I am working on an Inglenook as an aid to learning about OO9. It is progressing satisfactorily albeit not to the standard I imagine a couple of months ago! :)
I have been thinking about my first 'proper' layout and I have noticed that most layouts I see on the internet are designed for viewing from the front and operating from the back for exhibition. I won't be showing mine so I want front viewing and operation. I have a 4' by 2.5' table to fit it onto.
I intend to have something similar to Llanfair C as my main station but in S. Shropshire in the 1930's. Plenty of goods wagons and a useful passenger timetable
Should I look at end to end in a U shape on the table or an oval?
3ft is enough for a station based on Llanfair C., then you'd have enough to do the U shape with fiddle yard behind. You could operate all the points in the station by wire in tube or similar to keep it simple. If you decide on end to end you'd need to add the fiddle yard on the end thus making it longer. Personally I'd go eith the U shape.
I agree with Blair that a terminus to fiddle yard on opposite sides of the U is a good solution. A scenic divide running along the spine of the layout will help with the illusion of running from place to place.
There is also a design called a Deane fiddle yard used most famously by Wilbert Awdry and recently used in a layout called Handcross in Railway Modeller in February 2018. I don't know if this will fit for your plans, but it is a clever way of getting a continous run and a terminus in one design. https://tinyurl.com/4pw2uuwd (https://tinyurl.com/4pw2uuwd)
Julian
I like that! The best of both worlds. I can see that having an end-to-end layout one may wish that sometimes is was possible just to set trains running and that with some continuous run layouts one may hanker after the operation of a terminus.
Quote from: Hobby on February 28, 2021, 16:38
3ft is enough for a station based on Llanfair C., then you'd have enough to do the U shape with fiddle yard behind. You could operate all the points in the station by wire in tube or similar to keep it simple. If you decide on end to end you'd need to add the fiddle yard on the end thus making it longer. Personally I'd go eith the U shape.
I see you are thinking of a different U to me. My thought was a U from the two short edges of the table and a single long side with the terminus on a curve with me sitting front and centre and convenient to terminus on my left and fiddle yard on my right.
I very much like the idea of keeping the points simple.
Thanks for the advice.
Quote from: Julian Evison on February 28, 2021, 17:23
I don't know if this will fit for your plans, but it is a clever way of getting a continous run and a terminus in one design. https://tinyurl.com/4pw2uuwd (https://tinyurl.com/4pw2uuwd)
I think I remember seeing that in an old Cyril Freezer book. It's an excellent link - thanks - and a clever idea but difficult to operate the fiddle yard except from the back of the layout, I think.
Thanks for the help.
*
Over the last quarter century I have built and exhibited seven narrow gauge layouts in a variety of scales. All of them both at home and exhibitions have been operated from the front.
I note that you speak of having a 4ft x 2.5ft area on which to place the layout.
On the one hand I think that the resulting 10sq ft will give an adequate and ample space for a layout in "OO9".
On the other I feel that it is the wrong shape.
Were you able to use that area as (say) 8ft long x 1.25ft deep then I am certain it would accommodate a very good terminus to fiddle yard layout that could be easily operated from the front (of the fiddle yard).
However, if the available space is a fixed shape then the advice already given by Julian Evison is of great merit. I would suggest it would be possible to operate a layout with a Deane style fiddle yard (and the already cited "Handcross" layout in RM, February 2018 is an excellent modern example) from the right hand side.
CP
I agree about the Deane style of layout (Freezer did quite a few in his track plan books, btw), I'm not 100% convinced it would fit comfortably in that size of board. I assume that the space available is limited to the board size in the original post, hence although I suggested what Christopher also suggested, in effect a separate fiddle yard added to the end, I still feel if you are limited to that board a U shape is the best...
One thing, you haven't said what sized points you wish to use, on small layouts like this that can make all the difference, both in what you can do and how it looks. Peco Mainline points would be too large, but of the other two if you want realism and are not bothered about a continuous run then 12" Peco points will work well with the U shape and using 9" set track points and curves you should just manage to fit a Deane style layout in that space.
That reminds me of a thread I started several years ago (not here): "long and thin or short and fat?". I was hoping to get some debate on the pros and cons of different layout shapes but it petered out fairly quickly.
Long and thin clearly lends itself to end-to-end runs and shelf-like or round the wall arrangements. Deeper and shorter baseboards suggest continuous runs or folding back into a U-shape. A U-shape gives a longer straight run than a continuous loop. Given that the baseboard area is set at 4' x 2'6" there are many possible ways to use that space.
The shorter side (i.e. the depth) sets the radius limit and if it is greater than the minimum curve diameter the options are to relax the radius, provide more baseboard in front of the track or perhaps set an oval (or a U) at an angle to the front edge. This gives a slightly longer 'straight' run. In relaxing the radius easement or transition curves can be incorporated and perhaps gentler curves in visible areas and tighter ones hidden behind back scenes.
A U-shaped layout could be more horseshoe-like with say the fiddle yard sections parallel to the back edge and the front track being almost diagonal.
