SE&CR Caterham 1899 (was 'what process can I use...')

[Lacathedrale]

I've recently purchased a home with a 35' x 10' finished attic, and so for the first time in my life not only do I have a permanent space, but I have a BIG permanent space to use. I've been trying to pull together some longer-term plans about what could go up there, which is giving me something to think about when I've got nothing else to do. In the past I have tinkered with a few different layout styles. Every one of them brought different things to the table:

• US HO-scale was fun for switching but I had no personal investment in the setting, and shuttling cars from one switching yard to another was quite dry
• US N-scale gave me the opportunity for mainline freight and alternating mainline/local services with lots of switching, but really required two people
• EM (just a test plank) got me into modelling rather than purchasing.
• S7 (another test plank) really got my juices flowing with regard to kit construction and even more detailed modelling.

Restrictions

• Accessed via extendable ladder and relatively small hatchway, so requires modules no larger than 5' x 18" each. 
• While insulated is not heated, one or two modules must drop-out for use elsewhere in the house.
• There are joists 8' in from the ends, so activity must be centred in the middle of the area.

Desires

• Must be operable by one person and must provide ACTUAL operational interest (not just a shunting puzzle)
• If in an appropriate scale, use the ends of the attic for return loops (or just plain loops). 
• Focus on realistic use of spacing, clearance, etc.

From this, it appears that I only have a few options:

• Focus on the detail - S7 Pre-grouping small branch line terminus (since I can't have return loops), but sacrifice operational interest
• Focus on the operations - HO American in some other permutation, but sacrifice any kind of aesthetic consideration
• Focus on some kind of melange - S-scale British with a slightly bigger BLT (or a pair of stations), EM-gauge British with multiple layers, etc.

 

I just don't really know how to go about narrowing this down! Any pointers would be much appreciated.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Lacathedrale

[Zomboid]

What do you enjoy most about the hobby? It sounds to me like you enjoy operating, so anything that doesn't have that is probably not going to satisfy you. It doesn't matter what you're modelling that much in that context, rather how you're operating it. (Operational fun doesn't preclude the other aspects such as making scenery).

Personally I do American HO, and operation is usually with computer generated switch lists. This means that every thing I do has some kind of purpose, and even though I'm switching a the same place again and again it doesn't get boring. It also helps that i am involved with a modular system, so the overall layout is different every time, and only generally happens once a month... There's no reason why that same style of operating couldn't be applied to a traditional BLT in any scale you like, of course, or any other layout, but maybe that's the end to start from.

[BR60103]

The late John Armstrong (American track planning guru) came up with a "by the squares" layout planner.  A square was a square (!) with a side of radius plus twice the double track spacing. IIRC.

This size was divided into your space to give a number. He had tables (I can look them up if I find the book) showing what features took up how many squares. I think a roundhouse took 1 1/4 squares and a pair of industries took so many. 

The size of the square was dependent on the radius, which was related to the size of the rolling stock -- pre-grouping/branch-line would take smaller than main line express trains.

 

He also came up with the table of "Givens and Druthers*" where his customers could list what they would like and what the limitations were (beam across spce, cistern here). That's somewhere on the forum.

Here:  http://rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13299#p207071

 

* If I had my druthers/I'd druther have my druthers/Than anything else at all.

Edited December 2, 2017 by BR60103

[Lacathedrale]

What do you enjoy most about the hobby? It sounds to me like you enjoy operating, so anything that doesn't have that is probably not going to satisfy you. It doesn't matter what you're modelling that much in that context, rather how you're operating it. (Operational fun doesn't preclude the other aspects such as making scenery).

Personally I do American HO, and operation is usually with computer generated switch lists. This means that every thing I do has some kind of purpose, and even though I'm switching a the same place again and again it doesn't get boring. It also helps that i am involved with a modular system, so the overall layout is different every time, and only generally happens once a month... There's no reason why that same style of operating couldn't be applied to a traditional BLT in any scale you like, of course, or any other layout, but maybe that's the end to start from.

 

I made a huge layout based on Lance Mindheim's CSX Miami - prototypically correct wagon-load traffic in an urban switching setting with period correct industries, locomotives, etc. - and my other more fully formed US layout was  the ATSF mainline at Amarillo with ABBA F-units pulling express reefer trains and a local shortline interchange. For all intents and purposes these should have provided the absolute highest level of operational interest, but ultimately failed to captivate me for very long. I've come to realise in myself that the 'wille zur macht' i.e. the desire to become and to bring into being is very strong (even to the extent where it can override more pragmatic concerns about a given idea's longevity).

