Main line terminus in OO

[Joseph_Pestell]

Platforms (especially narrow ones) are not a particularly good environment for looking at trains. I well remember a friend who had been planning his layout for many years and was most disappointed by how little he could see of his trains when they were stood at platforms in his 8-platform station. And that is without an overall roof/train shed. He ended up rebuilding the layout with a much simpler station.

 

So, in this proposal, you only look at the part of the trains that is outside the train shed. The most interesting part for most people. Trainspotters are always at platform ends aren't they?

 

It also maximises the space when trains are at their best visually - moving across pointwork. This will allow you to use large radius turnouts in the station approaches rather than the small radius double slips. Reliability will be greatly improved by this, a big factor since you are looking to automate.

 

The relatively sharp curves (probably about 3' radius) in the train shed don't matter because they are hidden behind a backscene. Or you can model the trainshed roof straight right to the end shed wall to create an illusion of straight platforms. To get what I mean, you can't do better than to look at a map of the real Paddington and imagine all that part under the train shed roof being curved out-of-sight below Eastbourne Terrace.

[Damo666]

Given that I am particularly keen on a layout incorporating a main line terminus with a mixture of express and suburban passenger operation incorporating a connexion to the Underground, it seems difficult to do away with the two level design. My real concern at present is the height separation between the base boards,........

James, I'm finding this thread really fascinating, and I wish you the very best. I really like your ambition and enjoy your analysis of the challenges at each juncture.

 

I'm reading each response in this thread carefully, as I too am looking to build my first layout after being away for several decades. It will be largish, but nowhere as ambitious as yours. I too would like a gradient to have a train drop below the scenery level, do a circuit and then re-appear a little time later, rather then in a tunnel and straight back out again. Lots of thinking so far and not much doing (but it's comforting to see that I'm not the only one here who hasn't a layout).

 

Anyway, I've got as far as post #154 and aim to keep reading. As this will take me a few more days in between other commitments to get to the end (14 pages and counting), I though I'd offer a suggestion on how to get to your lower level without a helix, lift transfer or steep gradients. Maybe this has been suggested in one of the following posts that I have yet to read, but could you have a small hole in the side of your new shed and run a track out into the garden? Run an elevated track at an acceptable gradient in a slow curve and then back into the shed at the lower level?

[Joseph_Pestell]

James, I'm finding this thread really fascinating, and I wish you the very best. I really like your ambition and enjoy your analysis of the challenges at each juncture.

 

I'm reading each response in this thread carefully, as I too am looking to build my first layout after being away for several decades. It will be largish, but nowhere as ambitious as yours. I too would like a gradient to have a train drop below the scenery level, do a circuit and then re-appear a little time later, rather then in a tunnel and straight back out again. Lots of thinking so far and not much doing (but it's comforting to see that I'm not the only one here who hasn't a layout).

 

Anyway, I've got as far as post #154 and aim to keep reading. As this will take me a few more days in between other commitments to get to the end (14 pages and counting), I though I'd offer a suggestion on how to get to your lower level without a helix, lift transfer or steep gradients. Maybe this has been suggested in one of the following posts that I have yet to read, but could you have a small hole in the side of your new shed and run a track out into the garden? Run an elevated track at an acceptable gradient in a slow curve and then back into the shed at the lower level?

 

I think that, on here, we should call that a Coachmann solution.

[DCB]

The thought of all those platforms hidden in an overall roof is pretty horrifying.  To be honest I would model the first couple of feet and then model the trainshed facade and put the last 7 feet or so in a box outside the shed as you won't be able to do anythng under the canopy anyway and a box with a lid will be much easier to access for derailments even if it is two level and the shed will be a lot cheaper or you can spread the station throat out more and ease the curves if you keep the same shed. 

To save length in the hidden sidings run tracks to a return loop down the garden.

The outside though covered tracks concept has been used successfully, there were layouts in RM  Halebarns to Diggle or some such was one.

