Jump to content

SouthernRegionSteam

267 views

 Share

Last blog entry, I shared a generous serving of the hundreds of sketches that I've drawn for Coastguard Creek. There will be a few more here, but this time I'd like to focus on how important it can be when layout planning to stop sketching and think logically for a moment! Let me explain...

 

CC5%20-%20Inner%20header%20image.jpg


...after months of relatively fruitless sketching, on New Years Eve I took a step back and remembered my mantra (which came about after numerous failed projects) of 'design for the space you have, not the space you want'. That restriction really helped with focusing my ideas, as per CC12, but even that didn't last long! It wasn't long before I went back to getting carried away with sketches of layouts that were too large (as documented last entry).

 

Fast forward to now, June 2022, and recent visits to exhibitions (in particular the RMweb Members Day) inspired me to find whatever time I could scrounge to work on ideas for Coastguard Creek. Taking Sandy Shores to two exhibitions made me realise, yet again, that I should remain realistic about what I can achieve given my situation in terms of storage and transportation - and base any plans around that! We'll come to the specifics of that in a bit, but before diving into designing, I thought it important to learn from past mistakes...

 

...the problems with my past layouts

Looking at the original plan for Coastguard Creek with fresh eyes brought up some now-obvious problems. Aside from wanting more from the layout, I realised that it has the exact same problems as most of my past layouts (Sandy Shores included); firstly, the station/halt is almost immediately after the scenic exit, and secondly, the sidings do not have associated industries.

 

AVvXsEiOiqc4j0wuIpeXCcd6rjAhgaVIHLZJzvis


Above: In an effort to squeeze everything onto one board, too many compromises were made in the original plan. Note how, just like Sandy Shores, any passenger train at the halt would block off potential freight operations - so a passenger train would have to arrive and depart before the freight could come. In the real world, such a branch would probably be one-engine-in-steam anyway, but on a model railway that's an incredibly boring way to operate a layout!

 

Stations/passenger traffic

Having a station right after the train joins the scenic section means that running passenger trains is very boring - almost pointless. My placement of stations has mostly been determined by the shortness of my layouts, and the need to have long headshunts to be able to back freight into sidings; that naturally means the station gets pushed close to the scenic exit to make enough room. To be fair, passenger trains don't interest me nearly as much as freight (I had only one old Bachmann carriage in OO gauge, until a recent purchase where it will be replaced by one newer Hornby offering!), but if there's a platform (and there will be - I love halts), it might as well be seen and used.

 

AVvXsEh5HkYHk_kSHrMtYBjGaT2Mfq2sjDNMhws_

 

AboveSandy Shores' halt is far too close to the scenic exit, and thanks to the loco shed, can be hard to see. Running passenger trains is almost pointless, and indeed I rarely run them!

 

Freight

So, if freight is thus the main operational point of my layouts, why then do I always end up with generic sidings that result in completely random shuffling of wagons? Even on Sandy Shores, there is no industry associated with either siding. Taking a step back, I realised that this was a problem with my original plan for Coastguard Creek - none of the sidings have a particular use, although I suppose you could say that the boatyard does have its own siding; albeit on the hidden track inside the building!

 

DSCF4601.JPG


Above: A particularly cruel image of Calshot MKII at the Brockenhurst exhibition in 2010! Aside from the lack of backscene in this shot (although to be fair this was taken from the fiddle yard), it's the lack of any shunting purpose that I'm trying to draw attention to here. None of the wagons have loads, and none of the sidings really serve any industry or pupose. The only thing useful in terms of freight facilities is the very short loading platform just visible at the back left.

 

Backscenes

As shown above, one of my biggest concerns is actually what to do with backscenes. I prefer tall, one piece backscenes - which is why whenever I exhibit Sandy Shores I go to the extreme effort of re-attaching the backscene with Blue Tac to its (single hardboard) board. It's a very inconvenient set-up, and not very neat along the edges, but I just can't see a way around it - because I need to keep the paper backscene safe, so it must be removed and put into its tube for storage/transportation. Failure to do this has, in the past, resulted in small rips or tears. A PVC vinyl backscene (like you'd find with outside banners) would be more durable, but it would be too shiny, and hard to hang perfectly. Ideally, I'd be able to fasten the paper backscene with adhesive-backed magnetic strips. I did consider this for Sandy Shores, but I just don't think there is enough clearance, and I'm not sure if that would result in visible horizontal banding from the front.