 

The crux of the matter appears to me that the US-style of operations provides the meat, but British outline provides the connection and stability. I'm currently perusing this website to see if I can get a wagon-load freight operation running in British practise - http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gansg/7-fops/007-index.htm. Itseems that there are basically the same concepts as US switching; there are rules for marshalling wagons in orders, in different cuts for pick-up goods trains, etc. but I've never seen this kind of operation actually performed on a British layout.

 

The late John Armstrong (American track planning guru) came up with a "by the squares" layout planner.  A square was a square (!) with a side of radius plus twice the double track spacing. IIRC.

This size was divided into your space to give a number. He had tables (I can look them up if I find the book) showing what features took up how many squares. I think a roundhouse took 1 1/4 squares and a pair of industries took so many. 

The size of the square was dependent on the radius, which was related to the size of the rolling stock -- pre-grouping/branch-line would take smaller than main line express trains.

 

He also came up with the table of "Givens and Druthers*" where his customers could list what they would like and what the limitations were (beam across spce, cistern here). That's somewhere on the forum.

Here:  http://rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13299#p207071

 

* If I had my druthers/I'd druther have my druthers/Than anything else at all.

 

That's a nice link, thank you. I'm not sure that I need to compress as much into my space as humanly possible, but maybe I can use this as a kind of meta-planner. In my mind I'm seeing low storage units (for general attic tat) supporting to main sections of layout that are opposite each other, like so. Bear in mind one has to  climb over these joists so not a problem to get into the middle, it will make access to either side 'during a session' a bit of a pain:

 

(not to scale, will get some proper measurements today)

 

I reckon that using these long spaces for single objects (whether they are marshalling yards, BLTs, junctions, etc.) would allow me to really take advantage of the space - instead of just having a bigger version of those super-compressed mini-layouts that I've tried in the past.

 

Ultimately my choice between 4mm and 7mm is borne by two questions: whether I can get a 180' turn in 7mm in the space I have available (maybe even in S7 again), and whether I can get the wheels I would want if I were to kit-build things. I am happy to scratchbuild the chassis and body from drawings (or at least, to try) but I'm not quite at the stage of casting my own wheels. This is particularly a consideration given that pre-grouping or early 20's will allow me to utilise smaller carriages and trains without due compression.

[F-UnitMad]

I have an O Scale loft layout in 17ft x 8ft; it is US-Outline 2-rail, & the stock takes 36inch radius curves just fine, so a 180° turn is easily acheived. Because it's built on what started as an HO layout, one corner does pinch right down to 26inch radius. This does limit me to 4-axle Geeps; my Atlas SD40 (6-axle) can get round the curve but will derail stock. But longer stock such as 72ft Centerbeam Flats can still get round - just!!

I haven't even attempted to see what British O models would be like, even on the 36" curves. I suspect there'd be a lot of buffer-locking and stretched 3-links!!!

 

My main considerations with this layout also followed some of Sir Lance Mindheim's (may his disciples prosper) guidelines, before even considering trackplans or prototypes - how much can you afford to build, how much time will it take, & how much time have you actually got..??!!

[LNER4479]

The crux of the matter appears to me that the US-style of operations provides the meat, but British outline provides the connection and stability. I'm currently perusing this website to see if I can get a wagon-load freight operation running in British practise - http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gansg/7-fops/007-index.htm. Itseems that there are basically the same concepts as US switching; there are rules for marshalling wagons in orders, in different cuts for pick-up goods trains, etc. but I've never seen this kind of operation actually performed on a British layout.

Hi,

 

I was struck by this comment in reading through your thread so far. Much of Britain's railways was operated on this basis prior to the 1960's when freight was the dominant traffic. Marshalling yards, based on the 'hub and spoke' method of operation were located all over the country. But you are right that they are not often modelled - I suspect because passenger trains are simply more 'sexy' and many layouts are based around passenger operation with a loco depot and perhaps a token goods yard.

 

My previous layout 'Gowhole Sidings' was based on a marshalling yard and I ran three freight trains for every one passenger train. Exactly as you say, the operation of wagon load freight was the focus of the layout with a constant procession of trains arriving in the yard and being reformed for their onward destinations. The link to the thread is in my signature below. It was in a loft; although not to your dimensions, it might give you some ideas.

