Rabbit Warren for the Young and Old!

[tedp]

Roy - I missed this since at the moment I'm actualy exhibiting Nixnie in a four-day marathon. I have to be off again shortly so I'll keep this short.

I used standard Peco 12" radius points on Nixnie. The main line curves are down to 9" radius however. If storage space in your place is that narrow I would suggest building a layout in two halves which you can connect up back to back to form a continuous run. The result would be slightly under 36" square to allow for easy storage. Build separate back to back scenes on each portion - I'd be surprised if you wouldn't be able to use 12" radius curves all over.

[Graeme Dunbar]

Now, there's and idea - if the two halves have their own backscene and you make them self-contained shunting layouts that can be connected together then you take just one out at at time to work on or for a quick running session.

For shunting to shuffle wagons, three sidings and a headshunt or a loop and a couple of sidings is a good starting point. There are several examples on Carl Arent's web site and here:
http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/

Inglenook sidings shares many similarities with the puzzle and artificial intelligence/robotics test "Towers of Hanoi".

[Elmgate]

Thanks all for the info, having now read thru, it would appear that a rabbit warren in the space I have is really not a possibility if I want good running.

Living in a very small bungalow space is really at a minimum, I have a shelf in a cupboard for storage which is 38" x 20"deep and 15" high, therefore 2 hinged boards 36" x 18" is a maximum, giving a layout of 72" x 18" but that now seems out due to the max radius of curves being 7", a thought I have had is to perhaps to hinge the boards down the long sides which then gives me a 36" square board to play with and plenty of room for the larger radius curves.

I have read elsewhere on the web that the larger radius points are preferred to the smaller 12" radius type, is that correct as due to the lack of space I would think the smaller would suit my purposes better, and I would like a couple of sidings for interest.

Just thinking out a loud here.

The Peco 12" points are quite acceptable, unless you want multi-wheeled monster locomotives!  :o However, if you can fit 18" points in, then they will look better (IMHO). The idea of hinging on the long side sounds good - perhaps you would not need the full 36" deep; since you originally thought of hinging to produce 72" long, I assume you propose to extract the layout from the cupboard, and then swing over the top baseboard? I have planned, and half constructed, a similar arrangement, producing a 48" x 36" board.

[Roy Parkes]

My attempt at producing the same track plan [Anyrail5] as Nixnie using 9" rad curves and 12" points, am I missing some thing because no matter how I try I can not replicate the original with a horizontal straight loop, only curved?
If I do the loop is very, very short!

[tedp]

I've never used Anyrail - I simply laid out the points and the curves in the available space and shoved them around a bit. Nixnie by the way is much more limited regarding space than the 36x36 you have. You have space for a station on a curve which I hadn't.

Your plan needs flowing curves instead of a succession of straights and curves. No need to limit yourself to 9" curves either.

I would suggest to move one or both loop points towards the baseboard join and sketch in the curvature using pencil, freehand. The siding at the bottom is very short as well - curve it slightly within the main line and you'll have much more space. And add a siding to the loop similar to Nixnie, otherwise your operating options become very limited. Leave at least one locomotive length between a loop point and the baseboard join.

[Graeme Dunbar]

I like Anyrail. It is simple enough to pick up on an infrequent occasion. With Anyrail, if you set the minimum curve radius to the value you want it is possible to experiment with flowing curves - just watch for the red line indicating you have pushed it too far..

I end up drawing many versions of a layout. The ones I am reasonably happy with, I save (even if there is just one aspect that looks right). For 'work in progress' I copy and paste the original as a reference point and either move it off the baseboard area or move it to another layer.

Another thing you can try is varying the distance from the edge. If the track at the join is hidden or disguised, you may be able to move it a bit closer to the edge, but probably very little. On the other hand, you can move loop 'South' a bit and the sidings 'North' quite a lot and make space for a lot more going on in front of the main circuit if you want it.

Making the loop asymmetric by extending it round the curve on the left or right might help too. It will help disguise the size limitations and make the loop longer.

(I've alluded to it before, but for layout design there is a lot that can be learned from gardening books, particularly on the design of small rectangular suburban gardens. The temptation is to put everything round the edge which just accentuates the size restriction.)