The backscene must also surround the scene in such a way that from most angles it would fill the frame (as looking at the scene through a camera). Old AGWI Rd was an awesome design in terms of a layout theme and shape, but impossible to fit a backscene to; not least because it wouldn't be visible from many angles!

 

POLY%20Overall%20view.jpg


AboveOld AGWI Rd. was a classic example of forgetting about the importance of backscenes. No matter how you set-up a backscene, it would never be able to be seen in every normal viewing point - one of the 'wings' (the far one - a jetty board) would've been left without one, with the backscene only on the near edge of the closest boards. This means views of the jetty would likely look pretty bad on camera!

 

Making the layout too big!

 

a%20-%20The%20Old%20Road.jpg


Above: My biggest fail in my model railway past was The Old Road. An exciting layout, with a fair amount of potential, but look at the bloody size of it! Don't laugh, but it took me until setting it up outside to realise that I had nowhere to set up more than two boards at a time inside. Whilst I did build a few buildings, the boards remained in my tiny shed, and never again worked on. When the shed needed to be demolished, the boards went with it; the softwood battens re-used for Old AGWI Rd, until that also met it's demise (again, because it was too big to set-up in the house)! See a recurring theme here?!

 

The only layouts that I've built that have been a 'success' are layouts with only one board; with any later extensions always causing the layouts eventual demise. That says to me that I should build a small layout that will be fun to operate and include everything I would like from the outset, and that should never need to be extended. 

 

Operational lessons learnt from recent shows

I enjoy building scenery more than operating, but as I like to exhibit my layouts there's got to be a balance somewhere. I've also recently heard from quite a few people how much they enjoy having a layout permanently (and conveniently) set-up at home to shunt wagons for an hour or so every now and then - that sounds like a great idea to me! Looking at my current plans, and how they would be run (should they be built), has made me look at things a little differently. As mentioned earlier, this has become particularly obvious having exhibited Sandy Shores recently at both Narrow Gauge South, and the SSWRS show in Wilton.

 

1) Something should always be moving

On a basic level, I found that if nothing moves on the layout within 20 seconds or so, a good number of people will just move on. That said, with Sandy Shores at SSWRS, I did become more proficient at swapping locos from the shed to mitigate the downtime whilst preparing the next train in the fiddle yard.

 

P1040269.jpg


Above: Whilst Sandy Shores does have uncoupling magnets, they have not proved successful. Thankfully, most visitors seem to enjoy watching the intricacies of manual shunting!

 

Something surprising to me, however, was that despite there being only two sidings, people seemed to really enjoy watching me shunt wagons. Especially, much to my surprise, the intricacies of uncoupling wagons by hand. All of this has upped both my interest in operating, and my desire to reduce downtime/increase shunting maneouvres. OK, so some people commented on 'the hand of god', but the vast majority of people actually preferred the interactivity of me manually uncoupling. You'll never please everyone!

 

2) Fiddle yards should be convenient and quick to use

It has also made me realise that fiddle yards/off-stage areas must be easy to use - the faff of lining up Sandy Shores' turntable by hand/sight is a problem not just in terms of time wasted, but also the frequent derailments resulting from inaccurate alignment:

 

P1040270.jpg

 

I also ran into problems with not having quite enough space; the folding stock tray beneath is too far to be useful for it's intended purpose (although it's great for holding cups of tea and cake), and I found that I kept knocking the wagons off the turntable tracks due to both the narrow clearance between the tracks, and the lightweight nature of the wagons (the latter of which was mostly dealt with by adding 'Liquid Gravity' from Deluxe Materials). Swapping wagons to make up different trains is also somewhat fiddly.

 

3) Shunt like you mean it!

Despite having no real sequence of shunting on Sandy Shores, I have learnt that one way to alleviate boredom is to set a train up in the fiddleyard that has a random mix of wagons in a random order, bring them onto the scenic side, and then try to shunt those wagons into the two sidings so that they are in a more uniform order. I suppose the next step up would be a card system (as per Michael Campbell's Loctern Quay). As a further step up from that, Coastguard Creek will feature more obvious industries, and associated sidings; therefore hopefully providing opportunities for more intentional freight movements (and potentially quite challenging ones)! Something I also realised is that I don't have a brake van on Sandy Shores - another aspect which will also add a small level of complexity to operations. To be fair, I did consider this in later plans for Coastguard Creek; thus including a short siding from the run-around loop(s) to hold a brake van.

