Layout Help Please

[Chimer]

Aston Cote is exactly what I don't want, as you quite rightly said. Harlyn Pier could work, but with so many modifications that it would be more or less a 'clean sheet' design. If there's an interesting prototype worth modelling, please let me know. I'm also thinking about a layout called Northwick, if you know the track plan, that would be great!

 

OK.  Your view of Aston Cote eliminates at a stroke 95% of all branch terminus plans anyone would be likely to draw for you starting with a clean sheet.  Now if you could tell us what sort of modifications you would want made to Harlyn Pier, that might give us a clue as to what you actually want.  If you used Northwick as a starter and omitted the right-hand 2 x 2 "station" board, 2 of your 6 x 2 boards would take you to about the left hand edge of the engine shed, and you'd have to complete your 90^o turn to the fiddle yard by that point, which would probably mean putting the two essential approach crossovers on the bend using curved points.  So you'd probably need to shorten the platforms by a foot or so, and the loco depot would probably have to go.

 

I how I'm going to brace it- wooden batons/sticks glued to the bottom of the baseboard. Does this work?

 

2" x 1" wooden battens, on edge, is the traditional way of doing it.  Probably 3 longitudinal battens and 4 (some would say 7) transverse ones for a 6' x 2' board, preferably with proper joints where the middle longitudinal crosses the middle 2 transverses.  And I would screw the butt joints as well as gluing them - as per SS's photos.  Just gluing the frame to the MDF board is fine.

 

Edit to say the "proper" joint I mentioned appears to be called a "cross-lap" joint.

 

Chris

Edited September 29, 2017 by Chimer

[The Johnster]

Thanks for the floorplan, Ed, we can all see things a bit more clearly now.  The juliet is towards the left hand wall of the room in this orientation, which does not leave you much room for an L along the bottom wall if the layout is to be laid along the left wall.  Is the other gap in the wall, the one in the right hand end, a door or another window, and if it's a window, where are the doors?

 

Have we had permission from Domestic Authority to have a removable section across the juliet, or is that to be kept absolutely clear at all times?  This is, it seems to me, going to the most crucial point that will decide not only the size but the track plan of your railway.  2 ways it can go; simple end to end terminus to fiddle yard along the left hand wall, Minories in it's original form will fit with 4 coach trains but not much else; you could have a separate higher (or lower) level goods yard behind to vary the interest a bit.  Or L shape with removable juliet section, which has the advantage of your being able to 'scenic' the entire left hand wall section, 13 feet with a 90 degree curve leading on to the juliet bridge.  You may be able to incorporate something else on the fiddle yard side of the bridge, small industry, loco shed, whatever, and the corner is idea for this sort of thing.  

 

In the interests of the fairly intense operation you seem to favour, I would make the concept suburban based, not a rural branch. This will provide the rationale for busy traffic on a restricted space, and offers the opportunity for a small amount of main line running, excursions and overnight parcels/mail traffic as well.  Something based on Minories is still, in my view, the way you should go; it is a well proven plan and brilliant fun to operate!

 

And you are progressing with the boards; things are beginning to actually happen!  Confucius him say journey of a thousand miles start with a single step; that single step is the hardest and after that it's just putting one foot down after another.  Keep the momentum up and don't be disheartened if you get stuck; we can probably get you unstuck fairly quickly and if we can't, not the end of the world, go back a step and have another go.  

 

Have you given any thought to what you are going to support the boards on?

[Siberian Snooper]

I only ever use screws for timber bracing, so that the timber can be reclaimed when the boards are scrapped. I would use half joints for intermediate joints,that is cut away half the timber from half of each piece, so that they interlock. Before securing the frame to the boards put the frame on top and draw around it this will show you where to drill for the screws, but it will also show where not too put turnouts, if you decide to motorise them.

[ejstubbs]

I have looked at most of them, none of them working on my Mac.

 

Are you referring to the track planning tools?  I would find it a bit odd if none of them are working for you.  XtrkCAD is available in a MacOS specific download, Railmodeller Express and Pro are on the Mac App Store, and TRAX should run on anything that's got a reasonably modern browser (I think it needs HTML5, but any currently supported browser should be compliant with that these days).

