Painted myself into a corner?

[Philou]

Have I painted myself into a corner?

 

Hello chums and chumesess, Philou here,

 

I have a layout in mind that has been over 40 years in the waiting and I have drawn up various plans over the last two via Scarm. However, I have the feeling that I'm not getting the best out of the space I have available and I would appreciate your thoughts.

 

A bit of background:

 

Ever since being a young teenager I had been a collector of locos and rolling stock ready for the big layout. It did help that I worked part-time from 1965 'til 1981 in Bud Morgans of Cardiff. However, I tended to collect whatever happened to catch my fancy – mostly Western Region at the time.

 

Fast forward to around 2013 when I decided that it was time to start on this layout. My brother Peter, he of Lord and Butler, persuaded me (not that I needed much persuasion) that DCC was the way to go and so I now have an EcoS2 and about 20 'modern' RTR models either sound chipped or waiting to be chipped – but again no particular area. I have steam and modern traction but I do have a penchant for older or 'one-off' diesels.

 

I have decided that my 60-odd locos bought previously will not be chipped – they won't be cast aside – but will taken out for a spin on DC from time to time (when recently run, only 3 refused to go and that was mainly due to internal electrical conductivity).

 

'Hurry up there – what about the layout?' I hear you say. OK, I have an area of about 7.5m x 5.5m (24'6” x 18' in old money) in a barn that is at the moment waterproof but not weather-tight. There is the small issue of rotten flooring beams to be replaced and a brand new floor laid to level. These works will be done this year

 

The grand plan is to build it on 10mm ply with 10mm ply fascias and reinforcement underneath in modules such that if ever I consider the finished article to be show worthy then I can take it apart - though I think it will be too big to be frank.

 

Given the area to play with I decided that I should not compromise on station length nor on minimum radii – 1.0m. However, once outside the station throat then compression has to occur – it seems unavoidable. Peco 75 track and points are to be used at 45mm centres (not 50mm). I have seen on another thread that Peco pointwork can be bent slightly to provide alternative radii so more near-prototypical pointwork can be achieved.

 

At the moment the plans have ended up as a roundy-roundy, two short branchlines and a massive fiddle/stockage yard.

 

Two stations envisaged – Pontrilas with its Golden Valley branch and Ledbury with its Newent branch.

 

Pontrilas:

 

This station no longer exists – only the station building as a private dwelling, the signal box and a refuge siding. I have seen photos on t'intertubes dating from pre-1920 to the early 1950s, and until the station disappeared not very much changed – save a single slip that became a double slip (presumably during war-time), refuge sidings that became goods loops and of course the cessation of goods and passenger traffic in the very early 1950s to the Golden Valley.

 

Why Pontrilas? Hard to say. I think it was the fact it was on a main line and it had a branch line that gave me the opportunity to consider through goods and passenger trains plus branch line traffic served by small tender or 0-6-0/0-4-2 locos (Hilda and John Owen worked the line). The station itself was long enough to take 10 coach trains – which means I can run HST units. There is plenty of photographic evidence of freight and other passenger stock running through the disused station. (Rule 1 will apply )

In addition there is an opportunity to run freight in the 1950s along the branch to serve a munitions depot that had been created during WW II.

 

Ledbury:

 

This station still exists and I used it a few times when I lived there – services to Birmingham and London, though the station buildings and goods yard (save for a refuge siding) no longer exist. The signal box is still there. There was, until the 1960s, the junction with the Ledbury-Gloucester line. The junction itself was gradually reduced from a double track junction to a double track junction serving a single track to a single junction to nothing. Again an opportunity arises to run Castles with six coaches along the main line with smaller pannier or prairie locos and eventually GWR railcars serving the branch. However, in modern times HSTs serve Ledbury, even though the platform is too short, through grandfather rights. The line is used very occasionally for freight diversions.

 

What makes this an interesting station is the trackwork from the Birmingham/London side is single, and always has been, leading into a very narrow bore tunnel on a 1:80 rising grade. Towards Hereford the track was doubled (now reduced to single) over an impressive 16arch brick-built viaduct.

 

Why am I asking for help? I think I may have painted myself into a corner as I have become completely 'fixed' on this 2-station roundy-roundy and given the area I have at my disposal, am I making the best use of the space? That, I know is very subjective.

