Hello everyone, I have just discovered the world of 009 modelling and I am so excited to get stuck in building my new layout, the very fictional Laughton & Beddingham Railway (Slightly cheating in order to be able to use L&BR crested and initialled rolling stock) based down here in sunny East Sussex. This will be a representation of a current day heritage narrow gauge line and will run mostly passenger services along the end to end layout. Because of limited space in my current flat, I will be building the main terminus station area first on one 2' x 4' board, and connect to further boards in the future.
I am very keen to know what software/program everyone uses to make a nicely detailed Layout plan so if you have any suggestions please share.
Thanks in advance!
Ed
Hi Ed and welcome to the forum.
I think there are quite a few programs available to assist with layout planning. I've not used any of them, but, one thing I would consider buying is some turn-out templates. I think Peco do these...
It's easy to imagine that you can cram in more than is actually viable. The templates will help you try out different track arrangements and can also assist with track laying when the time comes.
There's an old saying amongst the experts : "The scenery was here first !". There are also booklets available showing proven layout plans, which would be a good investment - if only for ideas and inspiration.
Good luck with your project and let us know if you need help,
Merry Christmas,
Dave
Hi all,
I use several methods of track planning.
Squared (graph) paper, templates, software.
Peco templates are now avalable for free from the website.
https://peco-uk.com/collections/turn-out-crossing-plans
Browse the page to find the scale you want.
Software is all down to personal preferance, my go to is SCARM.
As with all software, there is a learning curve!
Thanks
Phill H
Hello Ed!
As Phil mentions layout design software, if used, is down to personal preference and which ever one 'clicks' with the user's way of thinking. My personal preference is AnyRail and like many paid-for packages available there is a trial version (in this case limited number of track pieces).
Hello Ed,
Welcome along to 009 modelling - I hope you enjoy it!
I have used Xtrkcad for many years, so I am familiar with it. If I was starting out afresh I would probably look at Anyrail and SCARM and see which one I felt most comfortable with. (There is also Templot - brilliant for developing and then scratchbuilding pointwork - but the learning curve is very steep (I've not made it out of the bottom of the valley yet).)
Julian
Quote from: Ed Raw on December 20, 2020, 21:40
<snipped>
I am very keen to know what software/program everyone uses to make a nicely detailed Layout plan so if you have any suggestions please share.
Thanks in advance!
Ed
Being very behind the times I use a pad of graph paper and an pencil ("Manualdraw 1.0"?), possibly with the aid of a rule to draw the straight baseboard edges ("Straight line assistant pack"?, though the pre-printed lines on the paper help there...
:laugh:
I'm much the same for jotting down ideas, but the issue I find in doing hand sketches is a tendency to draw impossible, or at least unsuitable geometries that nonetheless look smooth on the page. My two greatest failings:
- curves that look OK but only because I've sketched nice smooth transition curves but the curve at the tightest point is excessive.
- turnout geometries that bear no relation to what is actually available.
To add a third and fourth which could apply no matter how the plan is drawn:
- forget I'm sketching a 4 mm scale layout and visualize scenic items more like N scale because of the smaller gauge, tighter curves and so on.
- allow insufficient clearance between tracks in sidings and assume far more of the siding is useful than there is actually. A fair bit is needed to allow stock to clear each other at the entrance to a siding.
Perhaps I just need better discipline in sketching. I'm sure in the days before CAD plastic track stencils were available. Maybe they still are. If nothing else a circle of scaled minimum track radius, perhaps simply cut out of card or a suitably sized jar lid would help. Another useful 'yardstick' would be something with minimum track separation marked on it.
Hi Ed.
Welcome to the wonderful world of 009.
When I designed my layout I used the "olde school" method of pen & paper, having got a track plan I liked, and thought should work, I downloaded and printed out the free Peco templates...
...and found that my about 90% of my plan worked!! (usual problem, being to optimistic about how much I could get into the space!)
Dave has already made one of the most important, and often overlooked things, the scenery was there first.
I also use the old method of paper and pencil for the basic plan!
I then draw it out full size on backing wallpaper (£1 a roll from poundland) to check clearances etc.
Peco have the point plans on-line that can be printed out full size and cut out if needed.
