Ernemouth - comments and suggestions welcomed

[RLBH]

Attached is the layout I'm proposing for my first layout. The layout is to be constructed on four boards, each 18" wide, with three being 3' 6" long and the fourth 4' long, and to be able to be taken down for storage as I don't have space to dedicate to a permanent layout. Construction will be with Peco N gauge streamline track - is this reasonable for a first time layout?

 

Ernemouth is a fictitious Moray Coast branch line terminus based on Burghead, though with a few elements borrowed from elsewhere, and set in 1970 (give or take five years to allow for Rule One), with steam now a memory in the area. If I recall correctly, steam was retired in the former Highland Railway area by about 1963.

 

The intention is that I should be able to run the station board and one other together, without needing to erect the full layout at every running session, hence the restricted length of the fiddle yard. Though I could move the fiddle yard pointwork on to the next board along, and use that board alone as a cut down fiddle yard for these sessions, not sure if this is a better plan.

 

 

The short branch to the left of the fiddle yard is provisionally planned as a distillery; the prototype had a small rail-served chemical works in this location which had closed by the time the layout is set. The distillery seems like it would offer some interesting variety in goods stock. It's also assumed that there's a rail served RAF base a little way up the branch, with goods services (primarily fuel) running around at Ernemouth to access it.

 

The goods yard is a fairly standard Highland Railway type, except for the lack of a headshunt; I'm not entirely clear how this could be achieved, unless I use Code 55 track to get a double slip for the yard throat. The two platform roads plus a fish/parcels bay are a slight indulgence on my part, justified on the assumption that Ernemouth is rather larger than the prototype of Burghead; it's similar provision to larger Moray coast termini, though.

 

Running through the station, there's a dockside spur track, basically prototypical except that the harbour basin should be on the other side. The curving track to the north is assumed to run through a now-closed tunnel under Ernemouth, giving a similar setting to the WHR Caernarfon station. This provides a slightly more interesting loco release facility than just a straight spur, and the associated steep hillside should help define the backscene.

 

Any advice or opinions would be welcomed!

[Joseph_Pestell]

Regardless of a possible double-slip, I would definitely recommend using the Code 55 Peco rather than the Code 80. Looks a great deal better if still far from perfect.

[RLBH]

The main thing putting me off Code 55, and making me a little apprehensive about Streamline, is that I've no experience of tracklaying and don't want to make my life more difficult than necessary!

[RLBH]

Version 2 of the layout, now using Code 55 trackwork - short radius points in the goods yard and on the distillery branch, medium radius on the main line. Rather than a single slip, I've used two opposing points to gain the required headshunt and moved the harbour siding to come off the goods shed road. This is, I feel, more likely than coming directly off the platform road. This means the harbour area has shrunk slightly, but it was always planned to allude to a larger harbour anyway.

 

I've also moved the fiddle yard pointwork on to board no.2, not sure if this is an improvement.

[mdvle]

The main thing putting me off Code 55, and making me a little apprehensive about Streamline, is that I've no experience of tracklaying and don't want to make my life more difficult than necessary!

 

First piece of advice, accept that you will make mistakes in this hobby - it is part of the learning process.

 

So don't let a bit of apprehension stop you from experimenting.

 

Rather than going full in one way or another, maybe try picking up some Code 55 (maybe just 1 switch, 3 bits of straight track) and try putting them down on some scrap wood and experiment.  Run a wagon/coach back and forth, maybe a loco.

 

If you find Code 55 not to your liking then your experiment has been at a low cost (and you may be able to sell / give way the track) and you can revert to Code 80.  On the other hand, if Code 55 works then you can proceed with something that should look better.

[RLBH]

First piece of advice, accept that you will make mistakes in this hobby - it is part of the learning process.

 

So don't let a bit of apprehension stop you from experimenting.

That's certainly a consideration - I've made enough mistakes making the first baseboard this weekend that the next ones will be better. Still need to figure out how to do the harbour, mind!

 

Making an experiment with a couple of bits of track is a good shout.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Code55 is no more difficult to lay than Code80.

 

I don't think that you need your fiddleyard roads quite so long on what is, after all, a branch line. So perhaps put the pointwork back on that board and give yourself a bit more running line.