 

As I see it, the plan (or plans as I have 10 similar on the same theme) ticks the right boxes:

 

a) Roundy-roundy double track for mainline running (Rule 1 can be invoked to permit non GWR/LMS/Western region trains – diversions and errr …. just because).

 

b) Not one but TWO branchlines which can provide plenty of shunting and stock movements when bored of the roundy-roundy. Plus there was a small rail served (pre-1940) chemical works at Pontrilas so more movements possible.

 

c) I have enough stock to provide formations from 1900s through to 2017 (even though Pontrilas has gone – Rule 1).

 

d) A large one-ended fiddle yard centrally place that can be accessed on both sides for hand of god movements and stockage.

e) Restricted traffic movements through Ledbury tunnel therefore mainline operating interest.
 

f) Opportunity for oodles of landscaping – river valley at Pontrilas.. Malvern Hills above the Ledbury tunnel (600 feet which is about 2m high). Ledbury viaduct (in a shortened form) at the other end. Neither town is urban in nature.

 

Having seen yesterday (at the time of writing this) the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeTbAXSEuZk) of the Cardiff (Small) Show and what can be achieved in a small area, am I trying to be too big and possibly biting off too much and perhaps go for something else – or plod on (notwithstanding changes that you might suggest)?

 

I'm ready to plod on – but will I be bored? Will I have time to be bored? I have given myself a year to do the barn (and 'things that must be done' in his best Mrs domestic management voice) and a year to lay the track, of which I have already 50% in stock.

 

What do you think?

 

Alternatives considered:

 

Given the area I have, I wanted a prototypical location and based in the GWR/Western territory.

 

Cardiff Central: Excellent for local, mainline and block train movements (even Motorail), but even my 7.5m x 5.5m wouldn't do it justice.

 

Queen Street: Perhaps with the above (too big), but on its own only local passenger and block movements of coal – no mainline running and no other freight traffic.

 

Clarence Road: I saw on RMWeb this location and The Johnster of this parish gave a lot of detail too. Nice single line terminus station with oodles of industrial movements as well. Limited in what can run and definitely no long stock formations.

 

Other possibilities: terminus to fiddle yard with branch and roundy-roundy. But I had that until 1972 (station based on one of CJ Freezers Larger Layout plans) . Or should I consider a looped 8 – plenty of room.

 

Kind regards,

 

Philip

 

Here are two copies of the latest plan plus a 3-D view. Take no notice of the signalling or scenery for the moment. The one copy has the scenery removed for clarity.

 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2018 by Philou

[APOLLO]

A very interesting plan. I particularly like the 2 back to back branch tine terminals on the peninsula. I would however have the branch lines rising so they could partly cover the storage sidings below. Just a suggestion.

 

I'd go for it !!!

 

Brit15

[Philou]

@ Apollo

 

Thanks for the input - I'm still considering going for it - but I'll wait until perhaps others have had a say. However, I will rework the plan to see what the raising of the two branches looks like - I did it that way so the fiddle yard access wasn't encumbered. If my track laying skills are OK and pointwork remotely operated via ECoS, I suppose it doesn't matter that the throat cannot be seen.

 

Regards,

 

Philip

[Chimer]

That peninsular fiddle yard giving two-way access to a roundy-roundy is exactly the way I would use a space like that - I've tried (unsuccessfully!) to do a plan like that in much less (i.e. too little) room.  But I would content myself with one junction station with goods yard and one branch, perhaps with a small passing station on the way to the branch terminus, leaving more of the space for "trains in the landscape" - unless you visualise lots of mates regularly helping you operate.  And it will take a while .... well, an age ......

 

Best of luck

 

Chris

[scottystitch]

I would be inclined to agree with Chimer, it might be a better idea to only model one mainline station and have one "long" side of the layout given to a decent scenic run.

 

That aside, it's a terrific space and I love the fact you have the ability (space) to put the fiddle yard on a peninsula. 

 

So it's another vote for go for it.

[Harlequin]

Hi Philou,

 

It's very impressive and could look amazing.

 

I wonder if the two branch termini are overkill and if they will sit comfortably alongside each other and alongside the fiddle yard? If the primary reason for them is shunting, I'd say you have enough shunting capacity in the two through station goods yards (and you could add more, of course).

