Jump to content
 

Wessex(ish) Main(ish) Line


Schooner
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ladies and Gentlemen of the RMWeb, 

 

Hullo, good afternoon. I hope you've all had a decent week thus far, and are looking forward to the long weekend? Before starting, I'd like to thank and congratulate the community at large here - such impressive skills, such wonderful knowledge and advice, so easily shared and with such good humour. You've made this a lovely corner of the internet to while away a spare minute here and there (...by which I mean hours and hours through the night, hooked following a layout build or intrigued by some prototypical idiosyncrasy). A long-time lurker, I recently signed up to the forum which only made the habit worse and now I can't hold this post back any longer. The following is all your fault... :)

 

An elephant is eaten one bite at a time, they say. All very well and good, if you know it is elephant on which you dine! With this post, I would like to ask for help in establishing what kind of vast beastie it is my fever-dreams have concocted. First I'll describe the parts which I've focused on, to encourage the creative juices to flow, and then provide a little context. Hopefully you won't think me quite as mad by the end of the second post as you might by the end of the first! I will add my initial take on things in a subsequent post in a day or two to avoid queering the pitch for others' ideas.

 

What I have in mind is a 'systemic' (if not a true self-contained system) layout, focused on two discreet areas dear to me - the GWR 'Heart of Wessex' Main Line; and the Torquay/Brixham branch lines. The date, in the neighbourhood of 1910. Today's request is for arrangements of the following, presented in rough geographical order N-S, into a layout:

 

Bath:

343423525_PlanBHgoods1903-small.png.11d42f9bf417dcf8d7035c54c6edd855.png1551670208_PlanBH1903-small.png.bc534f3b709b12425db87dd5f8f7497c.png

 

Bathampton:

1036129174_PlanBHjct1903-small.png.555c2ce905dfd0194ce72d650fe88363.png

 

 

Avoncliff and Bradford on Avon:

930471423_PlanAF1901-small.png.53a046b38883c37fca6d6150a060513d.png1861713115_PlanBoA1901-small.png.a3a239bc0dfbb52880ae91e31bf2c793.png

 

Frome, including junction:

790752218_PlanFEjct1903-small.png.163e966fb76a7d0fd034cf0f5abf7bb5.png585317780_PlanFE1903-small.png.192e8e8d73a7590877690dacb0e19223.png

 

 

This is the 'Wessex' section; Devon to follow in the next post...

 

 

Edited by Schooner
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Down into Devon, we find

 

Churston and Brixham:

615288440_PlanCN1906-small.png.776d22a86840a3e915660a9cc5bd23cc.png761900274_PlanBM1906-small.png.5a8a3f300819d4bbe5153bf678e2437c.png

 

and Kingswear:

637071835_PlanKR1906-small.png.f20600530c778bc49838db22162c88fa.png

 

 

 

Now, I appreciate this is 10+ large, complicated layouts and could represent a lifetime of modelling. However, this is still at the (very) hypothetical stage. It's the opening gambit of an idea about the possibilities afforded by potential project. It's also, I'm finding, fun :) I'm exploring options in my head, and I would be deeply grateful if I could lean on the experience of members here to present their take on it all.

 

To give the project a little context...

Personal: In my youth, I had a model railway which I enjoyed very much (the 6'x4' board with Hornby starter set becoming a 12'x9' shed roundy+bits). As happens, with increasing maturity came other ways of passing leisure time, and by the time I flew the nest the layout had been packed up or given away to more attentive owners. My work means that although actually having a layout of any kind is a long way off (a decade or more, comfortably), when the time comes there is the possibility that a fair amount of space could be dedicated to a layout. I've enjoyed a number of threads on these forums which begin "I've been thinking of this layout for x years, and now I've started the build I would like to know...", for both the information given and the frequently engaging way it was discussed. However, I would like to jump the gun if possible. 