For real inspiration get the American magazines, they are much more average enthusiast with loads of time and space orientated than UK, 3 levels is normal, staging (hidden sidings) on the top level 60 or 72 inches above datum not unusual, Helix very common, layout on constant gradient to allow multiple levels not unusual. 24 X 8 is small by their standards but its much more your sort of thing than the almost inevitable end to end  "Exhibition Layout" designed to operate on trestles in a church hall on a dozen or so occasions which UK publications rave about.

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your thoughts. The trouble with the idea of a low-relief platform end is that, from what I understand of the diagram, it would obstruct the door to the shed and also the area that I intend to set aside for a workbench, which is most important.

 

I had considered the idea of extending the layout out into the garden, but I am not keen on this idea because the hole in the shed necessary to enable this would compromise the insulation and potentially security in the shed, making it very cold in the shed in the winter, and allowing insects such as wasps to enter in the summer, and the outside trackwork, even if boxed in, would be potentially difficult to maintain, I imagine. Also, the terminus end of the shed points towards the house, and there is not much room in any event for external trestles.

[mightbe]

I think the hole in the shed is an unattractive solution on a couple levels. I think a better move would be to scale the station back to no more than 9 platforms, with the longest platforms being scaled back to 10-coach length+loco (and the rest of the platforms being 7-8, with maybe one short platform only able to hold 6+loco). This will simplify the throat without it looking even remotely simple.

 

Quentin

[jamespetts]

I think the hole in the shed is an unattractive solution on a couple levels. I think a better move would be to scale the station back to no more than 9 platforms, with the longest platforms being scaled back to 10-coach length+loco (and the rest of the platforms being 7-8, with maybe one short platform only able to hold 6+loco). This will simplify the throat without it looking even remotely simple.

 

Quentin

 

Thank you for your thoughts. May I ask what the practical advantages would be of shorter and fewer platforms?

[mightbe]

Visually the eye stops "caring" at about 9 coaches, especially at low viewing angles. (If you're standing and the layout is at 36", this visual trick doesn't quite work.)

 

The reason for a 10-coach+loco platform is to have some "extra" platform fore and aft of a train, which makes the station look larger than it perhaps is. The reasons for fewer platforms are legion; more space for the platforms themselves, more space for buildings, slightly less pointwork in the throat, easier to "fill" and again, the eye stops caring at a certain point how many platforms there literally are. The completed scene is enough for the eye to go "oh hey, a huge station with lots of platforms". (I chose 9 because it's more than twice the number of approach tracks and looks better than, again, an even number.)

 

Also, forgot to say: somewhat shorter platforms will visually balance the space, the trains, and the trackwork better. With the throat functioning as a scenic space trains won't be seen leaving the layout before the last coaches have even gotten out of the station proper (and the reverse), which is the implication of the current proportions.

 

The idea is to make the layout and its operations visually passible while accepting a modicum of spatial compromise--this is one of the intangible things that makes layout design an art, and what can save your layout from the small dimensions of the shed. We don't really notice slightly shorter trains arriving in slightly shorter platforms since everything has been reduced by a similar degree. Make no mistake, a 9-coach train is quite a grand thing indeed and the eye will simply accept it as a realistically-long mainline express.

 

Speaking as a P4 dabbler, eyes are quite foolable things.

Edited March 9, 2018 by mightbe

[Joseph_Pestell]

Thank you all for your thoughts. The trouble with the idea of a low-relief platform end is that, from what I understand of the diagram, it would obstruct the door to the shed and also the area that I intend to set aside for a workbench, which is most important.

 

I had considered the idea of extending the layout out into the garden, but I am not keen on this idea because the hole in the shed necessary to enable this would compromise the insulation and potentially security in the shed, making it very cold in the shed in the winter, and allowing insects such as wasps to enter in the summer, and the outside trackwork, even if boxed in, would be potentially difficult to maintain, I imagine. Also, the terminus end of the shed points towards the house, and there is not much room in any event for external trestles.