 

How old is your Mac, and what version of MacOS is it running?

Edited September 29, 2017 by ejstubbs

[The Johnster]

Screw and glue in my case, and clamp until the pva has gone off over at least 48 hours (it can take longer than expected in the nooks and crannies not exposed fully to air) in a room temperature environment.  Timber is less reclaimable after a future breakdown by this method, but can be re-used after pva has been loosened with hot water.  Have to say, though, that water and MDF are not mutually compatible by nature!

 

Re-using baseboards for a new railway is a bit of a perilous undertaking anyway as years of pent up internal wooden desire to flex or warp in a certain hitherto undetected way are released, and not a practice I would recommend to a newbie.  Recycling baseboards for purposes other than new railway work is another matter, and much more accepable.

 

Once the boards are braced, they can be laid on top of whatever support is going to be used and track plans drawn on top of them if you want.  I personally don't use track plans any more (what is this insane heretic saying?), after many years of meticulously designing and accurately drawing them out on boards and then laying something only vaguely similar which 'flowed' or 'fitted' better.  A basic and often rather rough intended design as a guide line is all I need these days and I simply lay the track out until it 'looks right', then carry on with the laying; that said, one or two absolute measurements must be adhered to, including the maximum train length and clearance for it in platforms and fiddle yard sidings whatever shunting move is taking place.  A piece of string or tape cut to this length will prove it's worth at this stage of building.

 

All sorts of advice is available on the subject of laying track, much of which will be at odds with what I will suggest; I am telling you about a system that works well for me in my particular circumstances and not trying to suggest than what I do is the only, best, or even most desirable way to achieve your layout.   I lay the track in the form in which it naturally falls onto the boards as far as possible without sharp curvature (for which I find set track best if accuracy is to be maintained), and fix it temporarily into place with track pins not fully driven home and easily removed with the claw end of a hammer.  I use track joiners to maintain smoothness over connections (once the sides of the rails are painted they are to all intents and purposes invisible).  When your track is laid, push your longest items of rolling stock (usually passenger coaches) around on it to check for clearances on curvature and around pointwork.

 

Tape marker pens to the centre and corners of the coaches used for this clearance testing, with the tips running along the baseboard surface, using different colours if you think that will help, and push them around.  You will make a series of lines which will indicate the clearance points of your longest stock for the purposes of tracklaying and building platforms, or siting signals or lineside structures, with a safety margin of about half the thickness of the marker pen to account for wobble at speed and other unforeseeable factors.  You will of course have to lift the vehicles over pointwork that fouls their path, but the basic principle will hold.

 

When you are happy with all this, and that the baseboard joins are going to remain level and not give you future problems, you can lay the track permanently.  As this is to be a permanent layout, you can happily lay track, even pointwork, over the baseboard joins, which will make life much easier for you!  Personally, I do not use underlay and pva glue the track directly to the baseboards, and use track pins to hold it in place until the pva has gone off; again, allow 48 hours at ambient room temperature for this whatever it says on the glue bottle.  Laying direct to the baseboard is, IMHO, conducive to reliable and smooth running, but can be noisy; if the noise of running trains is going to be a problem to the Domestic Authority, the time to deal with the issue is before she notices it and underlay of some sort to deaden it might be a useful addition in your case; I have no Domestic Authority and can get away with things to an extent not all modellers can!  

 

Then you will be ready for wiring, which is another story for another bedtime, Padawan.  

 

This overview will keep us going for a few weeks as the boards as built, put down, and the track laid on them, first temporarily and then permanently.   The temporary track laid stage is very useful for finding out how the layout works in practice, confirming that the various clearances are adequate but not visually over generous, and that the concept is viable, without committing to a permanent solution until necessary.  It will also give you a good indication of the 'look' of the layout, how the sightlines and general appearance work (or don't) and probably suggest how the scenic treatment of the finished product should be approached.  I always think of Minories as a rather gloomy, semi-subterrainean, oppressive sort of place, with lots of black girders and uncompromising civil engineering about the place, but your ideas may be different and you can use this 'unfixed' stage to develop them.