 

4) Know the limits of one-man operation

Perhaps the biggest lesson I've taken away (which I should've done many years ago considering I've been exhibiting my layouts now for over 10 years!) is that an exhibition (or exhibitable) layout should be designed to be run by the number of people you expect to have with you at shows. In my case, just me! As I'm always solo, it also means that, should I be fortunate (it's happened once) to have someone operate my layout for an hour so, that it should be easy for them; even if they have little experience. When you've exhibited solo for so long, you forget the quirks that your layout has! This either has to be written down and explained to the new operator, or needs to be designed out/retroactively fixed.

 

P1040110.jpg

 

AboveSandy Shores was designed from the outset to fit in my little car. OK, so it's not very neat, but it does work! The great thing about this layout is that you don't need a single tool to assemble/disassemble it.

 

 

The limits of one-man operation also extend to operational complexity, and also the size of the layout and ease of assembly/disassembly. I think I struck a good balance with Sandy Shores (especially because it requires no tools to put together), but in terms of any new layouts, this always has to be a major factor in their design. There's no use building a layout with more than one scenic section, or more than one fiddle yard as I'll only be able to operate one at a time! Similarly, if the layout is too big, I won't be able to see what's going on at the other end.

 

5) Interactivity with the public

Whilst at the SSWRS show, a layout across from me had what I can only describe as 'vibrating chickens' in a farm yard; the kids (and grown ups) loved it! It made me think that although I put a lot of thought into little cameos, I've never taken the initiative to make them more of a focus for visitors. I don't just mean in terms of animations, but also making lists for visitors to try and encourage them to look for the details. I know this has proved very popular on other layouts, but I don't know why I hadn't considered it before!

 

A second thing I would love to try is, as I just hinted at, animations. Though I'm thinking less about quirky things like vibrating chickens, and more about more... practical applications. Back at the RMweb SWAG do, I was fortunate enough to operate the exquisite Bridport Town. Aside from the fact that I can't remember the last time I operated someone elses layout, what struck me was the added interest that the working signals and level crossing gates added. Not only was it fun, but it also added operational complexity! Something I'm dying to add on Coastguard Creek is a working swing bridge (as well as perhaps working crossing gates and semaphore signals). I'd also love to model a working travelling steam crane, but I think that is far beyond my skill level!

 

SWAG22%20-%20Bridport%20Town%20(4)%20(Co


AboveBridport Town - Dave Taylor's ( @DLT's ) masterpiece! The crossing gate is activated by a switch, which opens the four gates in turn. Until the crossing is open to rail traffic, the fiddle yard (out of shot to the left) is not electrically powered. Of course, this doesn't mean you can't cause havoc on the scenic side, but it's a neat safety feature, and thankfully I did manage to avoid any gate incidents when operating it at the SWAG do. As mentioned, all the signals also work; providing a really fun aspect to the operation (assuming you remember to change and reset them!).

 

Something I would also like to explore further are removable wagon loads. All the flat wagons on Sandy Shores have removable loads, but these are only swapped out in the fiddle yard; so wagons arrive to the scenic side full, and leave full. This doesn't make sense in a real-world scenario, so if possible, I'd like to have some way of emptying wagons before they reach the fiddle yard on the new layout. The easiest way would be to have one siding going into a building, where the loads can be removed behind-the-scenes, and the empties shunted back out to another siding, and eventually to the fiddle yard for refilling. A more complex example would involve unloading and loading on the scenic side via a crane, overhead gantry, conveyor, hopper, tipper, or any other method. As a man of little mechanical experience, that would be a challenge, but captivating to the audience if pulled off effectively.

 

Back to basics...

With those lessons learnt, and with new ideas to think about, let's set some ground rules; as well as noting any restrictions that will come into play.