Greater depth in a baseboard offers up more scope for scenic modelling, in front of as well as behind the track. Good use can be made of height, covering or partly covering the fiddle yard area at the potential cost of ease of access and visibility.
Other possibilities given the extra depth are double-sided layouts with a scenic divider down the middle (or offset) anything from parallel to an edge to diagonal. This could lend itself to contrasting (e.g. urban/rural) scenes or having one main scenic area and a more functional semi-scenic fiddle yard area (e.g. a less prototypical density and layout of sidings and mixed passenger and goods trains parked up.)
Yet another possibility with a continuous run is to divide the scene into three with a fiddle yard or loop at one 'short' end. Yurze Ore Mine is a bit like this as is another layout whose name escapes me.
Perhaps something to consider for home use is that scenic dividers do not have to be as rigid or blatant as an exhibition layout which has to cater for various heights of viewer and tall ones peering over the top - if it is deemed essential to hide the workings of the layout. At home one can have two perspectives; sitting down to see one side and standing up, or even just sitting up and craning, to see over a scenic divider. There are a number of examples of 'soft' scenic dividers, 'hiding in plain sight' and storage in cuttings producing the model railway equivalent of a haha or its modern equivalent the infinity pool.
The horseshoe layout also allows a slightly larger station area than the conventional U shape. I feel it looks better as well, no track parallel to the baseboard edge and the ability to use subtle curves.
Quote from: GraemeD on March 01, 2021, 11:15
Yet another possibility with a continuous run is to divide the scene into three with a fiddle yard or loop at one 'short' end. Yurze Ore Mine is a bit like this as is another layout whose name escapes me.
Was the other layout Nixnie?
https://www.009society.com/forum/index.php?topic=883.0
Frank
Thank you all. There is plenty there to think about.
I will mull it over as I progress with my Inglenook and contemplate starting indoor negotiations for an 8' long layout in front of the conservatory bookshelves.
On the question that was asked about points I intend to use the OO9 small radius live frog points.
They are Peco 12" then, the set track are dead frog.
One other question we should have asked was whether you prefer end to end or continuous run but with that last post you've answered it!
Quote from: Derek Clark on March 01, 2021, 20:01
..... contemplate starting indoor negotiations for an 8' long layout in front of the conservatory bookshelves.....
*
In my previous post I suggested a length of 8ft on the basis that I felt 4ft x 2.5ft was agood area but wrong shape.
If a length of 8ft does become available a good terminus to fiddle yard layout will be possible, perhaps even permitting a short run of station approach between the two.
However, I would further suggest that as much as 8ft would not be essential. For short trains and using 12ins radius Peco points a simple terminus might be achieved in as little as 3ft of length. Obviously more might be better.
As for the length needed for the fiddle yard that would depend on its design. A fan of sidings would be relatively long, but other approaches (including the use of cassettes) would make it somewhat less.
CP
Quote from: Hobby on March 01, 2021, 20:07
One other question we should have asked was whether you prefer end to end or continuous run but with that last post you've answered it!
Now that is a question I was hoping to clear up for myself!
I sort of lean toward around and around. I cannot think why I should because I think the merits of end to end are obvious in terms of running a timetable and that is the only reason I can think of for having a model railway.
I am drawn to Cyril Freezer's S34 - A Winter's Layout. If I modelled the station as an approximation of Llanfair C and use the reversing loop but leave the industrial area to be developed later that might work. There are some modern variations of it that look nice. When I have the Inglenook running I will know if shunting is enough to maintain my interest and that may help towards deciding on the 'proper' layout.
A Winters Layout would fit the table and prevent confrontation in the conservatory!
Thanks again
Ah yes, the "out and back" layout. For those who don't know this layout it was designed by CJF to fit in the alcove one side of the fireplace and had a station at the front and the main line went round the back and then back towards the front, climbing as it did and at a high level at the back there was a reverse loop, someone on RMWeb did what looks like an Anyrail version, I've seen a few over the years and they make a nice layout...
https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-6882-0-97466000-1387828814.jpg
Quote from: Frank on March 01, 2021, 18:52
Quote from: GraemeD on March 01, 2021, 11:15
Yet another possibility with a continuous run is to divide the scene into three with a fiddle yard or loop at one 'short' end. Yurze Ore Mine is a bit like this as is another layout whose name escapes me.
Was the other layout Nixnie?
https://www.009society.com/forum/index.php?topic=883.0
Frank
No, but that's another good example. Thanks. Even without the addition of the extension through the 'Hagrid door', the passing loop in the station allows operation of alternating trains.
The layout I'm thinking of was more elongated but designed to be viewed (short) end on. The track looped behind a backscene. The baseboard was built and possibly the track laid by a professional builder or another modeller for the owner to add the scenic work. It had a smart built-in lighting pelmet giving the feel of a kiosk or stall. I've forgotten if it had 'hard sky' dividing down the middle or a soft scenic break such as trees. For some reason sand dunes spring to mind, but it was not the Shifting Sands layout. (OK, that one is 09 not 009, but I'm fairly sure the layout I'm thinking of is 009.)