Edited September 29, 2017 by The Johnster

[Chimer]

I think this is the best answer, assuming those squares are 6" and requisite planning permissions can be obtained:

 

 

 

I think I would go for the terminus on the bottom wall to the right of the Juliet and the fiddle yard on the left wall, but either is possible.  If you used a cassette fiddle yard, you could have something in front of it, though that would make fiddling more difficult.  Or you could conceivably have two different termini, taking it in turns to act as fiddle yard for the other one.  I have shown the bend using 3rd and 4th radius curves shoved tight into the corner and made the bridge section a simple straight 6" wide section - that could be improved at the cost of being cleverer with making the lift-out lift-outable.

 

Any good?

 

Chris

[The Johnster]

Chris Chimer's plan works well, but personally I would use every opportunity or dodge to make that 90 degree curve more than 2 foot radius and in fact as large a radius as you can, even if it runs on to the juliet lift out at an angle.  It is very close indeed to the  wall at 2' from datum in either direction, leaving no room for any error or even the most basic scenery, and the 'inside radius' curve is proper train set.   

 

Either 'leg' of the boards can be the scenic one and of course equally either leg can be the fiddle yard one, but I don't personally like the feel of a scenic section leading off in a straight line over the juliet bridge, which will almost certainly have to be non scenic; the use of the curve to suggest distance and manage sight lines tells me that I will be happier with the scenic board being the left hand one.  It can be extended a foot to the back wall, by the way, and arguably should be.

 

An option might be to start the 2 six foot scenic boards at the top wall, stopping them short of the bottom wall by 1 foot which is where they naturally end anyway if you do this.  Then a lightweight hinged lifting juliet bridge, a foot wide and 4 and a half long, meeting another one 2 foot 6/4 foot 6 of the way across juliet, possibly decorated on the underneath to enhance juliet and help disguise the ugly truth of their model railway origin when in the open, access the juliet, position.  I am thinking of the happiness of the Domestic Authority here, you will understand, as this will be vital to the well being of your railway project!

 

Does juliet open outwards or inwards?  Inward opening juliet panels will have to be accommodated, and probably blinds or curtains as well (blinds are clearly preferable for your purposes), which will have to fit neatly between the plane of the wall and the bridge without fouling the stock; that might mean cutting into the bridge laterally by 6 inches or so and you will be grateful for the foot of width to play with!

 

Juliet bridge is of course a particularly critical component, and will need careful design, neat finishing, and to be lightweight and easy to handle by all participants in the household; it's default position will probably be in the open, raised, position.  

Edited September 30, 2017 by The Johnster

[Chimer]

Don't disagree with any of that, noting I'm guessing at the actual dimensions.  My assumption was that the lift-out section would be just that - lifted out and stowed somewhere when Romeo's about, rather than hinged.  In which case it could possibly be sceniced as an actual bridge.

 

Chris

[Harlequin]

Juliet bridge is of course a particularly critical component, and will need careful design, neat finishing, and to be lightweight and easy to handle by all participants in the household;

 

Sounds like Juliet Bridge is a bit of a diva!

 

And, surely, the name of the layout is going to come from this phrase in some form or another... But I wouldn't presume. That's Ed's choice and Ed's alone.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Harlequin

[The Johnster]

Think I agree about Juliet Bridge, who has now become anthropomorphised proper!  

 

A lift out section of 7 feet, or 9 as I was originally thinking of it, will be a heavy and awkward thing to lump around even if cleverly designed to be of lightweight construction, and a proper monster as MDF; which diva were you thinking, Phil, Miss Piggy?  It is for this reason that I am now envisioning her, I mean it, as two (possibly partly counterweighted) pieces in a hinged, fold up, form, without scenery or the look of an actual bridge, although if that could be incorporated it could provide part of the rationale for the look of the station approach and throat.  A design problem, a bridge we will cross when we come to it (sorry), will be a firm connection in the middle, where we are floating around in space with nothing to attach to except the other end of the bridge which is also floating around in space.  Bloody Juliet.