 

Whilst I have my areas of knowledge and experience, which enjoy a little overlap with the subject at hand, all this really does is highlight to me how little I know compared to the experts here. I have an awful lot to learn about every single aspect of this project, and so will be grateful for all pointers and suggestions. Advice on productive areas of prototype research or a nugget of practical advice on how to play trains or a nudge on making decent plans without relying on the parallel lines and proscribed curves of AnyRail etc...I'm keen for all of it! 

 

The starting point (the plans, above) is ridiculous, I'm aware, and would require a space 100' square and years upon years of dedicated professional-level modelling to bring to life. But I have preparation time on my side! My hope is that over time, this leviathan medley of prototypes can be honed into a plausible home layout. It is an extended thought experiment, with years to run, starting with the question 'What is it possible to make from these building blocks?', and meandering its way towards an answer of 'This!'. Initially, no practical considerations need impede our flights of West Country fancy but over time my intention is to winnow down the options. When the day comes, I hope, questions from baseboard construction to signalling and timetables to the ideal height of a chair to operate the layout from will all have been thought through.

 

Project:

A pleasant thought for an idle afternoon, this all started out with a discussion on RMWeb about distances between tunnels and level crossings. Bradford-on-Avon, a station I knew well, was mentioned. What had been a general, nonspecific daydream about returning to modelling became the kernel of an idea. Perhaps something small to practice rusty techniques, with personal relevance to aid motivation...perhaps Avoncliff halt, I thought, would make a decent subject. Assuming all went well, perhaps the canal aqueduct, river and nearby buildings could be built as a separate but cumulative model...

 

...and then I found out about the stone sidings and Westwood quarry tramway and all hell broke loose...

 

...what an interesting prototype, I thought (and think) - but where does that stone go? Why have a working model railway with no rationale behind the traffic? So Bradford became an obvious addition...but then where do it's supplies, it's passengers come from and go to? As there were no practical considerations, my mind, and my model railway network, rapidly stretched out...

 

...and here we are!

 

Now the task is to reverse the process, remove the wheat from the chaff and start working towards something that could perhaps, in time, be realised.

 

It's going to be a long and, I believe, interesting journey, but one that would be vastly improved by your company. Care to join?

 

Either way, my warmest regards to all you frequenters of the forum and this board in particular. Thanks for your time in reading this, and hopefully thank you in advance for your time and your help with all things to come...

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

 

 

Edited by Schooner
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly, like many of us, an ambitious "dream" to start with.

 

Won't be able to help with a lot, but some questions that may help to get things started.

 

What scale?

 

Are you more into operations, or into having trains running around?

 

How accurate do you want to be? (specifically, do you want accurate trains or can it be "close enough"?  Do you want to try and recreate your interests in scale, or are these locations more for a "influenced by" type of design?)

 

How set on your era are you? (my limited understanding is 1910 could be more difficult in terms of RTR rolling stock, so are you comfortable building kits?)

 

Is there any particularly reason you want to include junctions? (they can be problematic in space terms).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi mdvle, thanks for your questions :) I'm afraid my answers won't be up to much either but here goes...

 

Scale - a bit of a tricky one! As this layout only exists in my head it's tempting just to say P4 and not worry about it! I like the physicality on 4mm; the options made available by using N aren't lost on me; perhaps 3mm is the sweet spot... I would welcome any opinions. For now I'm assuming 4mm, as space isn't yet on my list of worries and it (I think?) keeps the most options on the table in terms of controls, rolling stock, scenics etc, and realistically (ha!) 00 as this would free resources for other things. Perhaps when the form of the layout finalises it will become apparent whether the effort of P4 would be worth it from expected viewing angles etc. 4mm would also make the Westwood Quarry tramway to the canal quay and over the aqueduct to the stone sidings at Avoncliff comparatively simple (haha!) in 009.

