Jump to content
 

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


Lacathedrale
 Share

Recommended Posts

You could look at making 2 different scenic layouts with the back scenes placed back to back down the center of the space, each designed so you could use it as a separate layout when required. You could then make return loops which would stay in your loft space to give you the ability to just sit and watch trains run.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I could do, but I think keeping the reverse loop and fiddle yard generic, and then having modules for the rest will mean I don't get 'baked in' too much. Unless I want to switch scales I guess...

 

So to key off the other point in this conversation, that is early diesels - Taking the same layout design elements (a Tony Koester idea whose practical usage I've never had the opportunity to take advantage of), it would appear that Hither Green can provide very similar components - the marshalling yard is the Hither Green Marshalling Yard, the Junction represents the Hither Green TMD (08's, 33's, 37's 73's for days - all my 'native' favourites and Ironically the C-class from the Caterham plan would have also been seen here). Where it becomes alot less desirable however is anything outside this limited aspect - quad track mainlines and EMUs from the 1930's and no goods facilities to speak of in any of the surrounding areas to say nothing of terminii. LBSCR and SECRs electrification of the suburban areas and thus my areas of familiarity really do put paid to any loco hauled services even into the 30's.

 

Outside of my area of direct experience I don't even know where to start to get a grasp of other lines, areas, characteristics.  Do I have to resort to proto-freelancing for a diesel-era Ashburton? Where can I look to see where Class 37's hauled branch line passenger trains?  it feels like a too big a mouthful to bite down on!

 

 

 

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.

 

I don't know that I'd ever own enough stock to justify race day traffic, but I guess I am young! I'll research Tattenham Corner now. With a small adaption, this layout plan could also factor in Paddock Wood and Hawkhurst in place of Purley and Caterham too (still very much in SECR territory I guess).

Edited by Lacathedrale
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Given that you need long and narrow, maybe take a look at some of the stations on the Tonbridge - Hastings line.

 

A bit of "Rule 1" needed to ignore the loading gauge restrictions (before the tunnels were singled) but very suitable designs. Perhaps even Bexhill West as your terminus?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenley station building:

attachicon.gifkenley.png

(from Google StreetView)

 

How could you resist?

 

It is gorgeous. Caterham station had the same building until 1899 when the double-tracking work was complete. I'm not sure whether single or double track would work best in this scenario - I do like Victorian era strangeness. Going much earlier than that puts me squarely into very short trains, single track and small rolling stock - maybe even back into 7mm territory if I zoom in to just Caterham, the Purley engine shed and model the fiddle yard AS the Purley sidings. A brief look at the RTR british ranges (with all their idiosyncrasies) brought back a surge of discontent that drove me to S7 in the first place.  I've got a book on the branch line coming, so I'll keep an eye on that and see how it pans out either way.. 

 

On absolutely the other side of the coin I've been following Rudy's Railroad on Youtube and really quite fascinated by the level of control and realism obtained with just RTR items and some basic DCC infrastructure - not only things like acceleration and deceleration, but tonnage-based modifiers, auto stopping at particular points on the platform, routing certain trains to have priority over others, freight to take the slow lines, etc. all from just plain switch and occupany detection. This kind of operation feels like it's getting away from the balanced craftsman vs. gamer approach I have been trying to take but it looks like it would give a huge scope for work after the layout itself is complete (which is normally where I start to lose interest).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It is gorgeous. Caterham station had the same building until 1899 when the double-tracking work was complete. I'm not sure whether single or double track would work best in this scenario - I do like Victorian era strangeness. Going much earlier than that puts me squarely into very short trains, single track and small rolling stock - maybe even back into 7mm territory if I zoom in to just Caterham, the Purley engine shed and model the fiddle yard AS the Purley sidings. A brief look at the RTR british ranges (with all their idiosyncrasies) brought back a surge of discontent that drove me to S7 in the first place.  I've got a book on the branch line coming, so I'll keep an eye on that and see how it pans out either way.. 

 

On absolutely the other side of the coin I've been following Rudy's Railroad on Youtube and really quite fascinated by the level of control and realism obtained with just RTR items and some basic DCC infrastructure - not only things like acceleration and deceleration, but tonnage-based modifiers, auto stopping at particular points on the platform, routing certain trains to have priority over others, freight to take the slow lines, etc. all from just plain switch and occupany detection. This kind of operation feels like it's getting away from the balanced craftsman vs. gamer approach I have been trying to take but it looks like it would give a huge scope for work after the layout itself is complete (which is normally where I start to lose interest).