Here is a link to the 12 inch radius electrofrog points:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1541/1303/t/4/assets/Turnout_Plan_SLE491-1532352365100.pdf
.....the 18 inch radius electrofrog Y point:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1541/1303/t/4/assets/Turnout_Plan_SLE497-1532352588337.pdf
......the 18 inch radius electrofrog mainline points:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1541/1303/t/4/assets/SL-E495496plansheet-1554205895370.pdf
......and the 9 inch dead frog points, that I would not recomend for 009 use as the dead frogs can cause small 4 wheel locos to stall at slow speed:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1541/1303/files/Turnout_Plan_ST-405.pdf
Thanks to all for the great replies! I have tried a little paper mapping but wasn't sure on point measurements so those links are really useful! I will update when I have done more :D
Well thanks to your suggestions around software, I tried a couple a decided I like the layout and abilities of Anyrail. I have attached a screen grab of my intial plan which will make use of both sizes of points available in the Code 80 range, to allow for running of the M&W 2-6-2T when I get mine :) Let me know your thoughts! Feedback is always the best way to learn.
I think a "4ft x 2ft" baseboard is an excellent starting point for a layout. :)
Firstly a question - which is the viewing side and which way does the embankment or retaining wall slope? I'm guessing it is viewed from the side at the top of the page.
A couple of general points without going into specifics of track layout as I'm sure others will be able to comment better than I can on this.
Although some of the track flows diagonally (which is often a Good Thing) the overall layout looks very rectilinear. The track at the top is parallel and very close to the edge of the board. Rotating the whole track system a bit may improve the appearance significantly, though as it stands it will mean the exit to the fiddle yard, cassettes or whatever is no longer square to the board edge. Having the exit square to the edge simplifies construction a bit. Likewise the buildings are all set square to the board edges, emphasising the rectangular nature.
If the layout is viewed from the top of the page, the track is dangerously close to the edge and trains are at risk of being knocked off by a stray operator shirt cuff, or worse may happen if the layout were to be exhibited. If the top is the back of the layout it places the track right next to the backscene and shadows and so on will emphasise the Truman Show 'edge of the world' nature of the layout. A common model railway trope to deal with this is to back onto a retaining wall, backs of houses, even a tall fence and so on.
Similarly, at the bottom, having a road broaching the 'third wall' if at the front can be a good ploy as it suggest standing at the road edge looking in, but having so much of at the left and leading off it emphasises the edge of the board. On the other hand, if it is at the back of the board blending it into a backscene could be tricky. Also, if at the back, not only does it take up a lot of board depth but there is a lot of 'verge' doing little at the edge. Even if formal forced perspective and depth compression is not used spreading things out a bit in the foreground and squeezing them at the back looks better in my opinion.
Track can run along the very edge of a layout, but I think it looks best if a trick such as a retaining wall, harbour wall, canal side, riverside, cliff edge and so on marks the boundary and gives a reason for it being so close. Also being vertical it gives more scenery in front of the track which can be very handy when taking photos as their is something in the frame or even when just looking. There is something there only it is vertical and not coming towards the viewer in the foreground.
I do have a few recommendations:
Firstly, the track along the back may be too close to the edge of the board, it will be difficult to hide the join to the backscene.
Next I would strongly recommend that every point that can be changed to 18-inch radius is changed for 18-inch radius.
Most important is the first point to the loco shed sidings that forms a reverse curve with the second point.
I can-not see if the headshunt point next to the 'Station Building' and the next one towards the turntable are the 18-inch points, but they need to be.
Turntables are very difficult in 009. The critical issues are aligning the tracks and the electrical connections. Do you intend to make this yourself or are you going to use a RTR N gauge turntable?
In general the 12 inch points are majinal with the Heljan L&B locos and can cause problems, the 18 inch mainline and the 18 inch Y point are a lot better. Reverse curves will make matters worse.
To add to Brian's comments, if the top is the back, from an observer's point of view, most of the interesting activity is at the back of the layout and also many, possible most potential moves on the layout involve going 'off stage' using the turnout at the top left. Opinions may differ on how important this is, but personally I like to see trains arrive, do something interesting and then leave. If movements involve leaving the scenic area then it makes me wonder why it was not the bit of the railway just off scene that was modelled instead of the piece shown. It may be OK for an exhibition layout to have a variety of stock 'do the catwalk' and vanish but interest could pall rather quickly at home running sessions.