 

My version of the layout with the scenic area furthest away from the kitchen, where Romeo operates the railway and Juliet does the dinner (apologies for gender stereotyping) without getting under each other's feet, seems more conducive to a harmonious relationship to my mind, but of course if Ed particularly wants it the other way around and his Domestic Authority is ok with it, then that's just as good a plan!  I am also keen on the idea of the fiddle yard being boxed in, with sufficient headroom for handling trains in there, underneath a kitchen enhancing work surface, or even a breakfast bar!

 

I am, tbh, a little concerned about what will happen on hot days when Juliet wants her balcony open and Romeo wants to operate the railway; trouble in fair Verona!  Freezer original Minories can be fitted entirely on the left hand wall complete with fiddle yard, and no bridge needs to be built, but I suspect Ed has been seduced by the hussy's charms and wanton promises of extra space and running length, and will go down that route now....

[Chimer]

Umm .... a 7' x 6" x 3" box girder from 6mm ply, with plain track on top, could be shifted by R & J working together and stowed below one leg of the layout.  On mature (huh!) reflection, I agree scenicing a 7' removable section is probably not a goer.  A double hinged arrangement would need a vertical support at the midpoint, but that could just be a length of 2" x 2".  But we're getting ahead of ourselves here, as Juliet Bridge hasn't got planning permission yet - may not even have been submitted for approval!

 

Here's another pic to show what I think Johnster is suggesting for a basic outline .... 

 

 

[Harlequin]

I have overlaid the low-res plan from post #20 onto the more recent higher-res sketch and unfortunately they don't match up very well.

 

Juliet Bridge may need to be even wider than current thinking. Until there's an accurate, dimensioned room plan I don't think it's worth spending too much effort on planning.

 

Phil

 

[Ed Winterbury]

Mac OS Sierra is the system I'm running. Unfortunately, the situation with the Juliette is best summed up by this sign:

 

[Ed Winterbury]

OK.  Your view of Aston Cote eliminates at a stroke 95% of all branch terminus plans anyone would be likely to draw for you starting with a clean sheet.  Now if you could tell us what sort of modifications you would want made to Harlyn Pier, that might give us a clue as to what you actually want.  If you used Northwick as a starter and omitted the right-hand 2 x 2 "station" board, 2 of your 6 x 2 boards would take you to about the left hand edge of the engine shed, and you'd have to complete your 90^o turn to the fiddle yard by that point, which would probably mean putting the two essential approach crossovers on the bend using curved points.  So you'd probably need to shorten the platforms by a foot or so, and the loco depot would probably have to go.

 

 

2" x 1" wooden battens, on edge, is the traditional way of doing it.  Probably 3 longitudinal battens and 4 (some would say 7) transverse ones for a 6' x 2' board, preferably with proper joints where the middle longitudinal crosses the middle 2 transverses.  And I would screw the butt joints as well as gluing them - as per SS's photos.  Just gluing the frame to the MDF board is fine.

 

Edit to say the "proper" joint I mentioned appears to be called a "cross-lap" joint.

 

Chris

 

What do you suggest I do about the track plan then?

 

 

I have overlaid the low-res plan from post #20 onto the more recent higher-res sketch and unfortunately they don't match up very well.

EdWintKitchen1.png

 

Juliet Bridge may need to be even wider than current thinking. Until there's an accurate, dimensioned room plan I don't think it's worth spending too much effort on planning.

 

Phil

 

This is a sketch that illustrates the plan schematically i.e. back of the envelope. The little bit poking out at the top, by the Juliette is needed for some window operating space. The only door is at the bottom of the plan that's been upscaled.

 

Also, I remember Johnster talking about a Cardiff station a few posts ago- does he have more details?

 

The window won't affect any running. Also, some posts are quite long, so absorbing them at a glance will be difficult. Sorry if there's anything in the middle of long posts that haven't been replied to. I'll get round to it some day!

[The Johnster]

Cardiff Clarence Road, a short branch serving the business district of the old Docklands from the GW's General Station, now known as Central.  It was confusingly known as the Riverside Branch, but was the other side of and lower down the river from that area.  It's outline can be traced on the current map by searching for 'Dumball's Road'; you will see how the trackbed followed that road and curved into the General Station over a bridge over Penarth Road.  Some industry remains in the area but much is now gone and replaced by modern flats.

