This discussion has made me look at an old track plan book I have, "60 plans for small railways" by CJ Freezer which is actually very relevant for those who have little space for their layout. All the plans are in 00 scale, but that does mean they are easily converted into TT120, and you could either keep the original size and have more space or reduce the size accordingly.

I’ve been looking at a lot of CJF plans recently too - problem with converting them to TT is that radius 1 is useless and Hornby points are too large a radius so they require proportionately longer layouts. Good for inspiration though.

Edited July 9 by moawkwrd

[moawkwrd]

39 minutes ago, Hobby11 said:

Uncouple the loco and run it round the circuit and couple it up the other end...

That fiddle yard is useless, though, the siding are too short. Put a point on the curve and only have two sidings, job done!

Yes but that does particularly break the illusion somewhat. Fiddleyard length is fine I think considering the length of sidings on the actual layout but yes a point where the last curve could work better.

With a longer board you could have fiddle yards at either side so it’s as if the train is going somewhere and back again. Or a wider board to allow two separate fiddle yards to intersect like forks on one side.

Edited July 9 by moawkwrd

[Rallymatt]

I’d be tempted to

Dual the line into the fiddle yard, angle the scenic break and create another scene on the ‘fiddle yard’ add a head shunt etc. that could be another station scene, quayside etc 

For converting CJF’s plans, consider using the Peco small radius points. They have a smaller footprint than the Hornby ones. 

Edited July 9 by Rallymatt
Extra response

[ateshci]

I think it was C.J. Freezer  M. Deane who proposed a double-ended fiddle-yard behind the scenes that is accessible from both sides. It's the golf links principle - use one facility from more than one point.

Edited July 9 by ateshci

[Paul M]

I think the second coloured version is better. Difficult to get both continous running and shunting in a small space, but maybe keeping the sidings on the outside and an inner loop could do it, but as a freight layout I like it.

 

[moawkwrd]

47 minutes ago, ateshci said:

I think it was C.J. Freezer  M. Deane who proposed a double-ended fiddle-yard behind the scenes that is accessible from both sides. It's the golf links principle - use one facility from more than one point.

Yes that’s how the original Ffarquhar branch worked with the hidden industrial siding. Think that plan would be good in TT once we have smaller locos and more rolling stock variety.

[Hobby11]

6 hours ago, ateshci said:

I think it was C.J. Freezer  M. Deane who proposed a double-ended fiddle-yard behind the scenes that is accessible from both sides. It's the golf links principle - use one facility from more than one point.

It was Maurice Deane, I was trying to find one of the plans based on his layouts but couldn't find one! Sorry about the American/Australian mix up, the point I was making, though, was it wasn't a British style plan!

Edited July 9 by Hobby11

[Hobby11]

7 hours ago, moawkwrd said:

Yes but that does particularly break the illusion somewhat.

I think a layout where you can see the whole circuit breaks the illusion! Put a small tunnel in then it's not as noticeable!

7 hours ago, Rallymatt said:

For converting CJF’s plans, consider using the Peco small radius points. They have a smaller footprint than the Hornby ones. 

I think if you stuck to the actual baseboard size in the track plan books (which were designed for 00) you'd probably fit it all in. The smaller layouts he designed were made to 14.5" radius (Triang R1) in the main, though they also had 12" radius (Playcraft did RTR 12" radii curves in 00/H0), you could chop an inch off the Hornby points but you'd still have the generous radius! If my track was still loose and not pinned down I'd give one a try to see! Can someone with loose track please get a copy of 60 plans for small layouts and try?!

Edited July 9 by Hobby11

[D9020 Nimbus]

On 25/06/2024 at 19:03, LTSR_NSE said:

This is the layout I am designing.  The baseboard will be approx 1.5m x 1.2m / 5ft x 4ft - it will be in middle of room so accessible from all sides.

One of the primary design criteria was all curves to be R2+ (the 3 outer loops are approx R5, 6, 7)

The Grey track indicates stage 1 (already purchased & under construction.)  The White track is stage two (intended future development - incorporated into design to ensure baseboard is of adequate size.)

**I’ve had serious doubts about posting this as:
• there isn’t any current intention for scenery - I just like running trains.
• for that reason I purposely want to fill the layout with track!

However I’ve finally decided to post in case it helps/encourages any other ‘not-quite-modeller’ to enjoy the scale too!

Very  much in the Cyril Freezer tradition, although I'm not sure that any of his layouts had quite that much track…

[Renoir]

I am exploring the integration of the front section of my Hatley St George portable layout (see separate thread) into a larger scheme that should fit into my railway room. The front section is shown in blue and I have most of the other boards already available from previous projects. I wanted to include several staging tracks (fiddle yard, RHS) to hold pre-arranged trains, and to include a return loop. Please excuse the pen annotations as I am still pondering on the train flows. The mark up at the top is a crossover.