 

Flexible track is easier on larger radius curves. I think that it is worth trying to increase the radius of the curve to at least 18" and preferably 24". Should be easy enough by rearranging the station board slightly so that the tracks are not parallel with the edge of the board.

[RLBH]

Definitely a good idea to go back to the fiddle yard arrangement from the first plan, the road lengths are proportionate to the rest of the layout then. I also think I'll have to shorten the loop in the goods yard by about 50mm to avoid having points over a baseboard joint which will restrict me to about 10 wagons or 4 coaches. Which is probably reasonable for a branch line anyway.

 

I can ease the curve radius to 18" by skewing the station about 10 degrees, but doing this means I lose the distillery spur which I really want for operational and scenic interest; I can't see that 24" is possible within the constraints. It might be possible to tweak the pointwork around the station throat so that the curve runs directly into the fish dock, and move both station and fiddle yard a little towards the backs of the boards. This would increase the radius some (maybe not as much as 18", but 15" should be achievable at least) and have the benefit of removing the double reverse curve going in to the fish dock.

[The Johnster]

Sharper flexible track curves would be a reason to use code 80, which is visually pretty appalling IMHO; I'd suggest going for the largest curve radius you can get away with on the running line, and moving the distillery, which is worth keeping as an operational feature, to the other side of the river bridge; that in turn may mean moving the river a little 'downwards' to make more room for it.

 

As a more general (hopefully constructive) criticism, I think layouts with lots of straight parallel lines do not look as natural as ones where some gentle curvature is featured.

[Harlequin]

 

As a more general (hopefully constructive) criticism, I think layouts with lots of straight parallel lines do not look as natural as ones where some gentle curvature is featured.

Agreed. I think the track planning software (AnyRail?) encourages the use of straight lines, parallel to the edges of the baseboard and makes smooth curves difficult to set up.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Definitely a good idea to go back to the fiddle yard arrangement from the first plan, the road lengths are proportionate to the rest of the layout then. I also think I'll have to shorten the loop in the goods yard by about 50mm to avoid having points over a baseboard joint which will restrict me to about 10 wagons or 4 coaches. Which is probably reasonable for a branch line anyway.

 

I can ease the curve radius to 18" by skewing the station about 10 degrees, but doing this means I lose the distillery spur which I really want for operational and scenic interest; I can't see that 24" is possible within the constraints. It might be possible to tweak the pointwork around the station throat so that the curve runs directly into the fish dock, and move both station and fiddle yard a little towards the backs of the boards. This would increase the radius some (maybe not as much as 18", but 15" should be achievable at least) and have the benefit of removing the double reverse curve going in to the fish dock.

 

I fully understand the importance of the distillery branch but I can't see that widening out the curve radii should present a problem in that respect. You have plenty of space to work with in N.

 

One thing I do note from your Anyrail plan is that you have not used any curved points. I think that they would help greatly.

 

Happy to redraw the plans for you if you want so long as you can give me a steer on the lengths of train that you want to run.

 

Whereabouts are you based? I expect that we could find an RMWeb member to help you with your first attempts with flexible track. The Peco 55 (actually a fake Code 80 with a double foot) is actually easier to work with than the Code 80 flexi. If you want something that really looks the part, Code 40 is what you want (fiNetrax).

Edited January 25, 2019 by Joseph_Pestell

[The Johnster]

Curved points would certainly improve the visual 'flow' of the trackplan, but come with the disadvantage of very long dead frogs, unless you are using live frogs and are happy to undertake the extra wiring of course.

[RLBH]

Latest version of the plan, now with skewed station, modified station throat, and curved points. I think this looks a lot more natural now, with the main curve having a 610mm radius and avoiding things parallel to the board edges as far as possible.

 

 

Moving the distillery across the river didn't really work out; I'm also planning to treat it as a kind of scenic break to allow a polite fiction that the running line from the station to the junction is a distance of a mile or so, rather than less than 200 feet. I'm expecting to be able to run 4 coach passenger trains, or comparable length (about 12 wagon) goods trains, with slightly shorter trains on the distillery spur. I think this is achievable as drawn.