 

You have not got the shed yet. So you can put the door wherever works best for the layout.

[jamespetts]

Quentin - whether a person's eye might think 9 platforms and 10 carriages adequate is not the same as there being a substantial practical advantage to 9 platforms and 10 carriages. The purpose of having a given number of platforms and carriages is not merely to create a visual impression: I want to achieve realistic operations with realistic train formations, and that is of interest quite apart from the visual impression that they create. The ability to have wider platforms and save a handful of points at the station throat seem to me to be very marginal benefits compared the disbenefits in terms of operational realism in reducing the number and length of platforms, and I imagine that the platforms thus widened might be excessively wide, since, because of the need for width at the lower level, there is no question of saving any baseboard width by reducing the number of platforms.

 

Joseph - it is not just that the low relief design blocks the specific space that the door and the workbench are now planned, but that those are the only places where a door and a workbench could go without being blocked by some other part of the layout. With this design, there would be no space anywhere to put either door or workbench.

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

 

Joseph - it is not just that the low relief design blocks the specific space that the door and the workbench are now planned, but that those are the only places where a door and a workbench could go without being blocked by some other part of the layout. With this design, there would be no space anywhere to put either door or workbench.

 

Yes, James. Of course laying out the terminus that way has impacts on the rest of the shed and layout.

 

When designing any layout, but especially one that is as potentially complicated as this, you need to maintain a bit of flexibility of thinking or - to use the modern expression - "think out of the box". You don't seem very good at doing that as exemplified by the washing line..

Edited March 9, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell

[Zomboid]

Will you be splitting and joining the carriages in the platforms?

If not, then you could accurately represent operations with one carriage trains. Wouldn't be visually satisfying, but a fixed formation of carriages is functionally identical with any number of carriages.

 

I'd suggest finding out what your engines can pull. If they're anything like my steam engine, you won't be able to pull 12 anyhow (mine is an American 2-10-0 in HO, and it can't start a train of more than about 6 bogie freight cars on a level 2'ish radius curve without me helping it along with the big hand from the sky). No point having huge trains that you have to unrealistically double head if operational fidelity is important to you.

[jamespetts]

Joseph - suggesting that I "think outside the box" in general does not really assist with the specifics of the design. In order to prefer the low relief design, the whole design of the shed and the layout with it would have to be better than the whole design without it. It is not at all clear that there is any reason to think that the overall design would be better with the low relief arrangement than without it. The current design is deliberately set up so that the door of the shed is as near to the house as possible to facilitate easy access in cold and/or wet weather. It is not clear where else that the door could go, or what other changes to the design of the layout might facilitate it being elsewhere.

 

Zomboid - I think that the first paragraph has rather too narrow a conception of "operations": part of operations is choosing the right formation of train from the carriage sidings to form a particular service, including where appropriate adding strengtheners. The idea is that the long distance stock is stored and serviced at this station (or, more accurately, its associated carriage sidings), and that the suburban stock is (notionally) stored and serviced at another station on the line, apart from a rake or two stored at this station overnight ready for the first local trains of the morning.

 

In relation to discovering what locomotives can pull, there was extensive discussion of that earlier in the thread, and there were some detailed tests helpfully carried out by other members of the forum.

Edited March 9, 2018 by jamespetts

[mightbe]

Well, you seem intent on creating a cramped, aggressively unattractive layout. I can't stop you, of course. Just trying to point it out such things in advance; minimizing regret and so on.

['CHARD]

... The purpose of having a given number of platforms and carriages is not merely to create a visual impression: I want to achieve realistic operations with realistic train formations, and that is of interest quite apart from the visual impression that they create. ...

 

Have a look at Jim Smith-Wright's masterpiece and respond with your initial key observation.