 

A couple of other thoughts whilst I'm on:

 

35' x 10' is certainly a lovely space to contemplate - in OO. Once you consider O gauge, you can (virtually) halve that - in fact you quarter it in terms of surface area. Think of it as 17' x 5' in OO. A very different prospect. If the 'chunkiness' and weight of O gauge captivates you and you are happy with a branch line and / or very tight curves then worth considering. Otherwise...

 

You say that it will largely be you and sole operation. A comprehensive OO mainline layout could be laid out in that space but might require 3-4 operators to make it 'zing'. Conversely, you infer that the building of the thing could give you as much satisfaction as running it, in which case a longer term, comprehensive project that you spend 10-15 years gradually building up with occasional full operating sessions when link-minded friends visit might actually be OK. This was certainly the case for me with Gowhole. I worked at it for the best part of 20 years and there was still more to do when work ceased. This was punctuated with occasional operating sessions with visitors which were very enjoyable.

 

Don't be constrained by the rectangular shape you have! At the very least, a lifting bridge piece could link the two sides together to create a complete circuit. Gowhole wandered from side to side to get away from the four-sides-at-90-degrees syndrome. With careful design I'm sure it could still be broken down into removable sections that you can take downstairs to work on as you state.

 

Some photos of the space you have might be useful to help us visualise things.

 

Hope that help (a bit!)

[Chimer]

You might find this thread on (mostly) UK freight ops interesting .....

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/93888-model-freight-train-operation/

 

The OP's subsequent adventures putting his developed ideas into action can be found scattered about in his layout thread .....

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/93639-virney-junction-scenery-ongoing/

 

On the more general original question, you obviously have confidence in your ability to work to finer-scale* standards, but won't it take a helluva long time to get to the point where you can operate at all if you want to fill that space to those standards, especially in 4mm?

 

Cheers

 

Chris

 

* by which I mean (thinking 4mm) anything other than standard 00.

[BG John]

Potentially I might have more space available than you, not in a loft, but in three adjoining rooms, although I think I will be sticking with about  a third of that, which is what I'm using at the moment.

 

I've currently got seven small layouts at various stages of development, so that's a way to resolve the problem of choice of prototypes! They're in a mix of 4mm and 7mm scales. Operational interest will hopefully come from the variety of different layouts, one for each day of the week(!), rather than one big layout with lots of facilities. When (or rather if!) they're all finished, I still have a head full of ideas for more .

 

On your point about not being able to have return loops, a train turntable would take up a lot less space, and perform the same function. It could be automated if required. When not it use it would only occupy the length and width of a train, and it could swing across passageways, or above/below other layouts.

[Lacathedrale]

Thank you all for the advice and kind thoughts.

 

 

Potentially I might have more space available than you, not in a loft, but in three adjoining rooms, although I think I will be sticking with about  a third of that, which is what I'm using at the moment.

 

I've currently got seven small layouts at various stages of development, so that's a way to resolve the problem of choice of prototypes! They're in a mix of 4mm and 7mm scales. Operational interest will hopefully come from the variety of different layouts, one for each day of the week(!), rather than one big layout with lots of facilities. When (or rather if!) they're all finished, I still have a head full of ideas for more .

 

On your point about not being able to have return loops, a train turntable would take up a lot less space, and perform the same function. It could be automated if required. When not it use it would only occupy the length and width of a train, and it could swing across passageways, or above/below other layouts.

 

I'm hoping for the concision of a small layout, in a big layout space - I don't want to get carried on with filling the room up with ladders of trackwork JUST BECAUSE, but on the other hand I've only ever HAD room for small layouts, so I do want space for a pacific and four or five coaches to run through (well, at least in 4mm).

 

 

You might find this thread on (mostly) UK freight ops interesting .....

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/93888-model-freight-train-operation/

 

The OP's subsequent adventures putting his developed ideas into action can be found scattered about in his layout thread .....

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/93639-virney-junction-scenery-ongoing/

 

On the more general original question, you obviously have confidence in your ability to work to finer-scale* standards, but won't it take a helluva long time to get to the point where you can operate at all if you want to fill that space to those standards, especially in 4mm?

 

Cheers

 

Chris

 

* by which I mean (thinking 4mm) anything other than standard 00.

