MiltonF

That's a pretty neat way to use that space. Having the scenic section be curved is a neat way to use the space. Although it occurs to me that with that much space taken up, it might just be more effective to build a freezer style roundy layout in the same space. I've been looking at a plan called coldean, which fits into a 6'6" x 4'9" space, and it can be easily converted to something of a coiled up end to end layout by eliminating the factory connecting to the fiddle yard, or just not running trains through it. It's a little small though, so maybe extending it out to an 8 x 5'9 would make it look nicer.

My biggest concern about putting it so close to the bed is not discomfort, but rather my unbelievably bad clumsiness. I'm certain I'll one day bump into it and fall onto it or into it.

Apologies for the cryptic post. Each square represents 1 imperial foot, while the room is larger than this the area beyond is just not suited for model railways, with a closet to one side and a bathroom door to the other. The only remaining open space is a 6 foot by 2 foot corner between the bathroom door and the entrance to the room. I've drawn it more logically here. Seemingly ample room, but tragically I must sleep somewhere and a 2 foot wide pallet just isn't enough for me.

I've spent the last week thinking over this layout, and being very frustrated with the strange shape of the room. It doesn't lend itself well to model railways I think. The long wall is all in the wrong place! Or maybe I'm not thinking about it the right way.

Essentially just a small track to perform basic utilities on without getting in the way of anything, huh? Sounds good enough to me.

I haven't decided if I keep the spur or just get rid of it altogether so I haven't placed the trap point yet. I don't even know how far up or down the coal siding I want the turnout. One problem to me is that the loco spur itself will be struggling for space for any decent looking facilities, but I don't want to make it so far down that the entire coal siding needs to be cleared just to take on water.

Out of curiosity, and for the sake of exploring alternate routes, do you have any specific operating plan for your minories partner layout, Seironim?

There may be some optical illusion going on here, as the runaround length has never changed on this particular plan. It's a strange approach that definitely works better in real life due to rtr point lengths and space constraints, but I'm still hoping I can fix the horwich inspired plan. You see, with a "flipped" version of the plan with the platform on the approach, you lose the movement of crossing over the approach from the departure to the goods siding, which to me is an essential element of this layout. Even though it is somewhat illogical, it's something that I really like about the real location. I'm still working on other different designs in the background of this which offer perhaps a more traditional approach to the BLT scheme, but I'm hoping that if I can get this to work, it can be built. While single track running and more logically placed goods sidings would simplify the layout a lot, it wouldn't be as interesting in my opinion.

And just as an added thought, here's that same plan with the loco spur reintroduced On third thought, maybe the best possible way to incorporate engine servicing into this layout is to simply have the engine go "off scene" to be coaled and watered, then turned by a wobbly 0-5-0

I've incorporated a couple changes, don't worry too much about the private kickback as it's just me messing around trying to figure it out still. I do have to say that I miss the sort of lopsided mirrored effect of horwich as a visual design element. I've added two objects the same dimensions as ten inchers for scale. And wow, you're right, having looked at the old and new sidings side by side they really were incredibly stubby.

There's a reason I referred to it as compression gone too far. As for minories I fiddled about with it but I just don't like it too much. Not a huge fan of dedicated urban passenger traffic and the goods yard versions feel like an afterthought.

That's kind of inevitable on a layout like this. I want to maximise as much visible shunting space as possible, hence the headshunt, but it will require using the fiddle stick even if extended to 7.5 feet.

That sounds just about right to me! And width could definitely be added, I just used the skinny plank to restrict myself when figuring out the design. I figure it's best to start with what you know can fit and then take that design and add a few pounds in length and width to avoid cramming too much track in too little space. When you find yourself compressing, say a C.J. freezer design, you know you've done something wrong.

It could just about be done. I'm not sure I really want my head that close to the bathroom when sleeping but, if it means more layout space, it's a sacrifice I could make. A 4 ft fiddle yard and 7 foot layout sounds just about right. I always wished that a fiddle yard could have a proportion to a layout of no more than 1:2 in order that the layout itself dominate the space, but it doesn't seem to be possible for small layouts with any train that doesn't used 3 inch 4 wheelers. But, maybe, 8 ft and 3ft fiddle yard... too greedy?

For something completely different, I fiddled around to come up with a minimum size BLT along the same design philosophy. Only the goods yard, headshunt, and station remain in this setup. In order to add a little bit of visual interest, and provide more room for a traverser, the entire thing takes a gentle curve across the board. I can't find anything operationally out of place, but maybe I could be shown where it is. As an added bonus this would be small enough to fit in the space between my bathroom and my door, and a fiddle stick or lightly built traverser could be popped onto the end for operating sessions without having to setup anything else. It's almost boring, but I'd rather make something operationally sound and decently roomy than something compressed to all hell and awkward to operate. It's such a simple plan that there should be no need to even try to explain the diagram.

Without changing the overall size of the layout, I've found a way to fit in a second coal siding and something of a short headshunt for it. Sadly, it's lost any sense of curvature by now. As it's so compressed already for operational purposes that may not have changed much about it's visual decline, but it's just so nice to see trains take a shallow curve.

I don't intend to operate more than one engine at a time on the layout regardless.