 

http://www.p4newstreet.com/layout-2

[jamespetts]

Quentin - that is not a helpful reply, implying as it does resentment that I have not followed your suggestion. It seems that your comments are directed to your own aesthetic preferences rather than any real practical issue. Please understand that we all have different tastes, preferences and priorities, and it really is not helpful at all when I politely reply to a suggestion by explaining that it would not promote the things that are priorities for me for you to respond by appearing to take offence at the fact that my priorities are different from yours and refer in derogatory (but excessively vague) terms to an "aggressively unattractive layout". I should remind you that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

'Chard - I am not sure that I fully understand the question. The most obvious thing that strikes me about the picture to which you refer is the very annoying text in the middle of it referring to a drop down menu. If you refer to the railway itself, the tapering platforms are very obvious, as is the fine quality of the track and ballasting and tantalising hint of delightful intricacy and complexity beyond.

 

I notice from the website more generally, incidentally, that the builder's original plan was to build a smaller, low-relief station modelling only half the platforms, but that he decided that it would be better to "go large" and model the platforms fully.

[Siberian Snooper]

I suggest that you take a look at this book on GW coach formations, most trains are nowhere near 10+ coaches long.

 

"Train Formations & Carriage Workings of the Great Western Railway" by W.S. Becket. Xpress Publishing, isbn 1901056082.

[jamespetts]

I suggest that you take a look at this book on GW coach formations, most trains are nowhere near 10+ coaches long.

 

"Train Formations & Carriage Workings of the Great Western Railway" by W.S. Becket. Xpress Publishing, isbn 1901056082.

 

I am aware that most trains are shorter than 12 carriages - but of course the platforms and carriage sidings have to be able to accommodate the longest trains, not just the average trains. There is a very helpful topic somewhere in this forum on GWR carriage formations which I have studied. Some of the named expresses could be quite long, although there were also standard 6 coach corridor formations, and the Bristolian was a 7 carriage train.

[F-UnitMad]

Have a look at Jim Smith-Wright's masterpiece and respond with your initial key observation.

 

http://www.p4newstreet.com/layout-2

 

 

'Chard - I am not sure that I fully understand the question. The most obvious thing that strikes me about the picture to which you refer is the very annoying text in the middle of it referring to a drop down menu. If you refer to the railway itself, the tapering platforms are very obvious, as is the fine quality of the track and ballasting and tantalising hint of delightful intricacy and complexity beyond.

 

I notice from the website more generally, incidentally, that the builder's original plan was to build a smaller, low-relief station modelling only half the platforms, but that he decided that it would be better to "go large" and model the platforms fully.

Check how many platforms the real Birmingham New Street has, and how many Mr Smith-Wright's superlative layout has.

 

The question is, what was your first impression?

['CHARD]

 

'Chard - I am not sure that I fully understand the question. The most obvious thing that strikes me about the picture to which you refer is the very annoying text in the middle of it referring to a drop down menu. If you refer to the railway itself, the tapering platforms are very obvious, as is the fine quality of the track and ballasting and tantalising hint of delightful intricacy and complexity beyond.

 

I notice from the website more generally, incidentally, that the builder's original plan was to build a smaller, low-relief station modelling only half the platforms, but that he decided that it would be better to "go large" and model the platforms fully.

 

P4 New Street, a faithful rendition of Birmingham's iconic (to some of us of a certain age/ persuasion at least) principal station (beyond your tantalising hint of irony, I note that you guessed I wasn't literally asking you to critique the drop down menu!   ).

 

'He decided it would be better to model the platforms fully.'  I'm not sure how familiar, if at all, you are with the real New Street new or old (seventies incarnation), but it has an entire island platform in addition to those modelled.  

 

The only reason I point this out is in response to post #338 where you are dismissive of scaling down train lengths by 10%, for fear they compromise your perception of the accuracy.  P4 New Street is by some margin, one of the most highly respected model railways in existence, and one of the reasons for this is that it is an exemplar in 'suspending disbelief,' it convinces the viewer that this is a scale model of New Street, until the lack of platforms 6 & 7 or is it 4 & 5 is pointed out. 