 

Reading this now, thank you. To carry on from the thought above by BG John however, I'm certainly not looking to fill the space. If we were in 4mm I think I'd be quite happy with something that was essentially a BLT, circling around on some superelevated double-track to a marshalling yard (or junction, or through station ,or whatever) and then around again to some staging underneath the BLT. More Chris Nevard than Cyril Freezer?

 

 

Hi,

....

 

Hope that help (a bit!)

 

Thank you for some great thoughts there. I'm checking out the Gowhole thread now, it seems very much up my alley both in terms of operations, physical setting and desire to remain faithful to prototypical works. It is really not my taste at all to 'play trains' and sit back watching them whizz past, but it would certainly be nice to have breathing room for a sense of moving from place to place.

 

I'm a little worried about duplicating the same problems I had with my ATSF layout, (pictured below just so this isn't a wall of text) in that I will have both shunting and mainline operations, but precious little to connect the two other than one or two cars being set out by a passing express train each session. 

 

I wonder if a terminus station (like an aforementioned BLT) with a long run into and out-of may provide more concrete interaction between the various parts of the layout...

[Talltim]

I find it interesting that you don’t mention what real railways/roads you are interested in and what periods. For me that’s the starting point, I then try to work out what it is about them that draws me, only after that do I try and work out how to reproduce that in model form and how the layout should be shaped.

[Harlequin]

It sounds like you need two (or more) separate scenic locations so that there's a reason to marshal traffic at one location, send it to the other and vice versa.

 

(A scenic location connected to a non-scenic fiddle yard alone wouldn't be satisfying because you wouldn't have to follow prototype practice in the fiddle yard. The fiddle yard's track layout would be designed to work efficiently in model terms, not prototype terms, and you can just reach in and move things by hand instead of shunting.)

 

So, bearing in mind your worry about overdoing it, perhaps something like this:

1. A terminus station with goods yard. The feeder branch line(s) eventually connect to a double-track circuit of the entire space at a major junction (scenic)
2. A marshalling yard alongside the mainline double-track circuit, maybe with passenger facilities (scenic)
3. A fiddle yard (non-scenic).
4. A less busy area of the layout where passenger and goods traffic simply runs on the double-track circuit through countryside, through cityscape, alongside the coast (whatever you like!). (scenic)

Those four features could perhaps be mapped onto the four areas of your loft space.

 

The suggested double track circuit of the entire space allows trains to run for more realistic distances between the locations, rather than departing one and almost immediately arriving at the other.

 

Doing it in 4mm would help achieve the sense of openness that I think you're after and I think it would also give you enough space for a reversing loop so that "up" traffic that had departed from the terminus could become "down" traffic and arrive back at the terminus.

 

P.S. Those two cross joists might become a major annoyance so it might be worth investigating ways to remove or replace them.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Harlequin

[Lacathedrale]

Hi both, I'm sorry I've typed my reply twice, and both times it's been eaten by the PC. So,

 

 

I find it interesting that you don’t mention what real railways/roads you are interested in and what periods. For me that’s the starting point, I then try to work out what it is about them that draws me, only after that do I try and work out how to reproduce that in model form and how the layout should be shaped.

 

I've always found something to get the juices flowing but they've rarely stuck with it. Operationally it seems a British layout needs to slot into pre-1930's and definitely no later than the 1950's - i.e. wagon-load traffic, branchlines with shorter trains, varying liveries with running rights. Unfitted trains running at 10mph and vacuum fitted expresses at 40mph would further extend the 'run' I have. The only caveat is that I need somewhere to run something other than short tank locomotives. I don't need realistic homes for my Mallard, but I'll be god damned if I'm going to keep everything miniscule all the time.

 

Before I write them off entirely, can anyone can suggest reading material for operationally-interesting freight operations run by diesels (even if they were green with no yellow ends)? I grew up around the sounds of Class 37's, 33's and 73's from Hither Green MPD but the block working of shuttling whole trains just bores me to tears, as do EMUs. Any thoughts around that would be interesting (just pretend not being a sustainable option, unfortunately!)

 

Location-wise I'm not altogether bothered, though I grew up in suburban south-east London I've travelled a fair bit and really enjoyed Edinburgh, Manchester and all around rural York, the West Country and South Wales. There are flashes which inspire: grotty LMS Tanks with crimson coaches on brick viaducts, lustrous Apple-green LNER Pacifics being fussed over by an attendant shunter, or some slightly more stretched example of a Deltic and an 08 doing the same.

