Jump to content
 

10x4 single track oval - GWR branch line station


Cotswold Metals
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

 

In a not uncommon move, I've got back into railways after a roughly 20 year hiatus. The bug has well and truly sunk its teeth in again this time, and I purchased some OO gauge stock and PECO setrack for Christmas. After a couple of sessions laying track out on the floor and reliving some very good childhood memories, thoughts have inevitably moved to "what now?".

 

Some criteria I set myself:

  • Single track branch line, GWR, based on Wilts / Somerset area, 1920s / 30s - short trains, small locos
  • An oval, to appreciate trains passing through the station and landscape
  • Plenty of sidings for shunting and "Inglenook" puzzles
  • DCC for sound, also all points electrically operated
  • Must aspire to look and feel prototypical, albeit at a level achievable within my skill set
  • Trackwork must be completed and stock running within a short timeframe, to maintain interest and momentum
  • Scenery / landscape completed to a high standard - I loved making scenery and dioramas on my old layouts
  • Portable, to allow running sessions in a variety of rooms in my home (more on this below)
  • A testbed for modelling skills, both remembered and newly discovered

With regards space for the layout, I have a number of rooms in our farmhouse that are infrequently used - however, none can accommodate a layout permanently. The smallest of these rooms is approx. 12x15, the largest 25x20. There are also converted (dry, warm) outbuildings that might work in the short term, and are larger still. So, the layout must deconstruct to be packed away, although the space it can temporarily occupy is relatively large.

 

After some research, I've arrived at this draft plan, with some rough handwritten annotations:

 

gallery_32868_4426_360055.jpg

 

I'm afraid I don't have SCARM or Anyrail, as I work exclusively on Macintosh computers. This image was created with TRAX, which I find a little clunky (possibly just me!) and it didn't have all the right PECO components. The Y points for instance are not correct. As you can see though, I've stuck with setrack for the design - this is to ensure the track is laid quickly, and with minimum fuss. I'm very short-sighted and find working with small parts and tools quite tricky...!

 

Also, you can see that I've arranged five 60cm x 120cm baseboards to create the layout. I'm aware this is by no means a popular or terribly practical arrangement, but I will have access to all sides in most running scenarios. Please also note that there will be at least one passing loop in the fiddle area.

 

Some specific points of concern I have:

  • The station loop is too small, and the platform length of only 70cm too short for even branch line stock workings (I will only have passenger trains of 2-3 coaches). Perhaps it would be better if the station and platform were on the other passing loop.
  • Reverse curves leading into the station - even for small rural branch lines, this seems like a red flag. I guess the use of setrack makes this rather inescapable though...!
  • Although I've tried to ensure a transition curve leading into the passing loop using 4th to 3rd radius curves, and hiding most of the remaining curve behind the backscene, it still looks too sharp. Again, probably a characteristic of setrack, and the small space, and like the reverse curves something to simply tolerate and work with at this level.

A lot of my conflicts here come from trying to find a compromise between ease of construction and aesthetics / prototypical practice. The trouble is, I don't really want to launch myself into making an end to end layout or buying code 75 track at this juncture, I need to relearn a lot of the basic processes and skills that go into making a trainset a model railway. I did consider trying variation on "Edgeworth", but I worried that just end to end running on something so small might not prove interesting enough for my tastes!

 

If anyone would care to critique the plan and offer some advice, I'd very much appreciate it!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a very quick gut reaction I would certainly put a platform on the other loop but I would leave the existing one and look at the possibility of replacing the the two ST240 points with a Peco SL 90 double slip. This would give more operational value plus the chance to run an auto coach working out of the bay platform. Like I say, just a quick reaction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi CM,

 

Welcome back! I'm a recent returnee as well and it's really interesting to see that so much of the hobby remains the same while other parts have really moved on, not the least of which is RMWeb itself. It's a great resource and a vibrant community.

 

I think you've already realised the main issues with your current plan and they mostly come from the restricted width of the boards and thus the tight radii of the curves. I think also that the goods sidings are not long enough to do any useful shunting and you've got too many places where tracks cross baseboard joints.

 

It sounds like you've got plenty of space so if you could expand your baseboards a bit you'd make it easier to produce a good design. Maybe go up to 2ft6in by 5ft boards to give a total area of 5ft*10ft in a more symmetrical arrangement, like this:

post-32492-0-50949200-1516768113_thumb.png

 

If you do have a bit more width then you can open up the radii a bit, solve the reverse curves problem and make the loops and platforms longer like this:

post-32492-0-02482400-1516768992.png

(I.e. insert the curving side of a straight point into the curve just before it straightens out.)