 

 

Operations vs roundy - I'm going to dodge this one three ways. First, yes! I like operations, and I like watching trains run! Secondly, I think I'm probably most into 'narrative' and just as someone may not always be in the mood to listen to a particular song I worry that I would not always be in the mood for a shunting puzzle, or to thrash a mainline express nose-to-tail round an oval, 'tho could frequently enjoy both. Thirdly, I nearly always used to play trains by starting a 'main line' train running round, and then shunting at the terminus or branch to make up another train, which could then be sent out to replace the previous train, or sent end-to-end depending. This proposed layout has each of those options on a grand scale, and I hope could provide interesting running for 1-4 people in 1-4 (or more) different scenarios. This mix of options is behind the whole premise really: I would love to model operationally authentic docks of about the same period, but I know that I also enjoy watching trains go round and I know that docks are huuuuuuge and bloody difficult to replicate in any meaningful way for someone whose interest lies on the maritime side of the quay as well as on the irons... :) 

 

 

Accuracy - despite a guiding principle of 'why be wrong', this isn't too high a priority. I chose the above prototypes because of their personal resonance, each one scratches a different operational itch, and the intellectual task of turning them around in my head to try and make a layout out of them; they may well not be the 'best' for a model railway. I think they could be fun, but I'm very open to someone saying 'Brixham is a nice little terminus, and the idea is alright, but in practice you've no way to do ABC, it adds little operational interest, and the whole thing is likely to end up a disappointment. Perhaps you should consider XYZ'. The same approach with the trains themselves: 'why be wrong' + Rule 1 = representative of but not beholden to history, always acknowledging that this is a model railway, not a museum piece. Short trains a prime example (see below)...

 

 

Era - by 1910 I really meant c.1900-c.1915. To this I am fairly wedded, Rule 1 notwithstanding. I enjoy the period in general, and have other related interests, but there is also an overriding practical aspect - short, beautiful, varied trains running as part of a small-scale (comparatively) but tightly woven national infrastructure. To me, this easily outweighs the lesser (but ever increasing) amount of RTR stock which can be seen as more of an opportunity than anything else. For better or for worse, I enjoy doing detailed work with my hands, although it's not a skill I've used for modelling in a good few years now, and would see making up of stock to be one major area of satisfaction (and frustration, of course!). Also, and it ties back to the accuracy part, but for me an express of 5 or so bogie coaches always seemed about as much as added much impact (equivalent for freight workings), but I like that shortened trains of shorter stock wouldn't look as 'toy train' as the same formation set even 20 or 30 years later. Basically, what Mikkel said!

 

 

The junctions are there to join the lines (main line; 'Heart of Wessex'; Kingswear/Brixham branches), and because they're there I guess. I'd be sad to lose Bathampton, as it's a very pretty corner; Frome junction seems such a part of the fabric of the area; Churston is one end of the Brixham branch...but very open to alternatives!

 

 

Good lord, I had promised myself not to write an essay...

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Schooner
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To go back to the initial post - what sum can you make from these parts? - this is the fundamental layout design I keep getting back to, and one I would appreciate some fresh eyes and/or opinions on:

(work just done in Paint 3D for now, apologies for the poor standard)

 

1940860343_WIP3labels.png.6341127af9a5d4be7acbc27e3e8223cc.png

 

 

Ignoring that this is a large-garden's-worth of layout, for now, what do you think of the general arrangement?

 

As I see them,  Pros:

  • uses all the 'pieces'
  • large degree of up/down coherence
  • some degree if geographical coherence
  • allows varied operations for 1-4 operators 
    • shunting - many options!
    • branch shuttle - BM to CN
    • local stopping - BH to FE via BoA
    • main line - roundy, particularly scenic section between BH and FE
    • express specials (using small fiddle yard to represent London, emerging via 'Box Tunnel' to the North East, why not!) - London to KR via BH and FE - Riviera Express/Royal trains etc
    • involved freight operations - every stop is a producer of at least one raw material/manufactured good; industry at FE, BH and London all major consumers
  • if BM-CN-KR on a T  island, would allow direct visual and physical access to all three 'lines' (mainline, local, branch)
  • includes kitchen sink

Cons:

  • straight-up plonking of real-world features in small area - no compression etc, reliance on linear runs between features - no use of tricks and techniques to make the most of space
  • is it the most compelling arrangement of these stations/features?
  • Arrangement of BM-CN-KR (on the cross of a T island) makes most use of 'roundy' space, but limits branch lengths and will be difficult to make convincing; especially without interfering with 'Wessex' scene.
  • Some significant elevation hurdles to overcome
  • many others I've yet to come across!