 

 

It sounds like you need two (or more) separate scenic locations so that there's a reason to marshal traffic at one location, send it to the other and vice versa.

 

(A scenic location connected to a non-scenic fiddle yard alone wouldn't be satisfying because you wouldn't have to follow prototype practice in the fiddle yard. The fiddle yard's track layout would be designed to work efficiently in model terms, not prototype terms, and you can just reach in and move things by hand instead of shunting.)

 

So, bearing in mind your worry about overdoing it, perhaps something like this:

1. A terminus station with goods yard. The feeder branch line(s) eventually connect to a double-track circuit of the entire space at a major junction (scenic)
2. A marshalling yard alongside the mainline double-track circuit, maybe with passenger facilities (scenic)
3. A fiddle yard (non-scenic).
4. A less busy area of the layout where passenger and goods traffic simply runs on the double-track circuit through countryside, through cityscape, alongside the coast (whatever you like!). (scenic)

Those four features could perhaps be mapped onto the four areas of your loft space.

 

The suggested double track circuit of the entire space allows trains to run for more realistic distances between the locations, rather than departing one and almost immediately arriving at the other.

 

Doing it in 4mm would help achieve the sense of openness that I think you're after and I think it would also give you enough space for a reversing loop so that "up" traffic that had departed from the terminus could become "down" traffic and arrive back at the terminus.

 

P.S. Those two cross joists might become a major annoyance so it might be worth investigating ways to remove or replace them.

 

So to clarify, if I go with EM I should look at roughly 30" radius curves? While a reversing loop could work, It would take up more than half of the width of my space (even if the lobe was the other side of the joist).

 

I think 4mm might be the best shout, sketching up the space when I have to factor in the roof tilt too, brings my available footage down significantly - to say nothing of challenges of reversing loops (or train turntables kindly mentioned).

 

Speaking of joists you're quite right, but that is a project for another year - this particular layout's scenic sections would be made on standard modules in order that they can move with me and/or be relocated in the case of engineering works.

[BR60103]

I've suggested this someplace before.

Model the line near a big locomotive works where they test everything after a major overhaul. You could have A4s on a branch passenger and 9Fs on the peddler freight.

And no weathering.

[Rivercider]

Have a look at this lovely layout by northolland, to me it captures the atmosphere of a proper working railway, and might give you some ideas

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/73204-along-the-chapeltown-loop/page-2

 

cheers

[Harlequin]

How wide is the space at your estimated baseboard level?

[hayfield]

Firstly (if you have not dine so yet) read Gordon's Eastwood Town thread, which for large one man built layouts is keep it simple and get something running

 

Next is whether a loft with all the associated issues is the appropriate place to keep and use a layout in

 

Why do you want to bring boards down ?

[Zomboid]

Before I write them off entirely, can anyone can suggest reading material for operationally-interesting freight operations run by diesels (even if they were green with no yellow ends)? I grew up around the sounds of Class 37's, 33's and 73's from Hither Green MPD but the block working of shuttling whole trains just bores me to tears, as do EMUs. Any thoughts around that would be interesting (just pretend not being a sustainable option, unfortunately!)

When the modernisation plan diesels were introduced, they were used exactly as the steam engines they replaced were - wagonload freight, marshalling yards etc. I don't think there was as much loco swapping on long distance passenger trains, other than when they went from electric to diesel haulage, but you could run a steam era operation scheme with green diesels and be pretty much entirely accurate.

[Lacathedrale]

I've looked at a few 7mm loft layouts and I think I've settled on 4mm, especially thanks to Harlequin's prescient comment below.

 

Have a look at this lovely layout by northolland, to me it captures the atmosphere of a proper working railway, and might give you some ideas

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/73204-along-the-chapeltown-loop/page-2

 

cheers

 

That was a cracking read - as we've spoken about here it basically replicates US model operations in a British layout, equally (as far as I can see?) reflecting prototype practise. I've used CC/WB and switchlists and I had no idea that the same would run true on both sides of the pond.

 

How wide is the space at your estimated baseboard level?