Another point is that if you feel that a turntable is a key feature of the layout then the run-around loop on the upper platform is redundant. The locomotive can reverse directly onto it, be turned and run forward to back up again at the other end. That doesn't prevent a loco on the lower platform running around its loop and being turned. The capacity of the lower loop does look very limited though. (That is all irrespective as to whether such configurations were actually used in reality.)
I'm not sure what the internal plan of the station building is, but the loco on the upper platform has to run into the building to clear the points.
Great feedback thank you for giving me such a detailed breakdown.
I had intended for the layout to be viewed from the base of the image (from behind the road) but I take your point about the interesting movement being towards the back of the board.
The turntable is essential to me and the reason for this is so I can have my M&W 2-6-2T only ever pull a train forwards. I don't mind the other locos running in reverse but with that loco I feel the coupler ruins the look completely. Only reason I suggested leaving the upper loop in place was if I was planning on running any other locos backwards on their next trip up the line. This upper loop also offered a possible fuel and water stop for all locos, even if coaches are waiting in the platform.
I do see your point now about the very back line, and possibly could move everything on the board forward, removing the pavement closest to viewing side of the board in the process.
Again great point about everything being rectangular. In my paper drawings would you believe it this was not the case, and the road ran diagonally but not quite parallel with the platform. What I found when digitally recreating this is I couldn't get the little industrial unit to fit comfortably without having a very long access road, and losing lots of possible details space for gardens and the like at the rear of some properties.
And I think a final point I noted was the issue about locos leaving the scenic area when conducting moves. I get this and this annoyed me as well but I have two issues. Firstly, I want to have the ability to run a train of one loco and three L&BR coaches from each platform, still with the ability to run both locos around and have access to the turntable. Now looking at it I think I could only make this work if I was to scrap the idea of an end based terminus style station and have a side on building with a footbridge to platform 2, thus being able to move track work to the right hand side and free up a little room before the train disappears out of view. Does anyone think this would work and or is a good idea?
Secondly, although this may be aiming a little high but I don't want this layout to be this one board, I had hoped that the tunnel would simply be a nice scenic break into a second and maybe even third board!
Thanks again to everyone who spent the time to look at my design, I really appreciate all the feedback you are providing such a newbie.
All the best, Ed
I agree with the 'rectilinear' remarks BUT I have discovered that you need a much smaller deviation angle than I had previously expected to fix the perception. I compare this to the way curves in roads look much straighter on a map. If you can rotate most of the track along that edge just TWO degrees I think it will look much better.
Hi Ed
With reference to the use of a tunnel as a scenic break, they were avoided as far as possible on full-size due to cost. (Cuttings being much cheaper and NG lines generally short on funds !).
I have one on my diorama (multi-level) and am still struggling to make it look convincing - you need a lot of height...
On the other hand, if you have "HS2"-type budgets (blank cheque ?) then feel free !
Merry Christmas
I would eliminate the upper loop and extend the lower loop, and incorporate the turntable and loco serving facilities into the engine shed sidings. You could still have a bay siding where the upper loop was to hold another train. It may take a bit of shunting to get two trains ready to go, but that's the fun of it!
Mal.
So this is version 2, I hope everyone can see the improvements based on the original feedback! I'm really liking this track layout.
Let me know your thoughts, and I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas!
The changes you have made make that look a much better looking layout.
Yes indeed. Looking good.
Seeing it, I'm imagining your embankment idea from the original version being applied here. The ground behind the station with the pub, houses etc. being raised up with a retaining wall marking the railway boundary. The height would add interest and the wall a good backdrop to the railway.
I would not worry about railway access at the top, though pedestrian only access might look good. A passenger overbridge would be quite unusual for a NG line, but if it was tied in with access from raised ground at the back it would give a reason for it as there would need to be steps down anyway.
Thanks guys, the embankment is a great idea, and yes should add a nice depth to the layout!
Much better looking layout, and should you want to extend, it could become a through station.
By the way did you design this from the free version of anyrail?
Ed, Just had another thought, I'm not sure if you know, but forgive me if you do, the turntable at Pilton Yard was used to turn rolling stock and not locos, they always faced towards Lynton. I'm assuming that your layout is to represent the present day ,but as you have no goods facilities it might be better to replace the turntable with a goods siding and have goods stock on display as at Woody Bay?