[Graeme Dunbar]

I have just tried re-creating Nixnie in AnyRail and I think I may have figured it out. Ted says he used N gauge setrack curves, but I'm not sure that he specified which brand. I cannot fit the layout in the space using Peco Setrack 228 mm radius curves, but with Arnold 192 mm radius curves it looks hopeful.

Edit: on second thoughts, the setrack appears to be in 30 degree sections - so perhaps Ibertren 194.6 mm radius.

[tedp]

I used either Minitrix or Roco 19.5cm radius. These are 30 degree sections. However, if you use them for the square plan you will end up with fixed curves and straights which don't look very natural. Try a mix of 19.5 and 22.5cm radius.

Extending the loop round one curve is exactly what I meant.

[tedp]

I just realised that 19.5cm radius as used on Nixnie is about 8", not 9". Apologies if I caused confusion.

[Graeme Dunbar]

Now there's the rub: once you start asking questions you get all sorts of answers. :laugh:

True, larger radius curves are more 'prototypical' and permit the running of bigger stock. If you are interested in large locomotives and long trains then a small layout is not a good place to start. On the other hand, small locos, wagons and short trains can be persuaded to negotiate very tight curves and will not overwhelm a small layout. Kato and other similar tram chassis are used in a number of 009 locomotive kits and tram track is of even sharper radius. However trams generally do not pull long trains and pushing long trains in particular may result in derailments.

Nixnie runs very nicely (I saw it at the Convention), and as we now know, it has rather tight curves. However in the context of a small layout they do not look out of place. Such tight curves are likely to look ridiculous set in a large loft or club exhibition layout.

[Graeme Dunbar]

I've just been reading a thread in that "other place" (NG railway modelling online) that bears some similarities with the overall plan here.

http://ngrm-online.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11854-united-plantations-09-layout-set-inthe-caribbean/

It is a fascinating layout but note the comments on the overcomplexity of the original plan and also the point about no run-around loop. I'm not entirely sure how the layout will be operated but it seems possible for locomotives to get stuck at the wrong end of a siding unless they uncouple and run right round the circuit to attach to the other end of the train.

[Roy Parkes]

Taken on board all advice given and have come up with the following simple plan for my small layout.

Radius are 12" or 10" and all points are 12".

Its all very rough at the moment, details to sort.



Any thoughts please.

[tedp]

Not bad at all, Roy. Plenty of operating scope, and I like that fiddle yard idea.

Having said that, the sidings can have a slight curve - they tend to follow the main line as railway land usually was narrow. It makes for a more natural flow and you'll have more siding length. Not too tight a curve as you need to couple up rolling stock.

I wouldn't change it otherwise.

[John Atkinson]

My thanks to Roy for starting this topic and to the others for the other postings.

As I contemplate what options I have for building a new layout which is lighter and significantly easier to transport and erect than Kaprun (SLB), the ideas and examples given here have helped my thinking. Thank you one and all.

John

[Graeme Dunbar]

The fiddle yard is a good idea. I see the potential for using it as is with storage for two trains, as a staging area (add and remove trains) or attaching cassettes if when your stock increases.

Also in terms of 'playability' the back-to-back halves mean two people (young or old) can dispatch trains to one another, potentially with a third 'supervisor' on duty looking after the fiddle yard.

If not a full backscene between the two halves, you could have a scenic break between them so the track on the other side is partly or wholly obscured. If you have two operators facing each other they would be able to see each other but not fully what is happening at track level. That might add to the interest for young operators. It could be buildings, hill, cliff, retaining wall, trees etc. etc. I see 'road bridge' indicated: if it was moved to the bottom near the join (or even over it if it was removable) it would make and effective scenic break.

If the 'players' are up to some shunting, I might consider adding another siding to the 'Cidermill' side. It would give the opportunity to (presumably) drop off empties or raw materials and pick up the finished product.

Ted P. has described a system of coloured tokens here or non NGRM-online that are placed in or on goods wagons to represent various goods.

On the other hand of course you may be visualising the two halves as one scene with 'Cidermill' as part of the station complex and the rest of the world behind the backscene.