 

I have an idea based on my rough drawings above that would give a reduced but recognisable (hopefully!) representation of Purley junction + goods yard track plan, double track branch through Kenley halt and double-track Caterham terminus but I don't know if it would fit. If you're interested I could try to lay it out and post here or PM you privately, if you prefer. Do you have accurate measurements of the space and maybe some photos?

 

On the other hand, if you'd prefer, I won't push my ideas any further because it's your project.

 

Out of interest, what do you find unsatisfactory about British RTR products?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Harlequin, that would be amazing.  I'd certainly love to see it and most definitely would like it out in the open - healthy discussion and critique is the pivot point around which good results are made.  I will take some exact measurements either tomorrow or Friday (I've yet to move in, and I live about an hour away from the place currently and have made about ten return trips in the last week!).

 

With regard to RTR - I don't find "buying" things to be particularly rewarding and I've got no interest in a "collection" per se. certainly not paying hundreds of pounds to get a locomotive who was only produced twenty years ago and has yet to be updated (just thinking about the Class 73 - the horns are single pieces of plastic with no detail, there's no buffer-beam detailing, the compromises STILL for tension lock, the vast expense of factory fitted DCC-sound, etc.).

 

Honestly the kit building aspect is very much my preference - but even in that due to the average kit maker and consumer, lots is very much of an earlier time: photocopied tables of part names, stamped, self address envelopes, sourcing your wheels from company X, the boiler from Y, the kit from Z and scratchbuilding the rest. Compared to the way Airfix plastic kits have evolved there's almost no comparison. I appreciate they're different beasts.

 

Ultimately it doesn't have a huge bearing on the micro conversation we're having here and I very much would like to see your ideas, it just provides a sharp contrast (compared to say, modelling the DB wherein one can expect exquisite quality with all the mod-cons without having to be drawn through the mill to get it).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahead of getting my Caterham branch book I've been spitballing ideas for modelling. I think if I go with Victorian-era then really I'm better off kit and scratch-building than buying RTR (especially given the prices, and how I enjoy kit building) so in a fit of pique I did some thought exercises. A branch line would likely have hand-me-down coaches even then, so I think 28' carriages would be the absolute maximum. There would be no reason in theory not to go with Proto64 for this adventure - I'm going to have to scratchbuild all my buildings, stock and pointwork anyway! I think I can safely discount S7. No matter how much I want it, I just cannot see how it won't look and feel very claustrophobic and toylike in such a space.

 

In parallel and in line with previous discussion, I'm thinking about how I can balance the need for kit building, interesting manual operation and pleasing automatic operation too. The latter is something new to me and I don't know how dearly I hold it - but the idea of being able to set up the trains as they would have been (that is, with momentum, speed limits, priority over other trains, the ability to stop at signals, station platforms and passing loops) and then run something like a schedule does like something one could get their teeth into quite thoroughly even after the layout itself is completed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

With such a large layout (potentially) is it realistic to scratch-build/kit-build everything?

 

I'm not familiar with what's available for Proto64 but I guess that it's not so well covered as 4mm and so would be somewhat slower to build.

 

Consider how long the build period will be before you can start to operate.

 

You've got a good long space so I think S7 might work with a simple end-to-end design along one side - but there might not be enough headroom to allow you to stand beside a usable width of baseboard. Depends on the dimensions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right of course - S7 certainly won't permit any loops and neither will Proto64 (there would be literally nothing but bullhead rail available). I'm not that fussed about burning through the project very quickly but it does appear as though EM makes the most sense. I'll have another look at OO-SF before I settle but ilet's work on that assumption.

 

Today I got up there and measured it out (with a nice drive around the perimeter of Purley goods yard and past Kenley station en route). 

 

There was a bit of a reality check today going up into the loft - both fairly chilly and the only place I can stand up is under the apex. The width at the joists is just over 7', so if you factor in some non-trivial benchwork thickness, and that you can't do much right at the ends; I guess you're looking at a usable width of around 5'6". The room is slightly shorter at just a shade over 28' arranged as so: https://i.imgur.com/QhicrSn.jpg - I think some of those sections are going to have to be awfully narrow, or maybe meriting some re-scoping to an out and back with a teardrop fiddle yard.