 

Transport

 

Perhaps the biggest restriction is that my current car is very small! Assuming I won't be upgrading any time soon (and also assuming I won't be able to use my Dad's van), I shall have to design whatever is to be exhibited to fit in the limited space available in my current car. An add-on fiddle yard would be acceptable provided it is not too deep, but I doubt there is room for a second scenic board; especially given my penchant for tall backscenes. Here's why:

 

Current%20car%20dimensions.jpg


The absolute maximum size I can fit in my car is a 1.4m x 0.9m board (tapering to 0.6m on one end) - assuming that it's overall height is no more than 0.4m. The height restrictions (as shown on the left hand sketch) are in place because the rear of the car obviously slopes - thus the taller/higher-up a board is, the shorter it has to be. In order to fit (stack) a second board, board length would probably have to be reduced to 1.2m (assuming they can be stacked to be no taller than 0.6m - which is unlikely unless I make the backscene removable). The boot 'lip'/seal intrudes on the overall width - bringing it down from 1m to a maximum of 0.9m as shown. To further complicate things, due to curves, there is only a 0.7m long flat section at the bottom, so the boards would need to be lifted by 15cm on top of the 15cm of the lip itself to fit the full 0.9m width - thus a fake floor would likely be beneficial, unless there are boxes that the layout can be stacked on top of.

 

Operating

   

I have always exhibited on my own - aside from the usual problems this brings, it also means that I am in charge of operating the entire layout, including the fiddle yard. Thus the latter should be simple and quick to use and marshal trains. As I prefer tall backscenes, this also means that I need to be able to see the entire layout from one spot (at the front or side), and that operation should be flexible enough, as it is with Sandy Shores, to allow multiple trains to be operated on one board via the use of well-placed isolating sections. In some previous designs, I had a fiddle yard sandwiched between two scenic modules. This looked great in principle, until I realised that I could only operate one module at a time!

 

The breakthrough?  A layout of two 'halves'...

 

With more and more scenic ideas, I completely rethought how the layout would be set up. At a basic level, there were four ways to approach this layout:

  1. As a portable single board layout (as per the original plan)
  2. As a portable multi-board layout (like most exhibition layouts)
  3. As a series of small/micro portable independent (i.e with their own frame/backscene) but connectable modules
  4. As a semi-permanent home layout, with an additional module (or two) to take to exhibitions

No. 1 is obviously the most convenient because it is a self-contained unit, but it would be impossible to fit every scene in that I have in mind; especially given the size limitation of my tiny car!

 

No. 2 is the more standard approach to layout building, but does require increased wiring and joins in the backscene. There is a danger that this would also result in a layout too large to exhibit alone, and too large to fit in my car.

 

No. 3 solves the backscene problem from No. 2, but will create others; most notably that each module would probably need its own control panel or flying leads, and it would also be hard to operate such connected modules by one person because you can only see one module at a time. That also means that only one module will have something happening on it at a time.

 

No. 4 is probably a good half-way house between all the options - it seems like the best of both worlds, with the only problem being that I will likely only ever be able to share the home portion through the medium of photos/video, and not at exhibitions.

 

Looking at all the sketches proves that there are just too many inspirational locations to fit them on a layout that will be able to be exhibited by one person (i.e. me!). No. 4 therefore looks like the most suitable option, and thanks to a tidy up of my studio in August, an entire shelf could be cleared; creating the opportunity for a small cameo layout/module to fit in the space, which would thus also become...

 

...the exhibition layout

Whilst a lot of the scenes would lend themselves to becoming a micro layout in their own right (as shown with the 3-module idea, (CC12)), it's the boatyard that stood out for me as being the most suitable candidate; especially given the amount of shunting potential and variety in wagon loads. For now at least, I have given this the name 'Brambles Boatyard' - after the name of a treacherous sandbar in the Solent. (Until this very moment, I got confused with the Shambles, which is a sand and shingle bank near the Isle of Portland - so I have since corrected and renamed this layout - although some of the sketches below still show the wrong name!) Ahem, anyway... the Brambles Bank has caught out many a ship; from small vessels, to colossal modern ships. More fascinating though is that a cricket match is held on it once a year at low tide! I was fortunate enough to witness this in 2016 on my day trip to the IoW Steam Railway:

 

IOW44.jpg


Above: A group of brave souls playing cricket in the middle of the Solent on the Bramble bank sandbar at low tide! A most bewildering and amusing sight, I must admit. I don't think you could find anything more British if you tried! And no, I won't be modelling it.