 

And similarly, to get a smooth run into your inner sidings, continue the curve with another point immediately following on:

post-32492-0-92247900-1516769203.png

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

In a not uncommon move, I've got back into railways after a roughly 20 year hiatus. The bug has well and truly sunk its teeth in again this time, and I purchased some OO gauge stock and PECO setrack for Christmas. After a couple of sessions laying track out on the floor and reliving some very good childhood memories, thoughts have inevitably moved to "what now?".

 

If anyone would care to critique the plan and offer some advice, I'd very much appreciate it!......

Hi,

 

this sounds remarkably like where I was 3+ years ago for my own Quantocks 1930 setting.

 

All the space available was 1.2m * 2.4m at the time and I planned for it to be split to 2 squares for storage. In the end the split was avoided but then I was able to add a removable goods area that creates an "L" when attached. From this experience I'd say that having 4 or 5 boards that have to be pulled apart / rejoined accurately is a very demanding specification. The issues are:

 

Keeping each baseboard perfectly flat at all the joins. This will require very solid / rigid construction materials.

When you make track joins, traditionally with copper-clad sleepers, minute variations can still occur, up / down and right / left. I think it'll take a lot of experience to get this right to your satisfaction for seamless running on the scale you plan. Even 0.5mm misalignment will produce a noticeable jump or derailment.

 

In my layout, the removable joined section is only 800mm wide and the tracks on it (6) sit to the centre as they fan out onto the extension. This 1 modest join took me a good while to get completely to my satisfaction.

 

Good luck.

 

Colin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your replies, particularly Harlequin's post regarding using the curvature of the point, and increasing the size of the baseboards - most helpful. The double slip idea raised by JST also makes a lot of sense.

Colin's points raise the spectre of ill-fitting baseboard joints, which I must admit was my worry too. To make things worse, almost all the floors in our farmhouse date from the 17th century and are, to put it politely, "rustic" in their geometry - adjustable legs are an absolute must, I had planned for that. The baseboard sides and bracing would be 10mm thick PSE timber, with a 6mm MDF top - I wondered whether a combination of at least two pairs of pattern maker's dowels and carriage bolts per abutting side would be a sufficient alignment and join between boards?

I've done a bit of carpentry work around the farm, but I also have a very skilled carpenter mate who can lend a hand. I had considered getting the boards made by one of the online baseboard vendors, but that seems a fairly pricey route to go down, and I'd rather have the satisfaction of doing the work myself (with some assistance!).

 

So, I drew up a second rough plan this afternoon:

gallery_32868_4426_214778.jpeg

As you can see, I have used some PECO streamline turnouts and flexitrack to achieve smoother trackwork - some pieces are not quite correct, but the track library in TRAX is apparently not complete, and I had some trouble curving the flexible track. The main downside to the new plan is that there is now some trackwork crossing baseboard joins at (what I would consider) unworkable angles, which will invite poor connections and derailments - I will have to rejig things a bit to make this work, so will get my thinking cap on. I am much happier with the overall flow of this station layout though!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Looks interesting, especially being GWR 1920/30 era. Welcome to RMWeb.

 

Can you flatten the tracks in the Centre a bit, to get them away from that baseboard joint? Maybe even push them closer into the curve and being the back scene further into that left curve.

 

Could you then split the boards in the middle to get an operating well?

 

Another option might be to move the left or right curve out a foot to get you more station area.

 

Good luck, it will be good to see it develop.

Neal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Most people advise not to go anywhere near MDF as a surface because it will require a lot of support (unless it's very thick and thus very heavy) and the dust created when cutting it is a real health hazard.

 

Also, PSE will warp unless you buy the very best quality and/or you can either keep it attached to something so that it can't move or control the humidity carefully.

 

The best advice seems to be to use good quality ply throughout for baseboard construction - both for the top, the sides and the bracing. (Maybe with some PSE to help make joints.)

 

Properly designed boards made from ply should be strong and light, warp resistant and should maintain straight and square edges for reliable track joints.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people advise not to go anywhere near MDF as a surface because it will require a lot of support (unless it's very thick and thus very heavy) and the dust created when cutting it is a real health hazard.

 

Agree here re safety issues, ply the way to go. Also MDF can be a sponge for water if you have changes in humidity, if any doubt look up Everard Junction's woes on Youtube! He ended up with close to corrugated surfaces and tore a huge layout totally to pieces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree here re safety issues, ply the way to go. Also MDF can be a sponge for water if you have changes in humidity, if any doubt look up Everard Junction's woes on Youtube! He ended up with close to corrugated surfaces and tore a huge layout totally to pieces.