 

With those dimensions it would be great to hear your idea. On the bright side if it's not workable then I also have a 20' x 12' garage that I'm going to be converting into a more habitable space for a workshop and home gym, so the attic could play temporary host to the layout while that's finished, and even failing that my home office (which would be surrendered to be a kids room if we were to have any) is 7' x 11'

Edited by Lacathedrale
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thanks. That's really useful.

 

Unfortunately, the restricted width and shorter than expected length mean my idea probably won't work in 4mm but I'll have a think and either post it in it's failed form or post something that does work later on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

28' x 5'6 usable space. It sounds as though you are moving into a replica of the house my parents lived in from 1969 to 1985 (in Coney Hall, West Wickham).

 

From my experience back then, difficult to do much in 4mm (except terminus to fiddleyard) without some serious compromises, particularly if you want kitbuilt locos which don't like curves much below 36" radius. It does sound like the garage would be a better option. With narrow boards around the edge, still plenty of room for the gym equipment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harlequin I'm sorry to hear that you feel it might not work, I would definitely like to see it - particularly if as discussed the main scenic parts of the layouts can be broken relatively easily into 4' sections, as it would permit shifting to various locations in the house over the course of completion. All combinations of the layout (the engine sheds, the marshalling yards, Kenley as a halt and Caterham as a terminus) appeal to me - so plucking and placing into an end-to-end or dogbone is very much on the cards. 

 

Failing that, there are MANY other SE&CR prototypes that I'm interested in - the Greenwich Park branch for one. I've put a bid in on the Iain Rice 'Urban Layouts' book. While I certainly now hail from the Purley area, I grew up at the top of the hill from which New Cross, New Cross Gate, the East London Line, Bricklayers Arms, etc. all sprung from. Of course, the majority of it was gone by the time I was born - but many sunny afternoons gazing at the Bermondsey viaducts and criss-crossing tracks. Maybe there is scope for a dual layer out-and-back layout simulating New Cross Low Level (passenger and then goods-only before the line from East London ended up being routed through the main New Cross station) and the patchwork of routes and sidings underneath the Brighton Mainline.

 

By the way, Alea Iacta Est - SE&CR Lined Green C-Class 0-6-0 Goods loco ordered.  Overall, I'm pleased that I've put a stake in the ground as a point of divergence. In terms of standards, I think I will attempt OO-SF just to see how it feels to me (and which won't require any adjustment of my rolling stock) and take it from there. I get the feeling I'll settle on EM regardless.

Edited by Lacathedrale
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

It looks to me as if you've got space for a 28' x 2'6" main scenic area down one side, pulled say 9" clear of the edge allowing a 9" high backscene, a 2' 6" operating space down the middle, and a 12" fiddle area down the other side, pulled 3" clear.  So using 3' radius curves, 25' clear of tunnels if you go terminus to fiddle yard, or 22' for a roundy-roundy.  Sort of like this .....

 

post-6206-0-14312400-1512746749_thumb.jpg

 

(Unintentional white space because I didn't crop the picture properly, sorry!)

 

Do any of your thoughts fit that?

 

Cheers

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chimer, that looks about exactly it looks in my head :) Though,  I'm heading around the early 1910's based on what's available and where that fits into the timeline of the area.

 

I keep coming back to the Caterham plan - I really like the fact it has a little turntable and a goods area, but the station throat itself is gigantic - almost eight feet of pointwork just by itself. Here's the actual track plan (at least as it is described in an OS map) with The Purley engine shed (which is also correct, albeit attached to the wrong branch! I figure if I can have the mainline descend under rather than pass behind I might be in for a winner - a 2.5% grade or so should be plenty, especially since the backscene under which they will be running will be well above rail level as the descending side of the river valley.

 

https://i.imgur.com/nhpUtV8.png

 

Two major downsides to this I see immediately are

- There are those curves at the edge to contend with in whatever permutation they end up - there should be nothing larger than an 0-6-0 other than as a flight of fancy, which I gather means the templot 2'6" minimum is adequate with some gauge widening?