Rather than start again I wanted to use what I have already built, hence the more unusual presentation of the layout. The minimum radius on the "extension" is R4 and I intend to use PECO track and points (hence the numbering). For context, the width of the blue board at the front is 5 feet or approx 1.5m. The Grid size is 6"/ approx 150mm.

Any comments or observations welcome. Many thanks, Ren

Edited July 20 by Renoir
Clarification: Grid size

[Rallymatt]

I like the snaking reverse loop 😁

[Fishmanoz]

Interesting conundrum with that RL - you can only enter it, from the top or the bottom of the layout, if you are traveling anti-clockwise.  Once you’ve traversed it and are now traveling clockwise, you can’t get into it again.

However, traveling clockwise, you can enter the fiddle yard on the right and trains emerging will be traveling anti-clockwise again.

Unless you do a lot of reversing.

[Rallymatt]

That is pretty much the limitation of all reverse loops though. Once the train is at a terminus, loco will need to be released, it can either the hook up to rear of train and run in reverse or be turned by using the RL again. 

[Renoir]

10 hours ago, Rallymatt said:

I like the snaking reverse loop 😁

😊 I had imagined trains wending their way through this part...still pondering on the scenic offering for this section. I wondered about woodland with a river or estuary below.

[Renoir]

27 minutes ago, Rallymatt said:

That is pretty much the limitation of all reverse loops though. Once the train is at a terminus, loco will need to be released, it can either the hook up to rear of train and run in reverse or be turned by using the RL again. 

I have space for a traverser arrangement at the bottom of the staging yard so that's one option. Good point though, and maybe I need to include a locomotive stabling siding at the top of the staging yard.

Edited July 21 by Renoir
Grammar

[Renoir]

 

Plan tidied up with modifications...the staging yard element on the LHS now extends to the top board to include a locomotive stabling point. This will aid locomotive release in the staging yard. The current layout is shown in blue minus the back portion which will only be used if this part "goes out" to a running meet.

 

 

 

[StuLarge]

From the September 2024 Railway Modeller supplement "Making a start in TT120" copyright Peco Publications available in your local newsagents.

[StuLarge]

Twelvemill Bridge from this Key Model World Hornby Magazine Article (subscription required) 10ft x 6ft

[moawkwrd]

I love layout plans like the two above.

They provoke the imagination in a way that plans like those in the latest Hornby catalogue don’t.

Just having them coloured in like that helps.

[My name is Bond]

Looking at track plans many of them have areas where curved points are used. This helps with space saving. Hopefully Hornby have plans to introduce curved points in the future. As it is I am adapting plans with this feature to accommodate straight points. There is a particular Hornby OO track plan shown on a certain retailers website that I am drawn to and have ordered 5 additional Hornby points and a few other bits and pieces to try it out and see how well it works for me. As it is most mainline oval track plans use a significant number of points so it will do no harm to have the total of 15 points to date and to try some of these ideas out before any scenic work.

The real issue is my ever expanding Hornby fleet and how to accommodate it on the track? I am not into shelf queen purchasing which is, in any case, rightly or wrongly in my view, more of an OO guage thing than a TT:120 thing.

Notwithstanding curved points which basically require 4 tools and 4 types of point for R2 to R3 curves, at least within a given space, even with the limits of inline points only, it it possible to create more complex layouts and siding arrangements with TT:120 than with 00 which is a big bonus.

Edited September 8 by My name is Bond

[Rallymatt]

TT:120 has appealed more to layout builders and modellers more than collectors. The scale does open up possibilities that OO can’t space wise. Just something to consider, curved points do have a bit of a troublesome reputation, perhaps those with more experience in smaller scales like Nick @ntpntpntp know better, not sure if @Silver Fox 17 has curved points in TT, his track is not the one Peco launched as TT:120. Finer scales usually mean tighter tolerances. 👍

[Silver Fox 17]

1 hour ago, Rallymatt said:

Silver Fox 17 has curved points in TT, his track is not the one Peco launched as TT:120. Finer scales usually mean tighter tolerances

Yes I do have about 16 curved point on my layout, one on the viewable main line and the rest in the fiddle yard.

As Matt says, mine are Peco H0m. Everyone had the frog modified for using Tri-ang TT which is a coarser wheel, at the time the layout was 3mm scale.

I can say I have had no issues with the Hornby or Peco stock going through these modified points, and that includes the double slips. If you watch any videos I just leave the trains running and a train cannot go through any line without at least one curved point being run through.

I have not tried any TT 120 stock through an unmodified point to comment on though.

[Silver Fox 17]

A couple of screen shots showing both ends of the fiddle yard with some of the curved points along with the fiddle yard track plan (which states approx 20 curved points).

At least you know these work for me.

The dotted lines have still not been added after 6 or 7 years.

Edited September 9 by Silver Fox 17
Thought I might as well add the rest of the layout