 

Alternative idea: Have just one branch terminus in rural landscape above main circuit on the west. That way:

• The terminus would have it's own scenery without the distraction of other things nearby
• You could have a longer branch run and more spacious (or more complex) terminus
• The higher level terminus landscape would hide the triangle junction (as much or as little as you like) so that there's a clear separation between the scenic areas and the fiddle yard
• You have some bench space on the peninsula for model making, maintenance and general fiddling around

There might be a problem with the direction of trains entering the fiddle yard, depending on how you intend to operate the layout: If a loco-hauled train enters the fiddle yard loco-first then either:

1. You have to reverse it out to set it running on the main circuit again, in either direction, or
2. You have to manually turn some or all of the train around so that it can run loco-first out of the fiddle yard.

Reversing out might be OK if it's hidden (e.g. by my high level terminus suggestion above) but might cause annoying derailments and would interfere with anything running on the main circuit.

Maybe you're happy to manually turn stock around and if so loco-lifts would help with that.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Harlequin

[Chimer]

I took it as read that with this setup, manual fiddling, probably with the help of locolifts, would be the order of the day.

 

Chris

[Philou]

Hi Philou here,

 

Thanks to all of you above who have had a look and made such positive responses:

 

I started the topic as I was concerned that perhaps there was too much - I'm sure you all know 'more is less'. Having seen G scale layouts in a cake-box (yeah - I know, exaggeration ) I just wondered if I might have persuaded myself that this was the way to go. Seemingly so far, the message I'm getting is 'go for it' subject to tweaking.

 

Insofar as the peninsular is concerned, it just happened that way as other plans I had created on the same basic layout had a continuous fiddle yard served by both the branch lines, the fiddle yard ended up under both stations. It would have meant strange stock movements along branch-lines. Additionally, when gradients were calculated it ended up with about 100mm (4") freeboard between the top of stock and the underside of the top boards - which would have been a logistical nightmare for hand of god deity movements! However, it was fantastic for storage space.

 

Another reason is that I'm not getting younger (who is - unless you're Benjamin Button) and I'll be 70 by the time this is set up - so at least I can avoid crawling on hands and knees to get from one side to another. 'Aha' I hear you say, 'what about access?' What is not shown, and it's a matter with which I have to settle when redoing the beams and flooring of the space in the barn, access is from below. Hopefully it'll be a little better than just a trap door and a ladder. There will need to be a trap of some sorts in order to make the best use of the floor space.

 

On a previous plan I had shown a traverser plus a space to allow cassettes to be linked in to allow for storage off-stage and of course stock reversal. I left them off so as not to have too much showing on the plan.

 

You will note that there is no MPD - none of the stations had one. Ledbury had a turntable that seems to have been used by banking (or in GWR parlance assisting) engines for the climb through the tunnel. There is a photo of a 2-8-0T being used so more scope for operating interest.

 

Insofar as running the layout is concerned - yes I agree there is a lot for one person - I am hoping that DCC will be the 'third person'. I also belong to a club (not so local to me) and a few are into DCC but they use the Roco Multimaus using a plug and play system with RJ45 plugs so they can literally follow 'their' train around the circuit. I reckon it's 'doable' alone but with the possibility of maybe 5 or more operators - but that means running to a strict timetable (of which they seem to have no concept in running the club layout - but what the heck it's just for fun - no?).

 

Having read the above comments, I shall twiddle the plan and see what happens.

 

So, thanks for your views, I feel far more optimistic about it.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[The Stationmaster]

Very ambitious so plenty of construction and detailing work to keep you going for ages - could be a good thing, might turn out to be an imposition but that depends on you.  Two well chosen prototype locations with lots to offer so I agree heartily on that.  I like the central peninsula arrangement and it represents good use of space (but I think it will impose operational hurdles).  Those are the good points.  

 

The only bad points I can see are the amount of work involved (but you can leave one station sufficient for through trains while working the other up to a detailed state so enough to keep you occupied building wise for a long time).  And the real headache is the fact that it will need at least three, and probably more, people to get the best out of it operationally, working it as a singleton will restrict you to one station or the other - but you do get two layouts for the price if one that way.