- The benchwork at this point can hardly be called modular - the minimum width for Caterham puts it with a fair bit of flab and having lines running underneath and behind others means this is going to be very much a permanent fixture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Harlequin I'm sorry to hear that you feel it might not work, I would definitely like to see it - particularly if as discussed the main scenic parts of the layouts can be broken relatively easily into 4' sections, as it would permit shifting to various locations in the house over the course of completion. All combinations of the layout (the engine sheds, the marshalling yards, Kenley as a halt and Caterham as a terminus) appeal to me - so plucking and placing into an end-to-end or dogbone is very much on the cards. 

 

Failing that, there are MANY other SE&CR prototypes that I'm interested in - the Greenwich Park branch for one. I've put a bid in on the Iain Rice 'Urban Layouts' book. While I certainly now hail from the Purley area, I grew up at the top of the hill from which New Cross, New Cross Gate, the East London Line, Bricklayers Arms, etc. all sprung from. Of course, the majority of it was gone by the time I was born - but many sunny afternoons gazing at the Bermondsey viaducts and criss-crossing tracks. Maybe there is scope for a dual layer out-and-back layout simulating New Cross Low Level (passenger and then goods-only before the line from East London ended up being routed through the main New Cross station) and the patchwork of routes and sidings underneath the Brighton Mainline.

 

By the way, Alea Iacta Est - SE&CR Lined Green C-Class 0-6-0 Goods loco ordered.  Overall, I'm pleased that I've put a stake in the ground as a point of divergence. In terms of standards, I think I will attempt OO-SF just to see how it feels to me (and which won't require any adjustment of my rolling stock) and take it from there. I get the feeling I'll settle on EM regardless.

 

Well, this was the idea. Please don't scrutinise too closely because it's very sketchy and I know it fails in various ways, as drawn. (Board joins in odd places, things too close together, station layouts not quite right, tight radii, etc, etc...)

post-32492-0-76944000-1512749704_thumb.png

 

The thicker red lines were intended to be double track and that's where the main problem comes from - I didn't allow enough space for double track (although I always intended to use clever tricks to make best use of the space).

 

I might still be able to rescue this idea if I could assume that the full 7ft width is available! This could be done by fixing the baseboards to the sides of the two trusses, rather than on top of them. Do you think that would be possible?

 

I guess you couldn't resist the lure of the C-Class. (It's a close cousin of the "Dean Goods" that I'm eagerly waiting for.) I can picture it standing alongside Kenley station building - as an evocative diorama if nothing else!

 

BTW: Have you looked at the new Peco bullhead track and points? It's getting closer to OO-SF.

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I might still be able to rescue this idea if I could assume that the full 7ft width is available! This could be done by fixing the baseboards to the sides of the two trusses, rather than on top of them. Do you think that would be possible?

 

Those trusses look about a foot square though?  So maybe only about 6', max 6' 6", clear between them?  If the baseboard was below the trusses, with a backscene falling vertically from them, you could have hidden tracks behind the backscene in the angle of the trusses, but I suspect that would be uncomfortably low to operate / work on.  I reckon scenic needs limiting to one side, unfortunately.

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Phil,

 

That does look lovely. My first thought was 'those station plans just won't work', for example Caterham station will take up the best part of sixteen feet just by itself, let alone eight. However, you might have inadvertently hit the nail on the head when it comes to the layout design. One of the most important things for me visually is that the tracks aren't all running parallel to the front of the baseboards, and that elevation changes. This is most evident as you have described in the road bridge around Purley - it is perched on the edge of the chalk hills of the downs, and in the branch itself which sweeps through the base of the valley itself into a wedge shaped cutting surrounded by high trees. Acres of billiard-table flat boards work well for urban layouts, but this _IS_ ostensibly going to be a bucolic Victorian branch line and as such restraint may be in order to maintain the illusions we're not on the Plywood Central.

 

Considering the components as separate layout design elements:

 

Kenley

The station building at Kenley was the pattern for all stations on the line, including the Caterham terminus - so I am happy to lose that in favour of ensuring other elements have room to breath.

Caterham

In terms of layout, there is much going on at Caterham that I don't fully understand - I don't know enough about what I could safely remove, although as below it roughly fits into 11 feet with a divide in the pointwork at 5': 

M69aBYN.png

 

 

Engine Shed

The scene at Purley is something I think I do want, especially since it's almost tailor made for a layout. The original has runaround tracks either side of a three road shed which comes to a turntable, and the sidings for the Royal Train, so compression to a two road shed with a single track should make it easily fit into the negative space left over by Caterham on the opposite wall, or maybe in the space in the bottom-left corner of Harlequin's plan.