 

 

Chop-shop compression is uglier, but perhaps more useful:

1336697578_WIP6.png.8e4256f51dc5d56bc47da4f55e397315.png

 

Some initial concessions to reality:

  • Angles through Bath reduced
  • Bath goods and stone yards superimposed
  • straight running through AF is shortened (although still longer than need be, even without adjusting for model, rather than prototypical, train length and track geometry etc)
  • Only B-o-A station shown - headshunt/refuge siding could be incorporated around the corner, with the river running under the two going on to feed the weir above AF
  • FE flipped, to allow malthouse to be low-relief against backscene
  • KR remains top right of layout, making for easier placement of it, CN and BM on a linear board...but would it perhaps be better bottom right, making the line to it do more work and increasing visual separation?

 

 

What think you, RMWeb? All variations on the theme welcomed with open arms!

 

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

 

Edited by Schooner
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Schooner said:

Hi mdvle, thanks for your questions :) I'm afraid my answers won't be up to much either but here goes...

 

Well, it's all a process of sorting out what is important and not important, what works / doesn't work, etc.

 

Quote

Scale - a bit of a tricky one! As this layout only exists in my head it's tempting just to say P4 and not worry about it! I like the physicality on 4mm; the options made available by using N aren't lost on me; perhaps 3mm is the sweet spot... I would welcome any opinions. For now I'm assuming 4mm, as space isn't yet on my list of worries and it (I think?) keeps the most options on the table in terms of controls, rolling stock, scenics etc, and realistically (ha!) 00 as this would free resources for other things. Perhaps when the form of the layout finalises it will become apparent whether the effort of P4 would be worth it from expected viewing angles etc. 4mm would also make the Westwood Quarry tramway to the canal quay and over the aqueduct to the stone sidings at Avoncliff comparatively simple (haha!) in 009.

 

Space is always a major consideration, if for no other reason than it requires more money and time (not just for the space itself, but for benchwork / scenery / etc.)

 

For example, consider just Kingswear.  Hypothetically, if one wanted to accurately model Kingswear a measurement finds that it is about 1280' from the creek bridge to the end of track.

 

Now some easy math gets us (N - 8.6' / OO - 17' / O - 30') as the space required.

 

Somebody with a generous room size may view 17' as feasible, but consider that means moving back and forth along at least some of that 17' each time you bring a train in, move the engine around, etc. and it becomes apparent that for many that some compression will make for a more enjoyable layout (and as for O and its 30', well that would be one way to stay fit in retirement).

 

Move from just one location to a complete layout, and the chosen scale combined with what you want to try and model leads to some decisions not just one how big the room needs to be, but how much walking you want to do...

 

Going P4 also influences things as it needs larger curves I believe.

 

Either way scale amounts to a trade off, more of which in a bit.

 

Quote

 

Operations vs roundy - I'm going to dodge this one three ways. First, yes! I like operations, and I like watching trains run! Secondly, I think I'm probably most into 'narrative' and just as someone may not always be in the mood to listen to a particular song I worry that I would not always be in the mood for a shunting puzzle, or to thrash a mainline express nose-to-tail round an oval, 'tho could frequently enjoy both. Thirdly, I nearly always used to play trains by starting a 'main line' train running round, and then shunting at the terminus or branch to make up another train, which could then be sent out to replace the previous train, or sent end-to-end depending. This proposed layout has each of those options on a grand scale,

 

It's not a dodge, it is a key part of the design process.  There is nothing wrong with wanting both, and I really should have given that as an option, but it influences what choices get made and what compromises may be necessary.