 

 Anyway, sorry, I got a little side-tracked there. Here's the shelf in question...

 

mock2.jpg

 

Above: The shelf is approximately 98cm long, 48cm deep, and 40cm tall. This is an early mock-up from quite a while ago; using old buildings from Calshot MKIIThe Old Road, and Old AGWI Rd (now that all those layouts, alas, have been broken up). It does however prove that the shelf is big enough to fit a self-contained layout on, although, a bit of extra length would be helpful to enable a proper headshunt, so...

 

STUDIO%20MODULE-22.jpg

 

Above: (CC18) By, quite literally, thinking 'outside the box', we can both expand the scenic and operating potential. Needless to say, this is just a freehand sketch, so it's likely to be wildly optimistic, but it does show developments of the earlier mock up. The general scene I'd like to aim for includes; a large half-relief boat shed, a lean-to loco shed for the Ruston 48DS (or alternatively, a siding disappearing into a shed), a winch shed with slipway, a small boat 'high and dry' being worked on, a store/yard office, a half-sunken barge, a small brick gatehouse, and possibly a derrick crane. Note that angling the exit track (compared to the mock-up) means that I can add a fiddle stick/headshunt and actually operate the layout in its home, and thus without having to move it. That said, a cassette system or compact sector plate would be more useful.

 

Either way, a tiny extension sticking out would also make the most of the 1.2m/4ft limit length that my car stipulates, and being at an angle, would allow for a significantly longer headshunt than would otherwise be possible. Remember, I also have 1m/3.2ft to play with in terms of width in the car; that's over twice the shelf width! Thus, whilst the scheme on the right (with it's passing loop and rear access to the boat shed track) probably won't fit in the space, a cleverly-planned extension designed from the outset might make it feasible at exhibitions. The hard bit would be the backscene (perhaps one for home, and one for exhibitions?).

 

The home layout...

The home portion of the layout would still be split up into two or three boards (whilst I've never moved house in all my 29 years on this planet, not planning ahead would just be tempting fate). Whilst I'd love to exhibit it, I think it would realistically be too big; likely requiring a small van to transport it (again, I'm not ruling it out). For now, I've called it Leape, which was an old spelling of Lepe - I wanted there to be some separation between prototype and semi-fictional model. It is, after all, an amalgamation of most of the ideas that have been drawn up in the past year, and the various prototypes that inspired them. I will preface these plans by saying these are very much first drafts/ideas - but it should help give the general gist!

 

Bedroom%20ideas-17.jpg

 

Above: (CC19) Using the same boatyard module, we can see how it might integrate into a semi-permanent home layout in the bedroom. Again, freehand sketch; so this will be far too optimistic, I suspect! Note that I also played around with adding a third section 'Buckler's Timber Yard' - inspired by Eling Wharf. The above plans are the only ones I've drawn up for the home layout idea, as this has been a recent development - in reality, I expect this to change quite drastically.

 

With so many ideas and plans (more than I've ever drawn for any layout by far!), it's now time to sit down and actually work out what it is I want from the home layout. So, in no particular order, Leape now has to:

  • Have at least one rail-served industry to marshal freight to properly, preferably more if possible.
  • Be a 'line in a landscape' with plenty of opportunities for typical country scenes/cameos.
  • Have recognisable New Forest features (cattle grid, ford, mill pond etc)
  • Avoid extreme compression to the extent that it hinders operation
  • Avoid trying to cram too much into a space - let the scene 'breathe' instead
  • Have at least one bridge (I'd love a working swing bridge to add some further interest, although if I can fit it into the exhibition layout that would be best!)
  • Have a sweeping trackplan and avoid elements parallel to the baseboard edge
  • Make the scenery dictate the baseboard shapes, whilst remaining in sensible/manageable sizes

 

Thoughts for further development

Mock ups

Needless to say, both layouts will require proper mock-ups done before I can even begin any formal plans! At the moment, I will likely focus on planning for the boatyard layout, which I'm sure will evolve further. Part of this will be assessing if there really is enough room to sit the layout on the studio shelf or not, and how big I can get away with it being!