Within the context of a present day heritage railway in East Sussex though, a turntable to turn locomotives could well be regarded as an essential attraction! ;D
Good point Graeme, I had forgotten the layout is to be based in East Sussex, so yes the turntable is probably an essential feature. As most heritage lines also seem to have displays of goods rolling stock maybe one of the loco shed lines could be used to display this stock?
Modelling a heritage railway has much to recommend it. It opens all sorts of possibilities from visiting locomotives, Victorian days, various galas, festivals and local events to film sets and steampunk conventions as the mood takes. :)
Yes this was with the free Anyrail trial, Not bad for a free trial.
And thanks for the further comments, I take on board about goods sidings but yes I feel the turntable will suit this railway better :)
More than happy to have some goods wagons on display somewhere! Also quite like the idea of keeping a maintenance wagon set just to represent the idea of regular maintenance that a heritage railway needs to survive.
Construction has started, ignoring any old N Gauge track that is being temporarily positioned to allow for spacing to be calculated, I have started laying down my new mainline peco points to map out the rough layout.
Oops the file was too big, so here's one within limits.
David B
Hi Ed, I thought I had posted this reply, but I only posted the photo again as the first one was too big.
Anyway, the pic is of my AnyRail 6 layout so you could see whats possible,
I'm a newby myself, but haven't officially introduced myself to the members yet.
My Layout was designed on AnyRail 6. My layout is also 2' x 4', so I used the trial program, which is free, but restricts you to just 50 pieces of track. It also has 009 track including flexi and points in the library, as well as many buildings and tree's etc. It is just a simple cad system, but you can draw your own buildings, ans add them too the library, which I have done many times. I have no name for the layout as yet, but I have built the baseboard, and cut out the other two layers. It is a bit of a rabbit warren. but I wanted enough track to make it interesting. Here's a pic of it, to give you an idea of what it can do. Hope this helps
David B
I like the figure-of-eight arrangement as it gives plenty of scope for longer continuous runs. There are a lot of scenic breaks to disguise, though - to avoid too many tunnel mouths it may be worth trying to obscure some of the breaks with buildings, foliage and other devices.
David.
Quote from: David Banks on January 17, 2021, 17:48
Oops the file was too big, so here's one within limits.
David B
https://www.009society.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4533.0;attach=1794;image
That track plan will give you issues.
Firstly you will find the grades are too steep and will serverly limit what you can run.
Also the reverse curves will give you issues with the couplings locking.
They look like 9 inch dead frog points that can and do make some locos stall at slow speeds!
So not an ideal track plan for 009 use!
To be fair, Brian, the only grade which will cause issues is the one on the inside right track and I'd certainly agree with you! The grade on the outer (back) section looks fine.
What reverse curves, though, other than the loops? The only other one is in the middle at the top of the figure of eight and it would seem to have a straight bit in the middle which won't cause any issues, especially as stock will be pulled over it.
The following layout may look familiar. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/embed/w7j-O4tqJis
It was posted on NGRM-online:
https://ngrm-online.com/index.php?/forums/topic/27307-memorable-rabbit-warren-layouts/page/9/&tab=comments#comment-699626 (https://ngrm-online.com/index.php?/forums/topic/27307-memorable-rabbit-warren-layouts/page/9/&tab=comments#comment-699626)
I think it makes it clear that a layout similar to the one in this thread is indeed workable.
Quote from: Hobby on January 18, 2021, 12:03
To be fair, Brian, the only grade which will cause issues is the one on the inside right track and I'd certainly agree with you! The grade on the outer (back) section looks fine.
What reverse curves, though, other than the loops? The only other one is in the middle at the top of the figure of eight and it would seem to have a straight bit in the middle which won't cause any issues, especially as stock will be pulled over it.
Yes I agree. It is the reverse curves lower left will be the worst. Any train in the front platform road will have to go across these.
Hi all,
Many thanks to all who gave constructive critique's on my layout, it's much appreciated. Graeme D gets the gold star and team point, as he correctly identified the layout by Inkfinger, I based it on.
I am new to 009, only having a live steam 16mm garden railway before. I had to give it up due to knackered knees and hips, making it impossible to get down to ground level. Firing the loco's on a bench was OK, it was just the maintenance that did for me. I only have limited space indoors, and got permission from SWMBO, for a 2' x 4' layout in our spare bedroom. Having no experience of working gradients in 009, I searched Youtube for layouts, and I thought Inkfinger,s layout ticked all the boxes, and that I knew it all worked. I will only be having 4 wheel coaches, and small loco's. My garden railway was based on the the early Talyllyn, and so had only 4 wheel coaches.