 

Quote

and I hope could provide interesting running for 1-4 people in 1-4 (or more) different scenarios. This mix of options is behind the whole premise really: I would love to model operationally authentic docks of about the same period, but I know that I also enjoy watching trains go round and I know that docks are huuuuuuge and bloody difficult to replicate in any meaningful way for someone whose interest lies on the maritime side of the quay as well as on the irons... :) 

 

Wanting to operate a layout with friends is an important design consideration, will you also be hoping for help building the layout or wanting to build it alone?

 

Quote

Accuracy - despite a guiding principle of 'why be wrong', this isn't too high a priority. I chose the above prototypes because of their personal resonance, each one scratches a different operational itch, and the intellectual task of turning them around in my head to try and make a layout out of them; they may well not be the 'best' for a model railway.

 

This helps a lot, it means that going for more of a "feeling" of those places may work for you instead of having to try and recreate them.

 

For example, you may find the idea of extending Kingswear across the Dart to Dartmouth, where the track could disappear into the hillside acceptable where it would allow the ability to continously run trains at times, something not possible if there is an instance that Kingwear being an accurate terminus.

 

Quote

Era - by 1910 I really meant c.1900-c.1915. To this I am fairly wedded, Rule 1 notwithstanding. I enjoy the period in general, and have other related interests, but there is also an overriding practical aspect - short, beautiful, varied trains running as part of a small-scale (comparatively) but tightly woven national infrastructure. To me, this easily outweighs the lesser (but ever increasing) amount of RTR stock which can be seen as more of an opportunity than anything else. For better or for worse, I enjoy doing detailed work with my hands, although it's not a skill I've used for modelling in a good few years now, and would see making up of stock to be one major area of satisfaction (and frustration, of course!). Also, and it ties back to the accuracy part, but for me an express of 5 or so bogie coaches always seemed about as much as added much impact (equivalent for freight workings), but I like that shortened trains of shorter stock wouldn't look as 'toy train' as the same formation set even 20 or 30 years later. Basically, what Mikkel said!

 

So this then becomes your key decision point.

 

With the obvious that we can't predict what the hobby will have available in the next 20 years, this places a bunch of restrictions on what else is feasible.

 

A large layout, in late steam or almost any of the diesel era, is feasible (with sufficient money) given the ability to simply sit at the computer and order all the rolling stock needed.

 

In your case the limitation is going to be on the ability to build kits, kitbash RTR, pay someone to do either of those, or luck in with RTR that is appropriate to provide sufficient rolling stock to achieve what you want.

 

Building a model of the Kingsbridge branch in 1910, with a small amount of stock required, would be much more feasible than trying to model Paddington.

 

Thus my advice would be to spend some time pondering a realistic goal for how much era appropriate (to your acceptable level of accuracy) rolling stock you can build or otherwise accumulate in the available time. This will then help determine just how feasible your current plans are, or may prompt some rethinking of what is most important and what can be chopped or made a maybe.

 

This will also help to solidify your scale decision, as anything other than OO will likely require more of the kitbuiding / scratchbuilding effort as compared to modifying something RTR.

 

Quote

The junctions are there to join the lines (main line; 'Heart of Wessex'; Kingswear/Brixham branches), and because they're there I guess. I'd be sad to lose Bathampton, as it's a very pretty corner; Frome junction seems such a part of the fabric of the area; Churston is one end of the Brixham branch...but very open to alternatives!

 

The problem, other than the space something like Frome takes, is access.  If you when running a train (on the assumption you are following the train and not just sitting watching) want to go onto the Devon branch every time then it isn't a problem, but if you want to stay on the Wessex then you need to either duck under the Devon branch, walk around the Devon branch, or have a lift out bridge to allow walking through, neither of which may be a best solution.