 

It was originally a GW goods branch serving the canal wharves and some factories and engineering workshops, but the GW developed it in the early years of the 20th century as a commuter line, strangely running none of their own passenger trains over it.  Passenger services were provided by the Taff Vale, which ran from Cadoxton via Sully and Penarth, or the Barry, running via Dinas Powys from Barry, the Vale of Glamorgan line, and Bridgend, or Pontypridd (originally the Barry 'Graig' station) via Creigiau and St Fagan's Junction, thence Ely and the SWML.  It was a double track branch which led into a single platform on the 'Cardiff General' bound side, and carried a very intense service at rush hours, which settled down during the day to the occasional auto and pick ups to service the wharf and factories.  The wharf sidings were worked by the Glamorgan Canal Company's own loco, latterly a battery electric from Greenwood and Batley in Cardiff Corporation livery (the Corporation assumed control of the Canal Company Railways when the canal ceased trading).  My model of this was based on a Tenshodo power bogie, and has a haulage capacity far in excess of the prototype!

 

It is a good subject for a model, either as a prototype or an inspiration.  It needs 16 feet linear for a scale model with 4 coach trains in 4mm, and another 6 feet in total if you are to include the junction with the Canal branch.  A bit of selective compression might bring that down considerably!  For the 1953-64 period, you could use 64xx or 4575 on auto trains,  56xx, 5101, or BR standard class 3MT 82xxx tank engines for loco hauled passengers, 57xx/8750 or 94xx for the local pickup goods, or 08.  The station saw some main line locos on Rugby International excursions from West Wales which were stored and ran around on the branch on match days.  Services were auto trains from Pontypridd or Penarth, and loco hauled non-compartment stock from Bridgend or Llantwit Major, some from Cadoxton via Sully and Penarth; increasingly class 116 dmus after 1958.  It was heavily rebuilt in 1964 and closed less than a year later!

 

The layout was simple, a single platform with run around loop and loco release, a kick back siding into a factory, and a down goods loop a short distance out with a feed to the canal sidings, which were fairly extensive and fed into factories, an oil depot, and wharf where dredgers unloaded and was used for builder's sand and aggregates.  But it was used to the maximum possible capacity, and was extremely busy and interesting in it's day!  No loco facilities or water were provided. Locos took water at Cardiff General, less than a mile away.  The canal railway extended across Clarence Road, the main route from Grangetown into the docks, alongside the sea lock pound of the canal to more sand wharves, for about another 200 yards.

Edited September 30, 2017 by The Johnster

[Ed Winterbury]

Johnster, could you do a quick sketch, please? It sounds interesting!

[Ed Winterbury]

I'm not going to model the actual location- any real location is a bit rigid. I will take the track plan and find a backstory for it. Thanks for the help so far!

[ejstubbs]

Mac OS Sierra is the system I'm running.

 

In that case I can see no reason why XtrakCAD, Railmodeller or TRAX shouldn't run on your Mac.  (I think you may need the X11 libraries to run XtrkCAD - you can download them from here.  This is the method recommend by Apple to get X11 on MacOS.)

Unfortunately, the situation with the Juliette is best summed up by this sign:  Access at all times.png

 

Does that mean there's no chance of a bridge/removable section across the french window giving access to the Juliet balcony?  If so then the layout will have to be one side of it or the other.  I'd favour the right hand side (looking at Harlequin's diagram) since that's furthest from the cooking area.

 

The window won't affect any running.

 

Which window are you referring to here - the one giving access to the Juliet balcony, or the smaller one next to the cooking area?

 

Johnster, could you do a quick sketch, please? It sounds interesting!

 

There's quite a lengthy thread about Cardiff Clarence Road station on RMWeb here.

 

You can see the track plan if you search for Cardiff Clarence Road on the old-maps.co.uk web site, and pick the 1:2,500 scale maps.  Here's a starter for ten:

 

 

That's the 1941 edition of the OS map, which is the earliest edition to show the kickback siding Johnster mentioned.  The 1954 1:2,500 plans are actually a little bit clearer - you can access them via the link I posted above.