 

Overall I think it is rather nice apart from the operational aspect and my big worry is that having put a lot into building it and then having a continuing feast of detail work you might find that you have created a monster that becomes an operational imposition.  I think you need to think that operational thing through very carefully before you go ahead but overall I'm very much in agreement with your idea of picking the North & west Line for one of your stations - it has lots to offer

[Philou]

Thanks Stationmaster,

 

I had seen on other topics that you always had positive things to say - so I appreciate your remarks.

 

Insofar as the construction aspect is concerned - yes I agree there is a lot to chew upon - but I've been working on this old farmhouse for 12 years and it's coming to an end despite having the blues from time to time - so I have high expectations to get the base and trackwork down fairly quickly. I had thought of doing one station at a time - I have plenty of track in stock just for that purpose - so your thoughts are perhaps the way to go.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Philou]

@jf2682

 

I agree that I ought to get to grips with the construction side of it - however as mentioned in my introduction I have nowhere to start it yet. I do have a club module though that will keep me occupied for a while longer (though work is slow especially as SWIMBO gives me 'that look' if I work on the dining room table ). The club modules are all on 10mm ply but no bigger than 1.2m x 900mm so perhaps the small size is more resistant to abuse, I'll think on what you say regarding the thickness and do some further research on the point.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Philou]

Ooh, before I forget,

 

Would any of you kind souls who read this topic, have by chance, a track plan of the Ledbury goods yard. I have found plenty of photos on the web, but the signal box always appears to be in line with the goods shed. Photos at different periods tend to indicate changes in the layout but I can't see the turnouts leading out of the shed. The OS sheets for the site show changes from 1889 through to the 1980s but unfortunately the detail is not too easy to discern.

 

Thanks,

 

Philip

[marc smith]

Hello Philou,

Sorry, I don't have any plans of Ledbury. I have been there in recent years and took some photos. There are definitely 2 sidings left there - but most of the yard is now a car park
Re your plan - that looks very ambitious to me, but don't let that put you off, as I seem to only think about micro layouts 
Talking of which, I have often pondered modelling the Golden Valley branch.... which ran from the bay platform at Pontrilas....
I do like the thought of a layout based on Pontrilas - I've passed it many times

You probably served me, if you worked in Bud Morgan - it was may fave shop as a young lad
I know Peter very well..... as Lord & Butler is my current (and long-standing) favourite model shop - he and Adrian are top blokes, and their shop is amazing

Good luck with the layout

EDIT: Re the Golden Valley branch... I used to camp at Abbeydore.
The army camp opposite still had a (truncated) railway on their land, at one time
And there was a crossing keepers cottage, complete with gates nearby - but no line anymore

Edited January 22, 2018 by marc smith

[The Stationmaster]

Ooh, before I forget,

 

Would any of you kind souls who read this topic, have by chance, a track plan of the Ledbury goods yard. I have found plenty of photos on the web, but the signal box always appears to be in line with the goods shed. Photos at different periods tend to indicate changes in the layout but I can't see the turnouts leading out of the shed. The OS sheets for the site show changes from 1889 through to the 1980s but unfortunately the detail is not too easy to discern.

 

Thanks,

 

Philip

 

Regret not sorry Phillip.  Best source would be the relevant volume of Tony Cooke's 'Track layout Diagrams of the Great Western Railway and BR(WR)' if there has been one which covered Ledbury.  Trouble most are long out of print and I'm not at all sure which volume, if any, covered it but there is a full list of them here altho' alas it isn't very helpful -

 

https://www.transportstore.com/Cooke-Ra-Track-Layout-Diagrams-Of-The-Gwr-And-Br-Wr-Book-9364-427.cfm

 

Lightmoor Press sometimes come up with back numbers and describe the contents fairly helpfully.

 

The SRS site has the signalbox diagram (in a small scale) which gives a bit of a clue but is obviously incomplete regarding any sidings beyond the signalbox worked points -

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gws/S2620.htm

Edited January 22, 2018 by The Stationmaster

[Philou]

@marc smith

 

I hope I'm not going to lead myself OT, but in reply to Bud's, both Peter and I were there at the same time - he started and finished after me. I was in railways and he in military modelling.