 

Name

You may be wondering about the original name, Coastguard Creek. I still like this name, but I think I'd consider this as the umbrella name for both the home coastal layout, Leape, and the creek-based boatyard layout, ShBramble's Boatyard. I think doing otherwise would cause confusion; not least because the boatyard will be designed so that I can join it onto the home layout, should I wish.

 

CC%20NEW%20LOGOS%202022-all-SM.png

 

Above: The new logos for the three sections, with the 'umbrella' name of Coastguard Creek at the top, and the two layouts below. Can you tell that I've been in a logo designing mood this week?!

 

Two-phase plan?

One bonus of approaching this project in two parts is that I can build the smaller Bramble's Boatyard first, and then decide later on if I still want to proceed with the much bigger Leape (or should that be a much bigger leap!). At present, I love the scenes that Leape will feature (particularly the tidal mill), but I worry that not being able to take it to exhibitions will make my interest wane - after all, it would be located in my bedroom (I only go in there to sleep!), and I will already have Bramble's Boatyard to operate within my studio at any time I please. Back in my teenage years I had an L-shaped layout in bedroom, but I didn't run it nearly as much as I should've. I'm a little concerned the same will happen with Leape, but I suppose it might be a good excuse to step away from the computer/studio and have a little relaxation time to operate the layout in an evening.

 

End-to-end or round and round?

As far as the home layout goes, on one hand, I like the freedom and realism that an end-to-end layout brings. On the other, I really would like somewhere that I can just run a train around and not always have to keep an eye on it; I haven't had such a layout since my very first one when I was still in primary school, and my scenery consisted of an unpainted papier mache tunnel and large rocks from the garden!

 

I did consider having a test track on two circular 'boards' with one OO gauge line and one OO9. Non-scenic; just a plank of wood with track on it that was perhaps hinged in the middle OR would be split into smaller arcs. The idea behind the arcs would be that I can turn the boatyard into a roundy-roundy via attachable thin boards. I might actually still consider that, as a roundy-roundy takes up a lot of space, especially in a bedroom environment - and it also requires tight curves.

 

Home layout

One thing I'm a little concerned by plan (CC19) is that there is very little scope for operation with the home layout as it stands - it almost feels like a wasted opportunity - especially without the shipyard layout attached. I also feel like the layouts, however many sections there are, should be joined directly, rather than using the fiddle yard as a break. I sense that it would be more fun to show the actual junction of the creek branch/spur, rather than assume it off-stage - basically have it more like (CC17) - which is my favourite plan to date. Speaking of which, with that plan I would obviously have to swap the boatyard scene for the timber yard as I would already have the boatyard as the self-contained Bramble's Boatyard! Whatever the case, I'm in no rush to plan the home layout - the focus for now will be on the boatyard.

 

Latest sketch

Speaking of which, here's the latest version of the boatyard layout, again, drawn freehand so take it with a pinch of compromise...

 

Brambles%20Boatyard%20-%20sketch-31SM.pn


Above: (CC20) ...this latest sketch of Bramble's Boatyard, now that I look at it, has the exact same trackplan as Sandy Shores! In reality, another siding would be beneficial, but I'll wait until I can do some mock-ups to see what I can fit in the available space. I'm sure there will be many more variants to come - a small swing bridge extension for added interest at exhibitions would be great, but would contradict my liking for a low tide scene!

 

So that's it for this blog entry. I'd love to know what you think about any points that I've raised, and the sketches shown. Do you find it hard to dedicate time to running your home layout? How many of you have actually ever moved onto a 'Phase 2' layout/module that was larger in scope? I'm happy to hear any of your thoughts - they will be much appreciated!

 

Next time: Potential alternate history of the area/railway, research into New Forest industries, and further prototype inspiration.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Round of applause 2
 Share

7 Comments


Recommended Comments

  • RMweb Gold

Thank you for taking the time to write this out, shortly moving house to one where I have already staked a claim to some dedicated space, and you have clearly articulated the thoughts whirring around my head about where my previous layouts have gone wrong (and a couple of others to consider!).

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold
3 minutes ago, Jonboy said:

Thank you for taking the time to write this out, shortly moving house to one where I have already staked a claim to some dedicated space, and you have clearly articulated the thoughts whirring around my head about where my previous layouts have gone wrong (and a couple of others to consider!).