Onward and Upwards
I have a layout with 9 inch curves and 1:25 grades. As well as having light weight good running rollingstock and as much lead as posiable in the locos, you will find it is the coupling overhang that is the main issue not the size of the vehicle. For example bogie coaches with the coupling on the bogies are fine, but some short wheelbase 4 wheel coaches with the couplings fixed to the body are not!
It is all about testing.
In general the tightere the curves the more problems you get and reverse curves make this issue with couplings twice as bad!
Not that you are building a model of the Talyllyn, but just to give you an idea the curves and points on the TR that use side buffers work out at about 52 inch radius in 009! The curves on the WHR/FR work out at about 28 inch radius.
Quote from: David Banks on January 19, 2021, 09:19
Hi all,
Many thanks to all who gave constructive critique's on my layout, it's much appreciated. Graeme D gets the gold star and team point, as he correctly identified the layout by Inkfinger, I based it on.
;D
I'm taken with the plan too. I think it is almost a certainty that Cyril Freezer or someone such like produced a similar plan donkey's years ago. I like the way it uses the space in the centre of the baseboard where a plain 'twice round' folded figure of eight does not.
Choosing ones stock carefully and no doubt with a good bit of fettling to ensure smooth running, curves and slopes can be pushed rather a lot as this example shows:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lbdod_dXJU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lbdod_dXJU)
https://www.zelmeroz.com/album_model/members/klyzlr/DynamiteCanyon.pdf (https://www.zelmeroz.com/album_model/members/klyzlr/DynamiteCanyon.pdf)
Not that I'm condoning going to those extremes!
Many thanks B Meldon & GraemeD,
The radius on all curves are 9", or thereabouts, and in buying stock I have tried to research before purchase, that they will negotiate 9" rad's. The only one that is near the 9" limit is the WHR Baldwin with sound....I just couldn't resist it :). I should also add, that although the layout plan shows set track points, I am using 12" rad electrofrog points instead, I couldn't be bothered to change them on the plan. I drew the track layout on the baseboards, and it worked out OK with the longer points, it just means shorter rakes. Inkfinger used the 12" points on his layout as well.
I have also bought quite a few GVT and Ffestiniog bug boxes for when the Prince loco comes out.
Inkfinger's layout shows a Liliput diesel, so I bought one of those also.
In Anyrail 6, I have 2D modelled all the buildings I have bought to use on the layout, and added them to the library for others to use.
I admire your handiwork with the scenic components in Anyrail. I don't have the patience to do more than plain rectangles for buildings and jaggy outlines of cuttings etc.
Hi Graeme, I used to be a 3D CAD designer at the Jaguar LandRover Design Studio before retirement 10 years ago, so using a very simple 2D cad package was easy. My laptop is not powerful enough to use the 3D package, so it had to be something simple.
I have had a look at the FreeCad, which doesn't need the power of Catia V5, so I will probably have a go at that sometime.
Really interesting reading through all the discussion on the plan.
Quote from: GraemeD on January 19, 2021, 10:57
I think it is almost a certainty that Cyril Freezer or someone such like produced a similar plan donkey's years ago.
Indeed! A similar 009 scheme - Shortwaite Hill - based on a modified Cyril Freezer plan features in the March Railway Modeller and is very effective.
Quote from: James S on February 13, 2021, 21:03
Really interesting reading through all the discussion on the plan.
Quote from: GraemeD on January 19, 2021, 10:57
I think it is almost a certainty that Cyril Freezer or someone such like produced a similar plan donkey's years ago.
Indeed! A similar 009 scheme - Shortwaite Hill - based on a modified Cyril Freezer plan features in the March Railway Modeller and is very effective.
I look forward to reading it. Unfortunately I'll have to be patient. The snow plough cleared the road this afternoon and the drifts are already chest-height again! To keep me going I found this:
http://grums009andgn15lines.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-first-public-display-for-shortwaite.html (http://grums009andgn15lines.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-first-public-display-for-shortwaite.html)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM7JWv1Duwc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM7JWv1Duwc)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6rKJk9EPhFg/XOQknPN8oEI/AAAAAAAADjY/u97mz12EJf4stnn8rsYGFUEfLmGJQkcrgCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_3298b.JPG)