 

Not wishing to be in any way unfair, but I think you have an issue or a tension implicit in and between your plans and what you seek to gain from creation of the layout.  Again, your choice, but the realism of operating accurate length trains comes at the expense of so much more realism in other areas.  It's almost as though you are trying to replicate a Train-Sim in model form.

 

Not being critical, but I do find the psychology and philosophy at work here very fascinating.  

[jamespetts]

Again, this is a matter of priorities. For some, the visual impression that a layout creates will be the most important thing. For others, such as me, the actual operations will be more important. The New Street layout generally looks beautiful and gives a good general impression of that station as I recall it before its recent redevelopment (I have not been there since). I have no personal recollection of the exact layout or number of platforms of New Street. However, I do not know what it is like to operate, nor what sort of compromises that need to be made in this regard. I also do not know what its constructor's preferences and priorities were. No doubt, it is regarded as a success because it succeeds in doing the thing that it sets out to achieve; but that does not mean that it is seeking to achieve the exact same things as I am seeking to achieve.

 

I do not understand why, for no apparent practical reason of any discernible significance, people are trying so hard to urge me to have fewer or shorter platforms. The design that I have already has fewer and shorter platforms than Paddington (which has 16 platforms if one counts the Hammersmith & City line at Bishop's Road; this plan has 11). I have had no explanation of what benefit that there might be to having even fewer and even shorter platforms beyond the fact that some people would find that arrangement more aesthetically pleasing. Given that this is intended to be my own private layout in my own shed, why should that matter to me?

 

Also - what is wrong with trying to replicate a train simulator in a model? Indeed, in at least one sense, what is a working model railway but a form of railway simulation? One might equally say that a computerised railway simulator is trying to replicate railway modelling. I do not think that the two things are as easily distinguished as you appear to assume.

 

Edit: As to "realism in so many more areas," can you elaborate on which specific areas of realism can be improved significantly simply by reducing the number and length of platforms? All that I had so far on this is that the width of some platforms could be increased. As far as I can see, the width of platforms (given that the platforms as proposed would be within the envelope of scale real platforms) is less important than the length of trains.

Edited March 9, 2018 by jamespetts

[Denbridge]

Couple of comments 

 

Im building a new shed, 10metre by 3.5m , an office takes up 3 metres, leaving me with a 7 x 3,5 metre space,   I would not dream of having a radius under 36"  in 00, anything else is toy trains.  Gradients need to be 1:100 , i.e. an 80mm rise needs a run of 8 meters , i.e. virtually the length and thats not with any curves 

 

But ( and Im an electronics engineer by trade ), I wouldn't dream of filling that space with such a complex track plan as this.  In DCC , computer automation is very complex and such a layout will consume years and years of effort 

 

quite frankly , its way too ambitious

 

All pretty academic. The challenges of getting modern rtr steam to haul those length trains round the proposed corners (they are not curves) plus the impossibility of proper access to areas of the lower level, not to mention the ridiculous helix doom this layout from the start. Several people have tried but it all falls on deaf ears.

[jamespetts]

All pretty academic. The challenges of getting modern rtr steam to haul those length trains round the proposed corners (they are not curves) plus the impossibility of proper access to areas of the lower level, not to mention the ridiculous helix doom this layout from the start. Several people have tried but it all falls on deaf ears.

 

It is deliberately dishonest to assert - falsely - that I have ignored the issues to which you refer. As I have stated over and over again and you have deliberately ignored over and over again, I have had conflicting advice on those specific issues, and I have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to explore in detail the empirical basis for the conflicting claims to try to resolve those conflicts.

 

Do not ever make that malicious and false claim again. Ever.

Edited March 9, 2018 by jamespetts

[gordon s]

James, that last sentence comes across as threat and has no place in any thread no mater how angered you may be....

[Andy Y]

James, that last sentence comes across as threat and has no place in any thread no mater how angered you may be....

Agreed, I am going to lock this topic as sensible advice is being disregarded and a lot of time expended by contributors.