 

Thank you for the comment - I'm glad it resonated with you, and was also timely! I came to the realisation that I find it so easy to get wrapped up in a new project and all the fun of designing scenes, that I completely neglect to think about why there was a need for a new project in the first place! There is much to be said for learning lessons from old projects - both successful and not so successful aspects! I'll admit that this entry has been me waffling on a bit too much, but it does help to think out loud (or in this case, type out your thoughts). There were a few things I might not have thought about had I not written it down.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Jamie I really like the way you visualize things in different creative ways. Trainsim, graphic art, sketches, mock-ups, prototype photos, all options being brought into play and gradually shaping the idea. Also helps to visualise it for the rest of us, the images speak a thousand words all on their own.

 

The Brambles Boatyard is looking good. Just a shame you couldn't use the original name, "The Shambles" would have been a brilliant layout name 😀

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Morning Jamie.

 

You raise so many good points in a wonderfully articulated and thought provoking blog entry. 

 I was totally drawn in and am still mulling things over. 

 

I'm a bit odd I suspect but I find things 'gel' when  I have  a building or two to plonk about the place. I lack imagination so I can only really visualise the layout when I can actually see the buildings in place as it were. But as it happens, this doesn't always work out well..... 

 

You see, you're absolutely spot on regarding sidings needing to do something. Sheep Dip suffers from this with all three sidings being compromised in some way or another. This was entirely down to a lack of forward thinking and I would certainly do things differently now. Lesson learnt. 

 

I'm with Mikkel regarding Brambles. It looks splendid as a stand alone project, let alone as part of a bigger layout. This concept works well and I would put forward Jerry Clifford's Smiths Wharf as an example. 

 

Looking forward, as always, to see how this progresses.

 

Rob. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

This might be one of the most informative and helpful articles I've read on the subject! As a newcomer to the hobby I can sympathise with your dilemma - I've spent more than 2 years going back and forth between an end-to-end layout (which would be more manageable in the house), and a circular style (which would give me the train-running that I really want). The result is "analysis paralysis". 

 

I'm in no position to offer advice, but I'll certainly be following your thoughts and plans, and wanted to say "thanks" for taking the time to put it all down in such a lucid manner.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Jamie I really like the way you visualize things in different creative ways. Trainsim, graphic art, sketches, mock-ups, prototype photos, all options being brought into play and gradually shaping the idea. Also helps to visualise it for the rest of us, the images speak a thousand words all on their own.

 

The Brambles Boatyard is looking good. Just a shame you couldn't use the original name, "The Shambles" would have been a brilliant layout name 😀

 

Thank you, Mikkel!
I'll admit that I did like the name "Shambles", and it would've also given me an excuse for any imperfect modelling - "It's called Shambles for a reason!". The module did actually go through a number of names, including Solent Shipyard. There are a few real-life places named the latter, and I actually stumbled upon one on the River Hamble which was hugely inspirational. What's more, there are loads of aerial photos on Britain From Above of that location which have proved very useful indeed.

 

As for visualisation, I do enjoy all the various methods, although sketching is of course dangerous and can lead you down a rabbit hole, as I discovered! As was discussed in the comments on the last blog entry, people prefer different methods, and some don't even bother at all; preferring to make it up as they go along. There's no right or wrong way, but for me it's all about design - so sketches, mock-ups, visualisations (etc) are a must!

 

3 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

You raise so many good points in a wonderfully articulated and thought provoking blog entry. I was totally drawn in and am still mulling things over. 

 

I'm a bit odd I suspect but I find things 'gel' when  I have  a building or two to plonk about the place. I lack imagination so I can only really visualise the layout when I can actually see the buildings in place as it were. But as it happens, this doesn't always work out well..... 

 

You see, you're absolutely spot on regarding sidings needing to do something. Sheep Dip suffers from this with all three sidings being compromised in some way or another. This was entirely down to a lack of forward thinking and I would certainly do things differently now. Lesson learnt. 

 

I'm with Mikkel regarding Brambles. It looks splendid as a stand alone project, let alone as part of a bigger layout. This concept works well and I would put forward Jerry Clifford's Smiths Wharf as an example. 

 

Looking forward, as always, to see how this progresses.

 

Many thanks, Rob! I'm glad you enjoyed the entry, and that it gave you something to mull over.
Thank you also for mentioning Jerry Clifford's Smiths Wharf - I saw that for the first time a few weeks ago on another thread, and it immediately resonated with me on many levels. If Brambles Boatyard comes halfway close, I'd be very happy!