Thank you, Colin and Harlequin - very much noted! I have checked out Everard Junction's baseboard saga on YouTube, most impressed by the strength of his new ply boards. This is clearly the way to go. By a stroke of serendipity, we need to order some ply for another construction project here on the farm, so it looks like I could get the materials sooner rather than later.

 

I'm happy with the plan now, as Neal Ball has suggested I will straighten out the goods sidings a bit and perhaps shift the passing loop points slightly to overcome the baseboard join problem. I did consider the central operating well approach earlier in planning, but this might make the layout slightly too large for the room it will be most frequently set up in. For the time being at least, I think (hope!) this is an appropriate and achievable size layout to serve as a re-introduction to the hobby.

I think the next stage is actually getting the boards made, ordering those PECO Streamline points and flexitrack (or at least the templates for the points) and starting to lay things out on the baseboards to make the last adjustments to trackwork.

 

I've been writing a fictitious history for the town and vale the layout will represent, a story which hopefully will encompass future layout builds as well. The most likely setting will be NW Wiltshire, I've been doing some research into the cross country branch between Holt and Patney & Chirton which passed through Devizes, the latter town being a good inspiration both historically and in terms of the actual railway / trackwork layout.

 

Anyway, trying not to get ahead of myself - I'll start a new thread under the "Layout topics" sub-forum when some progress is made! Any further discussion, comments and advice very much welcome here, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works, but have you considered putting the goods facilities at one end of the visible sections you have planned, but on the outside of the 'main line' curve?

 

It would make your goods sidings considerably longer, plus it would use up space on the extremities and perhaps allow you an operating well in the centre.

 

Perhaps  you could get rid of the outermost platform and just have one on the inner side of the visible loop.  Certainly there were many branch stations with a similar configuration as traffic levels were low and there was not the requirement to pass two passenger trains. However, it would be quite acceptable to pass a passenger and goods train with such an arrangement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works, but have you considered putting the goods facilities at one end of the visible sections you have planned, but on the outside of the 'main line' curve?

 

It would make your goods sidings considerably longer, plus it would use up space on the extremities and perhaps allow you an operating well in the centre.

 

Perhaps  you could get rid of the outermost platform and just have one on the inner side of the visible loop.  Certainly there were many branch stations with a similar configuration as traffic levels were low and there was not the requirement to pass two passenger trains. However, it would be quite acceptable to pass a passenger and goods train with such an arrangement.

Yes, I was going to suggest something similar. The outside corners are valuable real-estate and it's easier to avoid baseboard joints out there.

 

Here's a design that I did with sidings outside a small main circuit: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/110147-kings-tawton/page-2&do=findComment&comment=2913648

 

Notice also that you can start your passing loop further around the curve and run sidings parallel to the main line for some distance for a more realistic feel.

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I was going to suggest something similar. The outside corners are valuable real-estate and it's easier to avoid baseboard joints out there.

 

Here's a design that I did with sidings outside a small main circuit: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/110147-kings-tawton/page-2&do=findComment&comment=2913648

 

Notice also that you can start your passing loop further around the curve and run sidings parallel to the main line for some distance for a more realistic feel.

 

Aha, now that has really caught my attention. And as Happy Hippo alludes to, it has thrown something of a spanner in the works!

 

I hope that anyone reading this thread can understand that I, like so many others, am searching for as near a perfect match between three factors: my own modelling skill level, the layout operating potential and finally realism to the prototype. Harlequin, your plan in the linked thread has definitely got me thinking again as to the practicality of a central operating well, within a smaller space than I'd anticipated being possible, and incorporating some of the ideas that Happy Hippo suggests. I think part of the problem is that I really want a testbed at this stage to practice modelling skills again, and get things up and running quickly - but if I can arrive at a compromise between this and a longer-term project designed for a more refined skill set (perhaps a more modular layout) then that would probably be the best solution.

 

I will just make one quick point about the corner "real estate" of my plan so far: I had planned on modelling a canal in one corner, based on a photo of the Kennet & Avon canal passing under the railway not far from Devizes,with possibly a small wharf and / or warehouse towards the centre of the layout, before vanishing into the backscene; I realise that my very amateur plan, being blank and featureless now, gives very little away in terms of landscape!