 

That's a really fair point. I've not made it up there with a tape measure, but I estimate the roof is at a 45 degree pitch and roughly 13' at the floor. My eye height on an office chair is 4' from the floor, and I think a baseboard height of about 3'6" would give me a usable width of 6' at baseboard height tapering down towards the back. If I can skew the layout into a yin-yang then I'm not stuck with narrow modules specifically, but I'm aiming for sections of no more than 5' x 18" or so in one piece. Underneath will be storage of the wife's sundries

 

Firstly (if you have not dine so yet) read Gordon's Eastwood Town thread, which for large one man built layouts is keep it simple and get something running

 

Next is whether a loft with all the associated issues is the appropriate place to keep and use a layout in

 

Why do you want to bring boards down ?

 

125 pages seems like alot to go through, but I'll give it a shot. As it pertains to loft: it's already finished (insulated, heated, skylights, power, etc.) and as long as I can house my wife's odds and sods I've got free reign ontop for a layout (and unfortunately, nowhere else in the house unless I look at my home office (10' x 7' and really does have to function as an office/studio).

 

I wanted to go with something with separable modular construction so the not-inconsiderable investment in time, stock, etc. wouldn't be lost if we had to move house or the unlikely event we had to repurpose the room (or as you say, if it's not suitable at all in the long run for a layout).

 

When the modernisation plan diesels were introduced, they were used exactly as the steam engines they replaced were - wagonload freight, marshalling yards etc. I don't think there was as much loco swapping on long distance passenger trains, other than when they went from electric to diesel haulage, but you could run a steam era operation scheme with green diesels and be pretty much entirely accurate.

 

That's interesting - I thought that freight had more or less ceased before the diesels came about (so yes, they would take over the steam traction's roles but those roles would mainly comprise of passenger and block working). Northollands 'Chapeltown' has a Type 1 and a Class 08 working, the latter even as a semi-captive shunter. It seems reasonable to me although I wonder how much of that comes from the US influence.

 

Idea # 1

Caterham Railway, a three station branch line down the valley where I've just bought my first house. The line was operated by SE&CR but only accessed over running rights on the LBSCR out of Croydon. There's a small terminus (coal wharf, crane line, goods shed, dock and two platform faces (one of which with a scissor crossing to access the goods yard): https://i.imgur.com/zxYSPXM.jpg

 

My newest local station is Kenley, and just look at that building:

https://i.imgur.com/x6IrxsF.jpg

 

The branch joins the mainline at Purley, and by coincidence on the branch-side of the junction there is an engine shed: 

https://i.imgur.com/Y0aNtav.jpg

 

which presumably would he been primarily for LBSCR locomotives on the mainline but I think I could happily fudge that. SE&CR also runs into Hawkhurst, my family's ancestral abode. Set at the turn of the century for small coaches, slow speeds, etc.  If only that Bachmann c-class wasn't so blinking expensive!  One of my other micro-layout ideas in the past was the Greenwich Park branch of the SE&CR so that could potentially fill the urban itch with only a one-time stock investment.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Lacathedrale

[Harlequin]

Suggestion for basic topology:

 

 

Total size 35ft by 6ft. Continuous run, reversing loop, through station/marshalling yard, terminus, fiddle yard. Min radius ~825mm (~32in).

 

The removable boards are all 1220mm by 460mm (~4ft by 18in) to make more efficient use of the standard 1220*2440 sheets of ply, mdf, etc.

 

In reality you'd probably try to make the curves and straights in the scenic areas a bit more interesting.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Harlequin

[Lacathedrale]

Wow, Harlequin, that's really good looking, thank you for taking the time to whip that up for me I will measure up where the hatch is, because if it pops out in the middle-left hole I think it could be a good blueprint regardless of scale or prototype.

[Joseph_Pestell]

The title of this thread just sums up my whole railway modelling experience of 50 years +. I have never been able to settle on one plan because there are so many interesting railways and models out there!

 

And you have the additional advantage (or what should be an advantage!) of plenty of space. So more choices possible which just makes the decision process so much harder.

 

I like the basic scheme suggested by  Harlequin. It gives you plenty of operating possibilities even when you are running the layout on your own. It is also easy to build in stages which is important on a project of this size and you should not need to climb over those tie-beams too often.

 

If you really want some 0 too, you could always have a "plank" along one side above the 00.

[Rivercider]

When the modernisation plan diesels were introduced, they were used exactly as the steam engines they replaced were - wagonload freight, marshalling yards etc. I don't think there was as much loco swapping on long distance passenger trains, other than when they went from electric to diesel haulage, but you could run a steam era operation scheme with green diesels and be pretty much entirely accurate.