 

Fiddle Yard as "Mainline Station + Purley Sidings"

Purley sidings themselves did not function as a marshalling yard, and contain some incredibly complex pointwork - another sixteen turnouts ontop of the fourteen for Caterham. I was really hooked on the idea of shuttling traffic around the layout as well as to places beyond the sundeala, but it seems whatever is attempted this just ends up over-wrought. I think the plan will be to have a fiddle yard that is given some basic scenery treatment, treating the continuous loop as 'the mainline' trains which are specifically either mainline or inbound traffic be held in the reversing loop or at red signals 'on the main' at "Purley & London".

 

Layout Width 

I think I might be able to mount the modules between the joists with supporting cupboards underneath and a bridge plate of sorts used to bring the top of them level width the module tops. 30" has got to be the minimum radius I think. and one needs to budget  around 11' for Caterham, and probably close to 8' for the Engine Sheds. I'm slightly less concerned about the width, as the prototype is around 28" inches at the turntable (just below the signalbox in the below diagram, that I can't fit in using Xtrkcad) and 32" if I were to splay out the goods tracks to their maximum extent too.  The engine sheds are also only around 2' at their maximum prototypical width.

 
I think the key consideration comes down to whether 'just' Caterham and an engine shed can provide operational interest, or whether I/we have to go back to the drawing board.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Here's a revised version. It's still a bit sketchy but I think it shows that the basic idea would work:

 

post-32492-0-85826800-1512813137_thumb.png

[Click to enlarge - it's big!]

  • Uses the full 7ft width by assuming board surface is just above the top of the truss cross-beams.
  • Min radius on Caterham branch: 734mm (~29in).
  • Pushes the tracks out to the usable edges of the loft space in non-scenic areas.
  • Aims to evoke the feel of stations rather than exact track plans.
    • Reduced and simplified sidings
    • Shortened station lengths (but you still have 6ft long platforms at Purley junction - pretty impressive!
    • Caterham branch looks like slow lines to Brighton until it diverges hidden in the tunnel
    • Slow lines through station rejoin fast lines off-scene
  • Abandons Kenley.
  • Abandons the reversing loop and uses the space for Caterham station.
  • Baseboards slimmed down over access hatch, could be liftout section.
  • Each grid square 305*305mm (1ft*1ft)

(Please don't be confused by the junctions/points where some lines appear to ride over others - that's just because of the brush I was using that combines trackbed and centre line.)

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that is really quite something!  I think you may be on to something - as we discussed with removable scenic boards for the main 'busy' areas and then in-situ transition pieces elsewhere. See comments below for some ideas...

 

I think I may stray from my prototypical leanings - set the layout in 1899. This gives me the best of all worlds.

 

Purley Station - In this time period there are no quad tracks, the mainline is double tracked and the single track diverges for the branch way before the station. The station itself is just an island platform in the middle, and the branch platform on one side was both wooden and short. The yard serves a large aggregate company and builders, and general goods. On your plan, I would be inclined to remove the Up fast line completely and have the branch and down fast only, using a signal gantry for a scenic break. Given the rest of the orientation of the layout I can't help but think the sidings would work better mirrored left to right so they could be served by on-layout headshunts and locomotives, but I have a feeling that would be breaking the illusion of accuracy too much.

 

Purley Engine shed - completed 1898 and providing motive power for the SE&CR in this area, so excuses for basically anything in the period if I ever get around to kit building or 3D printing. The prototype had what would be a 3' long engine shed so unless we can fit that on the inside of the runaround loop it'd need chopping slightly. 

 

Branch 'Junction' - I would be inclined to take inspiration from the prototype, the Tattenham Corner branch really did sink below the level of the mainline, skirting the rear of the engine shed and underneath. If we put the Purley branch platform on the outside/top of your plan, will we have room for a gradient to place the engine shed and mainline 'over' the Caterham branch on that 180' turn? The branch could appear to sink below and behind the building and then as per prototype reappear under the railway bridge at the other end. I suggest raising the engine shed rather than sinking the branch because of the aforementioned joists.

 

Kenley - By compressing Caterham from 15' to 9 or 10', there could be room again for Kenley. In 1899 the branch is single track, and Kenley has a runaround loop and three sidings, one dedicated for coal for the waterworks nearby. And now we have an excuse for another one of those fabulous buildings.