 

Another possibility might be to put the Devon branch on a second level, using Bathampton to lead to a "hidden" helix to change levels.

 

The other option is to focus on either the Devon side or the Wessex side.

Edited by mdvle
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots US based railroads of similar size in H0 gauge with a couple in most editions of the US Model railroad magazines so its not un do able. However they don't have anything like the traffic the UK lines have, being largely single track, and usually feature a large staging yard.  I would suggest you need a staging area or hidden sidings a la Pendon Vale scene where trains can arrive and depart to / from either direction without reversing.   You would need a few mates to help you run this monster and I think sticking with the south west as In Newton Abbott pre 1930s, Kindswear, Churston, Brixham, maybe Dainton incline Brent/ Totnes might be more logical.  Far less freight than Wessex for one thing.   Building all those outside frame locos would be a nightmare and the green locos and red coaches would be boring. 1930 is far easier/ more interesting.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you both for the thoughtful replies, I'll respond fully when I've more time to edit down my stream-of-consciousness ramblings :)

 

In the meantime, I've realised that a dose more humility at the start would've been a good thing. 

 

Instead of dictating so much right off the bat, perhaps I should've asked instead for thoughts and suggestions on 

  • a large 'system-esque' layout (to deal with the last criterion in an internally-coherent manner)
  • drawing on prototypes from South and West of the line between Bristol and Southampton (loosely)
  • Pre-grouping
  • Able to offer varied running options for up to 4 people of all ages

as it would give more room for other options to surface and breath. I got a little over-excited instead and splurged my thoughts on a page without a by-your-leave...oops!

 

Anyway, more later...

 

Schooner

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon all, happy Saturday!

 

On 06/05/2019 at 21:15, mdvle said:

Space is always a major consideration

Absolutely, and I don't wish to make light of it at all. However, this is one of my unknowns. I appreciate it's the firmest fundamental of most layout designs, but I don't know if I'll have 5 feet or 50 when the time comes! Because of this, I thought it might be 'better' (whatever that really means) to plan big, but keep an eye to individual components being fun layouts in their own right. That way work on individual station etc design will still be time well spent, even if the whole layout ends up, like the impeccable Farthing, only existing in entirety in the mind of its creator! For planning purposes I'm assuming 4mm (00 for ease), but when the space becomes a known then hopefully I will know the layout and myself well enough to make a decision on whether to model a smaller area or in a smaller scale :) 

 

On 06/05/2019 at 21:15, mdvle said:

...how much walking you want to do...

 

On 06/05/2019 at 21:15, mdvle said:

...neither of which may be a best solution.

Gosh, I hadn't thought about that at all. I suppose in part because the layout in my head is still very fluid, whereas it looks rather set above!  I'd thought of access for maintenance and re-railing, about what viewpoint would aid the kind of experience I want to replicate (interestingly also covering levels, with the 'mainline' section higher, to give a greater impression of speed and the line descending towards Kingswear to increase the 'railway in landscape' perspective - is this even a thing?!), but not once did I think about how the viewer might move along the layout! Thank you.

 

On a related note, has anyone had any experience of 'handing over' control at a certain point/station? To keep with the above example, perhaps the 'main line' operator (fiddle-Bath-Frome) could hand over (on the branch? At Churston?) to a 'station controller' for Kingswear? It doesn't seem like a very good solution, but I was wondering if there was any mileage in it?

 

On 06/05/2019 at 21:15, mdvle said:

There is nothing wrong with wanting bot

Phew!

 

On 06/05/2019 at 21:15, mdvle said:

...will you also be hoping for help building the layout...

If it ends up anything like the proposed size, then I feel professional help in baseboard construction and track laying would be essential; a more casual approach would be sought for help with scenery; volunteers welcome for stock! The larger the layout then the more and more-professional I think the support in the various areas would need to be to make it achievable. I'd rather work flat-out alongside others to get something done together than work flat-out by myself without ever getting anything running, and I would find an incomplete track more frustrating than incomplete scenery or rolling stock roster :) From those who've gone this way before, does that sound like a reasonable division of resources and labour? 