Yes I would agree that in many parts of the network the traditional vacuum braked (or unfitted) wagonload freight network outlasted the end of steam by a decade, well into the 1970s.

Of course block trains and containerisation did make inroads into the freight network as did branch and depot closures. Centralisation of traffic into Freight Concentration Depots and Coal Concentration Depots also saw the freight network reduce in size, but it was not until about 1983 that the wagonload network finally finished with domestic coal, cement and scrap being the last three major traffic types to be conveyed.

In some areas, particularly where mechanical signalling remained, there was really not much change in the railway scene from say 1963 to 1973.

 

cheers

[Lacathedrale]

Joseph I think my quandary is more that I've never found the right one to hold me for long enough (as opposed to one which would drag me away from another). I think however, after looking at the (real) Caterham/Hawkhurst/etc. plans that really I'm starting to tread a very fine line. As soon as I found myself saying "If I could only fit in ..." then I realised I was heading down the wrong route. Much better to err on the side of caution.

 

Idea #1 Part 2

In Harlequin's plan with suitable compression and elision would really make a lovely model of the Caterham branch. Clockwise from the FY:

• Fiddle yard represents london on the left hand side of it.
• Next, the "marshalling yard" board represents the branch-side of Purley station (in half relief), which had a fan of sidings as well as its own dock and goods shed. I gather it wouldn't strictly be a marshalling yard, but as the point just ahead of the branch, I'm going to assume it fulfilled that role. The nearest other place to block traffic would have been Norwood Junction, four or five miles and several stations towards London.
• The junction board represents the Caterham branch junction at the middle of the layout, the lines to either the Tattenham Branch, or Brighton at the rear. I think modelling the Brighton Mainline might be a bridge too far. Between the three lines (two of which I'd model), the prototype had a tiny three road engine shed sandwiched in with a few sidings (whose use I haven't got a clue, and a turntable).
• The branch line then goes through Kenley as a halt (with that building) and terminates at Caterham,
• Caterham itself has a single island platform with runarounds (one of which is a double scissor), a dock, goods yard, crane, and both coal staithes and w wharf.
• Behind the Caterham branch (which would dip into the valley), the Tattenham Cnr branch (or Brighton Mainline if I'm feeling feisty, I guess) swings around into staging.

Thinking out loud, this gives me the following jobs, forgetting anything else:

• Branch services between London and Tattenham Corner (and the royal train for race days was stabled at Purley engine shed!)
• Branch services between London and Caterham
• Mainline Goods between Norwood Junction and Purley Junction
• Pickup Goods between Purley, Kenley and Caterham
• Local switching at Caterham
• Local switching at Purley
• Engine service at Purley

This seems like it could be quite a fruitful layout!

 

From the perspective of timescales, all the important things have happened by 1899 (the only possible benefits to going earlier than this was that the branch was single-tracked), and by 1919 all of the RTR stock on the market presently could have been seen. Time for a quick post in the Prototype questions area....

[Zomboid]

That sounds like a very interesting project, which really ought to be able to satisfy anyone's operational and aesthetic requirements (though maybe not as the Caterham line for those of us who prefer the GER).

 

The only thing I might say is that the Tattenham Corner branch (or even Epsom Downs, though modelling Sutton might be a push) might be even more interesting with the potential of running the race day traffic in addition to the daily local operations.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Zomboid

[Harlequin]

It sounds wonderful! :-)

 

I imagined the lines disappearing behind a false backscene behind the terminus, Caterham, and if you did that you wouldn't really need to commit yourself to what that line / those lines actually are. They could be the Tattenham branch or mainline or whatever you imagine when you were operating.

 

Because you have the circuit where trains periodically disappear and can run for long durations you can imagine that having left station A in the model that it passes through or stops at imaginary stations B, C and D before you finally bring it to a halt in station E in the model. So you can leave things out - "less is more" ;-)

 

Edit: Having done a bit more reading about the Caterham branch I realise now that you had already done some judicious editing of stations in your description! Sorry.

 

Here's a small update to my previous drawing:

I joined all the scenic sections together with a continuous backscene, hid the reversing loop behind the backscene and added some width to the terminus and junction boards.

 

BTW: If your roof pitch is 45degrees then for every 100mm you can lower the baseboard you get 200mm extra width...!

Edited December 4, 2017 by Harlequin