 

Caterham -  I have just recieved my Caterham Branch Middleton Press book and what would you know? The 1856-1900 station plan is MUCH simpler. It is literally about half the length and almost matches your initial 'get the flavour' design. The platform is roughly the same position, but smaller (450' in reality or 6' in 4mm) and one-sided, the road serving it having a simple runaround loop and carriage siding cut deep into the valley gradient. What was marked as the goods shed in the plan above started life as an engine shed (how cute), abutting the station building. The goods yard was the same, seven turnouts in total and a 1:76 size of 10' x 2'8" if we're exactly prototypically accurate, so with a bit of fudging almost certainly 9' x 2'6", the extra 1' could be a module bolted to the front of the 18" deep 'regular' board to ensure I can get it in-and-out of the loft.

 

While the station itself is less complicated and only has one platform face, I have read that the 'new' station was just too big for either the passenger or freight requirements, so the majority of it would have sat unused - and at £26 for RTR or a few hours hand-laying, that's alot of time or money spent for unused track!

 

As it stands I can run large coal trains to Kenley, stone trains from Caterham, a regular passenger service using tank locos and general goods pickup and set-out from all three. Maybe even the stone from Caterham would be processed into aggregate at Purley?  As a funny coincidence, Whyteleaf station (the one we have been ignoring) wasn't open until 1900 so that's quite prototypically accurate :)

Edited by Lacathedrale
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thanks!

 

Yes, I can see that your SE&CR ~1900 vintage locos wouldn't look very comfortable sitting in my version of Purley junction!

 

I have been pursuing the 1930's versions of the stations - just because I was looking at them before you had settled on a period.

 

So, just to draw a line under the 1930's version of the design, here's where I got to this evening:

post-32492-0-33833200-1512849786_thumb.png

  • Added fiddle yard
  • Gave Purley a third platform
  • Expanded Purley goods yard
  • Purley goods yard now has a trailing connection to the main line and long headshunt in the fiddle yard
  • Separated slow and fast lines enough to position Purley signal box

                                                                                                                                                                                                         

 

So, now back to the fin de siècle.

 

I'll think about what you've said and look at older maps.

 

My source for historical station plans is old-maps.co.uk but If you've got any track plans that you're looking at in particular it would be great if you could post them here or PM me.

 

(I'm not stepping on your toes, am I?)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all, I will snap a plan tomorrow in better light. That plan looks like a real stonker. I can of course forward-date the layout to meet that (my sole piece of rolling stock being the C-class as discussed) as it looks like it would vastly exceed the 1899 plan in through train capacity. I would like to be able to run a little bit of an LBSCR service so it is important to keep some vestige of the mainline.

 

Here's what Caterham 1899 looks like, roughly:

2WW9HKa.png

 

The only thing that seems a bit odd is that the coal wharf siding on my map jumps about 8' at the point it connects to the running line, which subsequently puts it another 1' in model terms up the branch - if I use a double slip however, it fits into an easy 10'. If I reduce the scenic area at the front (since it slopes up towards the viewer) then the width is 2' maximum, and I could even chop another foot off of the platforms without losing anything at all as all of the coaches in this era were ~27' over the buffers and so this passing loop would take a rake of ten! I think a realistic formation for this branch would be four or maybe five at a push, and all locomotives were less than 50' long; so my estimate of a foot would still give some good breathing space. 

 

The prototype has some S-curves in the goods yard which change the geometry somewhat (and remove that pretty awful curve on what I have marked as either a headshunt or loco pocket).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think about this, the more I realise that I need to attack this in stages. It seems that Caterham is one thing we both agree is crucial to the layout. It can be built on two modules of 5' in length, one of 2' width and the other tapering down from 2' to 1'.

 

A fiddle yard arranged as described above, but truncated to hold either loco + 8 carriages or a loco + 15 wagons on two dead end and one runaround siding is around is 8' x 1'.

 

I think the plan therefore will be to build Caterham and the FY first. Neither of these can be compressed or arranged in any other appreciably different way. If I ensure that I keep track centres at a standard 6" from the back of the board, I can then slot them into the larger plan at a later date. One crucial piece of benchwork will be to ensure there is as much clearance as possible behind Caterham's carriage siding for a continuous run track to live, and that my top FY track can return to the 6" track centre for connection there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...