The question I'm picking up for this blog entry is whether trying (and failing) to fit a good continuous run plan into my space is getting in the way of me building any sort of layout?  I decided to have another look at a terminus to fiddle yard scheme, an idea I’ve explored in the past in both standard gauge and narrow gauge:

 

How to not plan a model railway (part 2.2) - Another view?

 

Opening up my space would appear to offer a number of advantages.  This...

 

 

...could become this...

 

 

With several benefits:

 

• Better than no layout!
• Room ergonomics - a comfortable walk-in design.
• Any variation end-to-end in the baseboards wouldn't matter: they don't meet up.
• Just one end curve might offer room for the longer platforms and longer trains I like?
• Easier to arrange more realistic operation, and more room to keep stock on the layout with a fiddle yard (or 'Shadow Station' as they are often called in Europe, which I think is quite an attractive term).
• Modelling focus on adding detail in the scenic area of the layout, which I'm looking forwards to.

 

I enjoy trying out ideas in situ, where the dynamic between layout and room is obvious.  I had in mind a kind of Minories style terminus station with a U-shaped throat running into a narrower fiddle yard.  I started at the station end:

 

One thing I discovered early on was that using European close couplers means that - contrary to conventional planning wisdom - straight platform roads look better than gently curved ones, as the coaches don't start to pull apart:

 

 

 

Taking this on board, I posed some proof of concept photos.  I rather liked these two:

 

 

 

So far, so good, and worth taking further.  When I got to the end curve progress was less straightforward.  This is from some earlier tests I'd done with coaches marking out a 2'6" and a 3' radius:

 

 

The Swiss EWIV coaches on the inside curve are not full length - they are a shorter 1:93.5 length for smaller layouts, but the curves still looks sharp.  A 4' curve would be better:

 

 

That starts to eat into the space quite dramatically.  My vision was for a station running decent length intermediate services (not ICE).  However, a 6-coach train is still 6' long, even if I use even shorter 1:100 coaches.  I'd picked up some Roco ones at a very good price: they are still very well detailed and run perfectly - they're just shorter:

 

 

A more realistic train length would be 7 or 8 coaches, for which an 8' platform would really be needed.  By this point it was becoming more difficult to fit everything in again.  Any sense of balance between station, station throat area (the only space trains run through) and the Shadow Station was starting to get lost.

 

 

A good planning rule is to split a linear design into three more or less equal portions, something I'm clearly struggling to get. 

 

Two further complications.  The first is that the push-pull trains most suitable for the era I've been looking at are less interesting to operate on a small layout - if they haven't got space to run they do rather go 'in and out' and 'in and out' again:

 

 

The second complication arose after I determined that close up viewing would make a lot of sense for this project - either viewing the layout from a seated position...

 

 

...or raising the layout:

 

 

However, in order to build my roster up quickly, I've bought a mixture of items.  All are excellent runners in perfect condition from good suppliers, but I'd made my budget fit by including some items that are great layout models but not as detailed close up, such as my 218:

 

 

Excellent value for the price I paid and a very good runner (Piko), but if one aim of this layout idea is to focus on scenic detail and close-up viewing, maybe not the best fit given the superlative models also now available.  Having chosen the larger scale (HO), this is more of a consideration than if I'd gone with N-Scale, where I think a panoramic view can be very effective.  I wasn’t getting very far.

_____________________________________________

 

It’s been helpful to try out a non-continuous run idea, but when I revisited my list of benefits it was with a sense that I was still trying to convince myself it is a good idea for me, rather than explaining why it is.  Two comments then made me stop and think once more.

 

One is a quote from a book on "How to Design a Model Railroad" by American author Lance Mindheim (Kalmbach, 2021, p25).  It challenged me to go back to my principles too:

 

"A key question to answer early on is whether you want to model the journey or the destination.  Do you want to model the transportation process of a train going from town A to B to C, or do you just want to model what happens at C?  This matters, and it matters a lot.

 

A "journey" modeler enjoys  watching the trip.  These modellers enjoy the operational theater associated with multiple trains going about their work without having cornfield meets.  A "destination" modeler may have fond memories of one specific town and want to be transported to that place and it alone."

 

I'd already explored that very question in an earlier blog post and know my answer.  I took my sheet of notes and wrote across the bottom: MAKE MODELS AND WATCH TRAINS RUN.  And I felt much better when I'd done that.

 

Although I’ve been having great fun playing with my trains (no other term for it, really), I clearly wasn't coming up with a layout design.  Inspiring though modern European trains are to me, it looks like the only fun I’ll have with them is in collecting and trying them out.  I hadn’t expected this to be the outcome of my experimentation, but the logical conclusion is to look again at the source of my prototype inspiration.  

 

So, where next?  I'm sorted for my narrow gauge modelling but what about the Standard Gauge?  I was listening to an edition of the Second Section podcast where Grant Eastman was the guest.  His extensive N-Scale Southern Alberta Rail basement layout is one of my favourite all time layouts, not because of its complexity, but because of its simplicity.  Yet when the podcast hosts asked Grant whether he would still build the same layout if he had less space, he surprised them by saying no!  Despite the fact that his spacious design could be easily compressed into a much smaller space, he said he'd choose a different prototype that fitted the alternative space better.

 

I've already ruled out changing scale back to N (or even Z).  I proved this to myself again this past week when I needed to repair an American HO Kadee coupling spring:

 

 

 

It was at the limits of my vision (and still needed luck finding the spring when it jumped off the desk during my first attempt).

 

To get something that works for me in HO scale, it appears another view is still needed.  I was struck by this thought:

 

When I was collecting UK Great Western models in OO, the layout ideas I looked at ranged from micro-layout and Billy Bookcase Inglenook terminii designs through to generous garage-sized country runs.  The common denominator was the choice of prototype.  With my GW interest now firmly committed to a future TT:120 project, is there another prototype I could look at in HO? 
 

Is there a different prototype and approach to layout design I’ve not yet tried that will hold my interest despite (or irrespective of) the frequent changes to my space, while still working with my available time and budget, and alongside my narrow gauge interests?  That will be the subject of my next post.  Until then, thank you for reading, Keith.