 

In respect of the Golden Valley, Peter and I connected are to it obliquely as our father served part of the war at the airfield base - a bit of a 'hush hush' area now I believe - which might have been (or nearby to) the army camp. There was a munitions dump that was served by the GVR for some time after the goods and passenger services stopped in the early 1950s. It could well be the army camp IS the dump. Whether it is or not will give me an excuse to run some gunpowder vans from Pontrilas along the branch .

 

Thanks for your information,

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[JeffP]

Looks a very interesting project, which I'll follow with interest.

 

From my own experiences with French barns: Get quite hot in summer and VERY cold in winter, DO make sure track joints can cope with extremes of temperature, and ditto wooden constructions.

 

Not weather proof? That probably also means not animal proof? I well remember placing our caravan inside a large barn whose roof was in decent condition, and thinking, "Next time I see you, I won't have to worry about green mould from dead leaves, black lines and bird poo!"

 

Getting back four months later to find it liberally coated in owl droppings(!!!!!) was not an experience I remember fondly... And removing them was awful, I've heard of sticks like **** to a blanket, but never like owl **** to a caravan, plus they seemed to strip the paint too. Awful.

Edited January 22, 2018 by JeffP

[Philou]

@ Stationmaster,

 

Thanks for the heads-up regarding the book. Ledbury lies within 'Herefordshire' which is not in the listing. I wonder if it may have come under the Midland Region?

 

Regarding your earlier comment of the choice of area - I happen to have acquired recently a 'Webb' tank - so that would add to the variety of train movements - a line of PO wagons taking coal northwards and empties back.

 

As an aside, I only bought it as there was a nice photo in a publication that showed the 'Webb' taking on coal at the TVR's Cardiff East depot and I thought of doing a little (non-working) cameo of the picture.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

Edited January 22, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

@JeffP

 

Fortunately the barn is stone built and does not get hot in the summer - but in the winter when it rains, the damp gets in - but not through the roof as that is new. When the roof was redone 24 months ago, the walls were hacked about to remove timbers that extended from the rafters outwards - but even though the damp gets in, it airs very quickly via the gaps between the roofing timbers and the walls. This will be made good when the barn rendering is removed and the walls repointed. The missing stonework will be made good and new doors and windows put in place, and more importantly, made secure - if only for insurance purposes AND stopping any wildlife getting in. Heating will be provided via a wood-burning stove (known here as a 'turbo').

 

Thanks for the thought,

 

Philip

[Anglian]

I think the overall design looks fantastic and I very much like the concept of the peninsula fiddle yard. The only thing that bothers me has been raised above – you currently have no way of releasing a locomotive from its train once it's arrived in the fiddle yard. I think you may want to consider loco lifts, points to release locos and or a turntable, perhaps at the end of the central roads. I know this will eat up your storage space but you have quite a lot of capacity and it would be interesting operating the layout solo, from the fiddle yard, ignoring the two branches and just concentrating on setting trains around the circuit before they return to you. With more folks joining you it could be a lot of fun to operate. 

I would consider just doing one through station and a branch terminus to start with as this is a monster project and it would probably help to keep you interested, if you could get something up and running.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Anglian

[roythebus]

Regret not sorry Phillip.  Best source would be the relevant volume of Tony Cooke's 'Track layout Diagrams of the Great Western Railway and BR(WR)' if there has been one which covered Ledbury.  Trouble most are long out of print and I'm not at all sure which volume, if any, covered it but there is a full list of them here altho' alas it isn't very helpful -

 

https://www.transportstore.com/Cooke-Ra-Track-Layout-Diagrams-Of-The-Gwr-And-Br-Wr-Book-9364-427.cfm

 

Lightmoor Press sometimes come up with back numbers and describe the contents fairly helpfully.

 

The SRS site has the signalbox diagram (in a small scale) which gives a bit of a clue but is obviously incomplete regarding any sidings beyond the signalbox worked points -

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gws/S2620.htm

 

Try the Scottish O/S map site for a track plan, no doubt someone here will have a link to it.

 

Regarding baseboards, is this likely to be a portable as opposed to transportable layout, i.e. one that you might want to take with you if you move home, one that you can take to exhibitions, or one that's going to stay put forever? I visited the store for the Ashford railway museum project recently and they acquired a very nice O gauge model of Coventry (I think it is). To get it out of the shed they had to use an angle grinder and chain saw to dismantle the layout when the owner died, and some sections literally do take 3 people to move them. Think long-term. The station buildings on that layout are works of art but has to succumb to the angle grinder.