 

The old-maps.co.uk web site can be very useful for researching the layouts of old stations, or stations which still exist but which have been "rationalised" ie downsized for nothing more than EMU/DMU services.

 

The Disused Stations web site is also quite good for researching station layouts, and station histories.

Edited September 30, 2017 by ejstubbs

[Pacific231G]

In that case I can see no reason why XtrakCAD, Railmodeller or TRAX shouldn't run on your Mac.  (I think you may need the X11 libraries to run XtrkCAD - you can download them from here.  This is the method recommend by Apple to get X11 on MacOS.)

 

Does that mean there's no chance of a bridge/removable section across the french window giving access to the Juliet balcony?  If so then the layout will have to be one side of it or the other.  I'd favour the right hand side (looking at Harlequin's diagram) since that's furthest from the cooking area.

 

 

Which window are you referring to here - the one giving access to the Juliet balcony, or the smaller one next to the cooking area?

 

 

There's quite a lengthy thread about Cardiff Clarence Road station on RMWeb here.

 

You can see the track plan if you search for Cardiff Clarence Road on the old-maps.co.uk web site, and pick the 1:2,500 scale maps.  Here's a starter for ten:

 

 

That's the 1941 edition of the OS map, which is the earliest edition to show the kickback siding Johnster mentioned.  The 1954 1:2,500 plans are actually a little bit clearer - you can access them via the link I posted above.

 

The old-maps.co.uk web site can be very useful for researching the layouts of old stations, or stations which still exist but which have been "rationalised" ie downsized for nothing more than EMU/DMU services.

 

The Disused Stations web site is also quite good for researching station layouts, and station histories.

Probably OT but I'm intrigued by the trackage either side of the station. If you swapped...Balls Road and the station site you could bring the Glamorgan Canal wharf and its Trav C. (travelling crane) immediately alongside the station which would make for a very interesting location .  What's the longish line splitting into two short sidings on the extended centre line of Hurmann Street and is it serving the opposite side of the same factory (large grey area) as the kickback from Clarence Road. .

As to the station itself a double track line leading to a single platform station always seems slightly odd to me though I believe there were others.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Pacific231G

[The Johnster]

As to the long splitting siding on the extended line of Hurman Street, I couldn't say; the space was between two factory buildings and no doubt used to load and unload from rail vehicles.  The kickback led into a half-covered loading bay which followed the curve of the road, railway line, and building at this point and survives as a boundary line.  The wharfside travelling crane ran on it's own independent standard gauge track and the lines on Clarence Road itself are a tram terminus (Routes 6, 8, and 9), later trolleybus routes, which terminated there rather than crossing the swing bridge over the canal into the business district proper owing to the difficulty of connecting the wires (despite having come over Clarence Road River Bridge, which IIRC swung, though not often).

 

The Canal Company, while it was still in business and before the Council stepped in, had a Peckett (IIRC) 0-4-0ST called Derwen, which is Welsh for 'Oak'.  Both this and the Greenbat were always well kept and clean, even in the dying days of the operation in the mid 60s.  The Greenbat was said to be only capable of propelling one loaded vehicle or 3 empties, even fully charged.  I do not know the details of how traffic was exchanged between the systems, but imagine that the GW/WR loco ran onto the Canal Company's track.  Freight survived into the Dumballs/Curran Road factories until 1969, by which time 08s and D95xxx were being used.

 

The sea pound of the canal was drained after being rammed and the gates destroyed by a dredger whose skipper, a bloke called Atcher Smith who was a mate of my dad's and a teetotaller despite the rumours, thought he'd been called into the lock on a dark night in 1951 I think; the dredger was called the Catherine Ethel.  This was the only thing of any interest that ever happened to it.  The lock was never repaired, and the sea pound, which ran for nearly a mile up to the South Wales Main LIne, was derelict for many years before being eventually filled in; it is now a park area, but the alignments can still be seen.  The canal bridge was never swung again of course, but remained for many years and had a tall signalbox-like control tower just visible on the map above the 'S' of swingbridge.  The building between the station and Hurman Street is Hurman Street Junior School, just above the word 'Station'.  Clarence Road station was a single storey timber building and the platform had a long canopy with a corrugated backsheet to it.