Having buildings (and other important/large features like trees) to move around and try out in different locations is a very valid way of coming up with a scene. Your layouts have proven that this works very well - you have achieved well-balanced scenes full of character, and a sense of space that most people don't achieve on layouts twice the size!

 

Now, some more general ramblings:

 

I don't think, unless you've built several layouts, that it is possible for someone to appreciate just how many aspects need to be thought about when building a layout. I may be more on the extreme end of the spectrum, but planning and design now takes me as long as building the layout does, if not longer! Whilst I know that a good track plan is important, usually the focus for me is on scenery (and how the layout will look), and certainly this is the first time that I have stopped to consider what purpose sidings have, and tried to learn the processes involved in the various industries and operation of the railway. As far as sidings go, I suppose it is all down to the prototype, and also what you wish to run. Presumably, most 'generic' stations usually had a coal siding, a mileage siding, and perhaps a cattle dock or end loading bay. Once you start to go down the industrial/private-owner route, things start to get more complex - which I have only now started to realise!

 

Despite all that, I'm hoping that I haven't put anyone off - at the end of the day, you should always build a layout to please you. I always find it a tricky balance to try not to come across as preachy. Regardless, oftentimes the only way to learn is to give it a go; there is no 'one-size-fits-all' solution - you will find what works for you.

 

30 minutes ago, Darlington_Shed said:

This might be one of the most informative and helpful articles I've read on the subject! As a newcomer to the hobby I can sympathise with your dilemma - I've spent more than 2 years going back and forth between an end-to-end layout (which would be more manageable in the house), and a circular style (which would give me the train-running that I really want). The result is "analysis paralysis". 

 

I'm in no position to offer advice, but I'll certainly be following your thoughts and plans, and wanted to say "thanks" for taking the time to put it all down in such a lucid manner.

 

Thank you - and I'm glad that it has been helpful to you!
Scarily, it might be as much as 20 years since I've had a roundy-roundy layout. At one point (when I was a teenager), I remember setting a circle of track on the dining room table and having fun watching stuff whizz around, but other than that, all my layouts have been end-to-end. As such, I don't know if having a roundy-roundy is just an itch to scratch from childhood, or whether it is actually something I would enjoy having. Up until now, a roundy-roundy has been out of the question, but it is now at least an option.

 

However, something in the back of my mind tells me that it would only be satisfying to operate if you had the ability to shunt elsewhere at the same time, and if the circuit is fairly long (say, around the entire room) - so that the train actually goes somewhere, and out of sight for a period. Similarly, having two circuits (one in each direction) would be far more preferable.

 

Writing this down makes me think that a permanent roundy-roundy probably isn't for me:

  1. If it is to fit on one or two boards, it would potentially be too small to be of real 'play' value
  2. It wouldn't fit in with my desire for a terminus station
  3. If I did use up the entirety of the bedroom, it would require a lifting flap or similar
  4. I only ever run short trains (not least because I don't have much stock), so it's not as if I could enjoy watching mainline trains pelt it around the room on a double track mainline
  5. I've managed without for 20 years, and still enjoy shunting layouts!

 

Anyway, many thanks again for all your comments - they are really appreciated!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
JimC

Posted (edited)

Just a small thought. I'm currently further up the coast, and one thing I've noticed as a scenic feature is a raised beach. Coastguard Lane, West Wittering is a little local road that I reckon runs on the edge of one, so on one side of the road it drops down a few feet to an area that's variously wet/verging on salt marsh, whilst the actual road is on the edge of the raised beach, and presumably bedded on shingle. I find it easy to imagine a railway builder settling on such a feature - a sort of one sided embankment with level ground on the high side for a yard. The lane runs down to a creek, and although I don't believe there's a history of boat or ship building on that spot, its easy to imagine there could be. Another scenic thought is mud flats with the tide out. No pesky water to reproduce. A little further down the harbour there are sea defences made from railway sleepers. Traffic wise, your yard would have timber in, but quite probably there would be fish/seafood traffic in the other direction. Lobsters by rail is apparently still a thing according to a bit of web search! 

Edited by JimC
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to comment

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
×
×
  • Create New...