The platform is slightly larger than it looks, point to point the runaround is the length of two points and two coaches not including the closing points. I'm fairly certain you could just squeeze 3 57 foot coaches in if you had perfect uncoupling precision, something I have no plans of doing. The entire layout is 7 by 18 inches, because there is very little space. The main restricting factor is the space in which it can be set up, normally it would be stored somewhere in its full length with the fiddle yard removed. There is no open space more than 10 feet in length available for setting up a layout, due in part to a strange room design and in part to the cluttered state this house is in. This diagram of my room might explain what words cannot for me. As you can see the actual space for a layout is limited. The room in total is about 11 by 11 feet but the available space is much less. My beds position is dictated by the fact that the 6 foot wall is too small a space for even my minimum width bed to fit.

It's the vestigial remains of the coal siding. I was wondering if I might remove it.

Thank you for the detailed responses. Having thought about if further it does make a lot more sense for a single slip in place of a crossover. Not sure what I was thinking when I determined it wouldn't work. Looking at the map there doesn't seem to be any conflict here. I tried a couple ways of moving the goods entrance around but there just doesn't seem to be room for it in such a small space -which means either that I have to accept the visual compromise in the hopes there isn't any buffer interlocking, or otherwise I have to make the plan substantially larger. A view of a 1966 map seems to confirm the existence of a single slip, or very poor linework. I should have done a little more research before scratching my head I guess. It also lost the turntable by 1950, which tells me it isn't important enough to retain on such a small plan. Well, considering it isn't really meant to be a replica of Horwich, it's fine to me if it goes anyhow. With the goods entrance pressed up so close to the bridge I think I could fit in the medium points anyway. Initially I didn't think it would look good and I don't like the idea of always having trains going "off-stage" for shunting movements, but if it's prototypical then I can't really worry too hard about it. I've shown the considered changes here, I do wonder if the coal siding might be getting on a bit in length relative to the rest of the layout. It's beginning to look a little bit stretched thin. It's still an awkward looking move to approach the platform but with single (and occasionally double) coach trains it shouldn't be too bad. With the vestigial turntable siding removed, I think there might be some room for a signal cabin although I'm concerned it could act as too much of a visual obstruction to what will be the main location for shunting movements on the layout.

I'm just going to keep this to a single thread to avoid spamming, I've got several questions regarding mainly the operation of the ex-L&YR branch line terminus Horwich. I'm thinking of building a layout loosely based on a compressed version of it and I want to get a good idea of how you would operate it in a few fine details just to avoid major model railway-isms like, for example having three or more locomotives in steam on a low traffic volume location. 1. this may just be up to modellers preference, but if it isn't, how would the private industrial sidings to the south east of the goods ayrd be shunted to/from? Would it make sense for whatever locomotive was there at the time they were ready to be made up into the goods train to shunt them out, run around them, and drop them off in their place? Or would it make more sense for the goods locomotive itself to perform the shunting duties? 2. as the station is a hair away from the loco and carriage works, I thought some operation involving coaches in need of maintenance might be interesting. If, say, a train found one or more coaches to be unusable for the departing journey, where would they leave them assuming they had no time to take them to the works? Would they use the goods yard, or would they leave them at the station platform, or something like that? 3. even though I cannot see well enough on the map, I have assumed that the goods siding crosses the arriving line and nothing more, no slips of any kind, according to the regular practice. However strange outliers are known to exist so I want to be sure this is correct, I don't see why it wouldn't be. 4. on my own layout, the coal yard has been reduced to a single line. This would make it impossible to shunt without clearing the main line but I feel it would be a shame to just discard it completely. Is it reasonable to have a coal siding that requires using the main platform to shunt? 5. Lastly, I'm wondering just how much of the content of my layout is vestigial and if/how different parts should be edited/removed. I can definitely see how the engine spur is vestigial enough that it should be done away with but it's one of those things that doesn't feel right not to have. I'm concerned about the short points for the platform arrival but it just cannot take medium or longer points without increasing the overall length or decreasing the runaround to unusable length. This is essentially my first real layout aside from some micro dabbling so keep in mind that I might come across as a bit slow.

No more pre-order listing of SL-E92 on hattons? How on earth am I going to make my unrealistically short BLT now?

Here I've shown an industrial junction from Cotehill station along the settle-carlisle route. Obviously the gypsum would have been brought out of this private line down to the mainline, but I have no idea how exactly it would be operated. Does a private loco bring the wagons down to a reserved siding at the station? Is it dropped off in the goods yard? Would mainline locos be allowed on the private line to bring them out and do the shunting themselves? I admit I don't have a lot of knowledge of prototype operations besides the basic mainline services, so I don't know how this would fit in. I want to have a similar arrangement on a somewhat generic BLT that I'm planning and I just don't know enough about this aspect of railway operation. I apologise if this subject has been discussed elsewhere or if it's very simple and entry level knowledge.

Out of curiosity, has anyone bashed the Dapol pug kit with the Dapol/Hornby rtr? I can see it being "useful" if someone wanted the original buffers and exposed crossheads.

I know this is a bit of a cop-out answer, but in any property which had a sizeable yard I'd just build an element-proof shed. Perhaps a trailer on wheels, if we're going with the idea that it can't be a permanent fixture that cannot be repurposed.