 

This area between the canal and the river Taff was known as 'Rat Island'.  Some of the rats were on two legs...

 

As Mr Stubbs has provided a better trackplan than any sketch I could draw, I will leave you to consider it, Ed.  It is, in some ways, a sort of longitudinally half Minories and I often thought could be adapted to a slightly less heavily industrialised setting, perhaps a seaside resort with a small harbour instead of the canal, that was also a dormitory commuter town for a nearby conurbation.  That could provide an excuse for some basic form of loco facility, even if it was only a water column.  You might shoehorn something like it onto your 13 foot left hand wall (right hand in the newer plan), which I am favouring as furthest away from the kitchen area, perhaps with a wharf or carriage siding in front of the fiddle yard.  But I would say it needs to be true to the Minories concept in as far as it is a double line branch for suburban traffic mostly.

 

I think a point about this layout is that it is a place which generates freight traffic and takes it away to be delivered elsewhere rather than provides goods yard facilities for local distribution of incoming traffic, which will be brought in from the local goods depot up the road on flatbeds and vans, a slightly different approach to 'normal' model railways. I will always think of it as a part of heavily industrialised docklands Cardiff, but it could be adapted to almost any situation that needed to handle double track branch line traffic in a limited space.  I'd go for something like cliffs or a steep slope behind the station to explain the need for the restricted site (I'm thinking Fishguard Harbour/Barry PIer sort of thing).  It is, of course, perfectly suited to auto or multiple unit operation, as well as loco hauled by running around or top and tailing.

 

How about turning the layout around so that the fiddle yard is at the end away from the Juliet, and takes the full width of that alcove, where you can have a nice little workstation to model on?

Edited September 30, 2017 by The Johnster

[Harlequin]

Probably OT but I'm intrigued by the trackage either side of the station. If you swapped...Balls Road and the station site you could bring the Glamorgan Canal wharf and its Trav C. (travelling crane) immediately alongside the station which would make for a very interesting location .  What's the longish line splitting into two short sidings on the extended centre line of Hurmann Street and is it serving the opposite side of the same factory (large grey area) as the kickback from Clarence Road. .

As to the station itself a double track line leading to a single platform station always seems slightly odd to me though I believe there were others.

I find it really difficult to see the track plan from that low res map of Cardiff Clarence Road.

 

However, the travelling cranes caught my eye because I'm currently working on a layout design based on Kingswear in Devon in another thread. Kingswear is a great example of a terminus with docks alongside (including travelling cranes) because it's so compact in real life.

 

See: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126422-having-some-serious-design-block-and-need-help/

[Chimer]

What do you suggest I do about the track plan then?

 

 

Draw one.  I'm out.

[The Johnster]

I find it really difficult to see the track plan from that low res map of Cardiff Clarence Road.

 

However, the travelling cranes caught my eye because I'm currently working on a layout design based on Kingswear in Devon in another thread. Kingswear is a great example of a terminus with docks alongside (including travelling cranes) because it's so compact in real life.

 

See: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126422-having-some-serious-design-block-and-need-help/

 

 

 Not having any difficulty on full size computer monitor, though a smartphone screen may not be cutting the mustard.  The Glamorgan Canal crane may not have been too dissimilar to those at Kingswear, but photos suggest a larger jib on the Kingswear ones.  The principle of the crane self propelling up and down an isolated section of standard gauge track is the same, though.

[Harlequin]

 Not having any difficulty on full size computer monitor, though a smartphone screen may not be cutting the mustard.  The Glamorgan Canal crane may not have been too dissimilar to those at Kingswear, but photos suggest a larger jib on the Kingswear ones.  The principle of the crane self propelling up and down an isolated section of standard gauge track is the same, though.

I see it better this morning (!) and I see this:

 

Not sure where the platform(s) is/are, though.

 

Looking at the 1941 map on oldmaps.co.uk there's an amazing amount of rail infrastructure around this little site! Very interesting.

[Ed Winterbury]

Window referred to is the smaller one and the bigger one as well, so long as access isn't blocked. Nope, no chance of a removable access...