 

Right - I have some more planning and drawing to do! Thanks all. Please feel free to add to the discussion, it really is most constructive and appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think given the space I would have gone for something like this.   Mix of set track ad streamline, most visible curves 3rd radius

Trains can saw past in hidden area / Fiddle yard.    Interesting shunting not totally hair tearingly frustrating, and 2 coach trains look good in 4 foot platforms

post-21665-0-67417600-1516940126.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think given the space I would have gone for something like this.   Mix of set track ad streamline, most visible curves 3rd radius

Trains can saw past in hidden area / Fiddle yard.    Interesting shunting not totally hair tearingly frustrating, and 2 coach trains look good in 4 foot platforms

 

That's excellent, much simpler and the longer platform and siding length is good too - I am definitely considering incorporating ideas such as this, although I am re-drawing another scheme now that has a central operating well - c.f. posts above. Thank you for your plan though!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi CM,

 

Have you seen "Edwardian splendour in 6' x 4'" int this month's (Feb 2018) Railway Modeller?

Hi Phil, I haven't got my hands on it yet - I'm due to pop into town and newsagents tomorrow, so will look forward to reading up on this at the weekend! Thank you so much for the heads up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think given the space I would have gone for something like this.   Mix of set track ad streamline, most visible curves 3rd radius

Trains can saw past in hidden area / Fiddle yard.    Interesting shunting not totally hair tearingly frustrating, and 2 coach trains look good in 4 foot platforms

 

Very similar to the Buckfastleigh branch of my OO era; add the Goods Shed siding and a headshunt and it would be a match, more or less.  However I used your FY as Staverton by adding appropriate buildings, etc.

 

Brian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For operational interest I still think you should consider keeping a bay platform. For a GWR branch, a pannier/14xx with an auto coach looks great and could run from the bay to the shunt in the fiddle yard. Just my four pennyworth....

Link to post
Share on other sites

For operational interest I still think you should consider keeping a bay platform. For a GWR branch, a pannier/14xx with an auto coach looks great and could run from the bay to the shunt in the fiddle yard. Just my four pennyworth....

 

Thanks, JST - yes, the bay platform will definitely make it into the final plan, as I have a GWR siphon and a fruit van that I'd like to use for on-platform goods exchange, not to mention the possibilities of an autotrain as you mention!

 

I've also just had a read through of this month's RM which features "Edwardian Splendour" by Darren Ray, as recommended by Phil (Harlequin) - seeing what can be done in just 6'x4' has been very inspiring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Staverton is an interesting mention, as the platform there isn't on the loop. You could put the station/ goods on the front, and then have the start of the loop going round the corner and into whatever storage you'll have round the back. Would be a bit different from most layouts of this nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Dear all, hope it's OK to bump this topic and say many thanks for your suggestions and advice. Having mocked up my plan using some setrack and also PECO point templates, I realised that if I do indeed have larger space available (such as a 12' x 18' attic that is only occasionally used) I'm going to follow Neal Ball's suggestion (also mentioned by Harlequin) of a larger oval with a central operating well, splitting this up into three distinct scenic areas and a fiddle yard. This will allow such a greater space for more realistic trackwork, although the basic track plan for the through station will be much the same. I am now using RailModeller Pro for my drawings, which I much prefer over TRAX (I am Mac computers only).

I am sating my appetite for actually building by designing and making two or three dioramas which will fit on this layout - I may start a thread on the layout topics board when the time is right!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Dear all, hope it's OK to bump this topic and say many thanks for your suggestions and advice. Having mocked up my plan using some setrack and also PECO point templates, I realised that if I do indeed have larger space available (such as a 12' x 18' attic that is only occasionally used) I'm going to follow Neal Ball's suggestion (also mentioned by Harlequin) of a larger oval with a central operating well, splitting this up into three distinct scenic areas and a fiddle yard. This will allow such a greater space for more realistic trackwork, although the basic track plan for the through station will be much the same. I am now using RailModeller Pro for my drawings, which I much prefer over TRAX (I am Mac computers only).

 

I am sating my appetite for actually building by designing and making two or three dioramas which will fit on this layout - I may start a thread on the layout topics board when the time is right!

 

 

Good luck with that then. Still be interested in seeing it develop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Dear all, hope it's OK to bump this topic and say many thanks for your suggestions and advice. Having mocked up my plan using some setrack and also PECO point templates, I realised that if I do indeed have larger space available (such as a 12' x 18' attic that is only occasionally used) I'm going to follow Neal Ball's suggestion (also mentioned by Harlequin) of a larger oval with a central operating well, splitting this up into three distinct scenic areas and a fiddle yard. This will allow such a greater space for more realistic trackwork, although the basic track plan for the through station will be much the same. I am now using RailModeller Pro for my drawings, which I much prefer over TRAX (I am Mac computers only).

 

I am sating my appetite for actually building by designing and making two or three dioramas which will fit on this layout - I may start a thread on the layout topics board when the time is right!

Sounds like a plan! Keep us posted when you're ready,

 

Colin

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...