Edited January 22, 2018 by roythebus

[scottystitch]

Here is the nls 25 inch map:

 

http://maps.nls.uk//view/120896908

 

This is the latest revision in the 25 inch mapping, 1926, although published in 1928.

Edited January 22, 2018 by scottystitch

[Philou]

@ Anglian, @roythebus, @scottystitch

 

Well! What can I say? You guys have come up trumps regarding the NLS site.

 

I had seen a copy of the plan before but not blown up as much and definitely not as clear. However I am still stumped as to what is going on with pointwork outside of the goods shed. The OS sheets tend to show the tie bars of the points - in this case some are visible others not. For example: on the main line there is a trailing single slip leading to the goods yard as 'normal' practice - visible on photos, but in this instance no tie bars shown. Anyway, moving along the track out of the goods shed towards the station there is a diamond crossing followed by? Are they two short radiused points back to back? Double slip? There has to be something to enable freight and goods vans to be released from the shed road without encumbering the main line. Then what is all of that just to the east of the diamond - plain crossing? Slip? And what after that? Another plain crossing or a slip? Questions questions questions (or as Manuel would say Que?). This has left me a little perplexed.

 

@Anglian

 

I'm coming round to your, and The Stationmaster's, way of thinking and doing the stations in two bites. I can also see the reasoning in having just one station and leaving the south (or just as easily the north) side as landscape. I feel though that it would be too much landscape - though in another iteration of the plan as a figure of 8 I did have a quarry so as to generate traffic - could have that instead of a station.

 

Again in another version, instead of having one of the branch stations (Newent) I did have a fully fledged MPD with high level triple coaling stage (borrowed from the TVR yard in Cathays Cardiff) and a turntable - now that would have kept me busy just operating it alone!! It was a bit OTT or so I thought at the time .......... hmmmmm

 

I'm jigging the plan at the moment so I can see how a turntable fits on the end of the fiddle yard. I'll have to remember to keep one track free as a release road .

 

Thanks again for your help, all of you.

 

Philip

[scottystitch]

Philip,

 

With regards your last post, and hesitation with regards too much scenery, I would suggest, nae recommend, you focus on one station, and on the other wall, in lieu of the second station, just lay some twin track. This will get you running trains all the way around the room quicker, and allow you to see/imagine how a fully sceniced wall would look.

 

If it;s not for you, nothing lost, you just lift the main line and build your station. Better that way than the reverse, where you find yourself lifting a big station and all the hard work you'd put into laying the track.

 

Ditto the branch stations. Just build one and see how you get on with it. 

 

I think that's what I'd do if I had come up with your plan.

[Harlequin]

The problem with a turntable connected to just a few fiddle yard lines is that you'll then use those few lines to bring in loco-hauled trains and the rest of the lines almost become redundant.

 

You might then think about connecting more fiddle yard lines to the turntable but that gets very congested and takes up a lot of space.

 

Alternatively think about making the entire fiddle yard one big turntable! You have the luxury of being able to do that with your peninsular fiddle yard and space around it. Obviously that has serious Pros and Cons but one big Pro is that you no longer need those big ladders of points.

 

But in the end loco lifts are probably the simplest and most flexible solution.

[John ks]

By rearranging the points leading to the yard you can shorten the throat

A shorter throat can be moved to the right giving more landscaping space between the termini

The blue outline is a turntable  that will allow for turning complete trains

 

 

The disadvantage I that you loose length in some of your sidings

 

if you move the throat back towards the triangle you gain siding length but loose space for your termini

 

Wiring to the turntable could be a nightmare involving sliprings or multiple contacts for each track

 

Or if the turntable has stops that only allow it to turn 180 degrees clockwise then 180 degrees anticlockwise

 

A loop of cables from the layout to the turntable would then only twist a maximum of 180degrees

 

Wiring could be as simple as a DPDT centre off switch to all tracks on the turntable.( this would only work for DCC)

 

Or a micro switch controlling a relay that reverses the polarity of the turntable & an switch for each siding on the turntable.(this would work for DC & DCC)

 

John