A Bridge too Far? Advice, Commentary, Outright Condemnation Requested.

[Chops]

A large mass of North American rolling stock was sold off on eBay, most of it not very good, that I might focus on my first love, British OO. The original intent was to use the newly freed 4x8, split down the length, to create a shelf L with a reversing transit that could go either to the left or to the right. Not being literate in CAD, my method is to eyeball the general design, then tweak it from there. However, to my surprise, there is barely enough real estate to place a balloon-like reversing loop. Such an arrangement would only permit one orbit before reversing direction, and the shelf arrangement, with a width of 2 feet doesn't look possible.

Theoretically, a different approach could be made upon the left side, but this would become a peninsula, rather than a shelf, and impinge on the available space of the garage. The table, in theory, could be rotated against the right sided wall, but a two foot passage would be needed to access the rear, and the shelf would traverse next to the garage door, subject to penetrating wind and dust that frequents us.

My present thinking is to bag the whole project before I make a hopeless mess of things. Cobbler, stick to your last.

IMG_20211002_105828.jpg

A rather awkward balloon shape evolves. Perhaps if the rightmost 1/4 of the ovals was completely redone, a more perpendicular approach could be achieved.

IMG_20211002_105909.jpg

A little hard to see, but two adjoining diamonds permit a transit from the inner loop to the proposed extension.

[Chops]

Or perhaps convert the outermost siding into a section leading into the L, and then reversing back onto the outer loop. Not very imaginative, but perhaps a better fit. Thus, the outer loop becomes a boot shaped affair.

[Chops]

As I keep looking at this blank slab, and the idea of what basically is a balloon extending off the outer main line, I am not as inspired as originally. Whilst tiding up I came across this old track plan; not sure where I pulled it out from, maybe it's a Hornby plan. I do want to do something
different than the current double oval arrangement, and this invites the simultaneous function of four trains, divided by the crossings.

The complexity of it, in a simple format, is appealing. What is not appealing is that the 8' x 6' span, which will create a 3' foot reach. My experience is that anything over 2.5' in depth is difficult, but perhaps this is mitigated by the tracks being close to the edges.

I would prefer using #6, or large radius, switches (to accommodate double bogie coaches) but at a glance, the turnouts favored in this plan seem to be short radius, or #4.

I'm not terribly enthusiastic for DCC, as periodically reading the DCC threads herein leads me to think it can require a lot of deductive troubleshooting, which is not my keenest interest. At the same time, the arrangement, were four trains running, would require close attention, and that does appeal.

IMG_20211206_221319.jpg

[glencairn]

Just my 2cents worth, Chops.

I am not in favour of an oblong board, no matter the size. There seems to be too many restrictions for me. Access to areas being the main.

I favour an around the room layout; be it one side, L shape, U shape etc. Each giving easy access to all the layout. Longer train route.

An 8ft x 6ft board. = 3 boards 8 x 2. One board 8 x 2 is the same size as Sovereign Street with a fiddle yard.
Four boards 6 x 2 whatever. Building one board at a time and extending as time passes.

Oh! How it reminds me how I built Crown Point & Sovereign Street.

As I say, Chops; just my 2cents worth.

Other members will 'chip in' with other suggestions I am sure.

Whatever you do I am sure will be right for you.

Glencairn

[Chops]

Thank you for that, narrow shelves beat out broad expanses for ease of construction and use. If I like this track plan as much as I think I do,
it cannot be done other than slab. I am hoping that given the rail runs along the perimeters will ease the trouble of access. creating a pop up is not feasible.

What I am left to wonder is if this can be reasonably done with #6, or broad, radius turnouts.

[glencairn]

What I am left to wonder is if this can be reasonably done with #6, or broad, radius turnouts.

Cannot help you there, Chops.

I know in many old plans radius 1 and 2 were the normal one used. Then rolling stock got larger and radius 1 is a no-no.

Maybe someone here knows of the plan and the radii used and what size board is needed to have radius 3 and 4 track?

Glencairn

[andruec]

My board is a rectangle, 2.1m by 1.5m. Several people here warned me that access to the track in middle would be a pain. They were right It's okay for just plonking things down but actually building the central section and mezzanine at the back required several minutes of standing with my arms outstretched while trying to finagle track into fishplates. I got it done so it's not impossible but my next layout will go around the sides of the room. Lesson learned

[Chops]

Yes, I will need to employ some kind of step ladder if the centre is to be reached.

[IanS]

Yes, I will need to employ some kind of step ladder if the centre is to be reached.

Or grow longer arms and legs!

[Chops]

Leaning against the wall for the last couple of years is a module from when I was promoting the model train club's modular layout (thing was a man-killer). It was previously assumed that it would be four feet in length, I needed at least five feet to extend Henley. Standing next to it, I realized that it was as tall as me, and I am six feet. And it already has legs. All that will be required from a baseboard point of view is to clamp it onto Henley and adjust the height. I'm doing this thing. Double mainline that can accommodate four trains running simultaneously? Who needs DCC when I can wreck trains (I'll try not to) when I can do it in DC?? Happy Day.