 

On 06/05/2019 at 21:15, mdvle said:

...going for more of a "feeling" of those places may work for you...

I believe so :) 

 

On accuracy/station design: I'm afraid I might be coming  at this arse-backwards... Although (because I've posted images of the real stations) the impression I might have given is of trying to model each of those 'properly' and going from there, really the opposite is true. I'm starting with the trains themselves, dropping away from the prototype when it means concessions in fun or feasibility. If a 'long' train of 5-6 clerestories is my maximum (personal tipping point on the diminishing returns of adding more), then stations I want to handle them must accommodate them, but need do no more. Likewise with freight - my proposal for designing the length of, say, Avoncliff's stone siding is not to scale down the real thing's 500-odd feet (room for 25-30 wagons?), but to think what it represents (tiny industrial siding, in an area the main focus should be the aqueduct and tramway) and make the model equivalent. 10-12 wagons seems like a reasonable-length train to me, (both visually and thematically) so that's the most the siding would have to accommodate. Is this approach reasonable, or will it lead to problems?

 

In my head I was sort of allowing about 6' for trains, so about 20' for scenic runs (3 x train length); 6'x1' for Avoncliff (4' sidings, 1' for the aqueduct, 1' halt) up to 10-12'x3' for the larger stations, including throats/approach. Useful ballpark, or way out?

 

I don't have the imagination or knowledge to come up with something Madderish (Valley and Nether, the latter promises to be just as astounding as the former), for example, but love the approach. Thus, the 'system' of the layout is composed of places I know, but they are the clay from which a layout could be moulded rather than the pieces around which it must be designed... :)

 

 

On 06/05/2019 at 21:15, mdvle said:

Thus my advice would be to spend some time pondering a realistic goal for how much era appropriate (to your acceptable level of accuracy) rolling stock you can build or otherwise accumulate in the available time.

Is it overly naive of me to think that (for sake of argument) a Hornby London Olympics and Lord of the Isles pack could do the do whilst working towards bigger and better things? Obviously less than ideal, and an overly reductive example, but fun could be had with what's available and more developed over time...? The track on the other hand...!

 

On 06/05/2019 at 21:15, mdvle said:

 

Another possibility might be to put the Devon branch on a second level, using Bathampton to lead to a "hidden" helix to change levels.

WIP_Split_Level.png.89130846eeb0878f3e2b0a59fec0adfa.png

....?

 

Ignore the crap curves on the branchlines, I had trouble keeping them on the same visible layer, but I quite like it :) I'm still trying to work out ways to keep coherence with Bath the other way round (so it bellies out of rather than into the space)...and occasionally get drawn into alternatives, like where the 'Devon' section shares a board with Bath, and the area in between becomes rail/ship/canal trans-shipment docks (Gloucester? Bristol? Exeter basin?); Brixham becomes an industry (mine? China clay works?), the branch a light industrial line; Westmoreland stone yard sidings become the feed siding for a dock modelled on Charlestown...it all gets even more out of hand!

 

Anyway, thanks for your time and thoughts. All much appreciated :)

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

Edited by Schooner
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/05/2019 at 01:24, DavidCBroad said:

There are lots US based railroads of similar size in H0 gauge...

Very true...and yet (perhaps oddly given my proposal) I've never found their style appealing - single line, tight radii, lots of vertical stacking, vast fiddle yards...all in all very 'busy' trackplans with little room to breath, and unattractive.

 

I appreciate the sum total of my proposal is large and complex, but each station is comparatively small and simple (while, I think, having enough storage to largely do away with off-stage storage), and the lines between them are not convoluted to try create track length where there is space for none, but straight(ish) runs through the available space. A luxury of dealing in imaginary space for now, but not something I would change :)

 

On 08/05/2019 at 01:24, DavidCBroad said:

...a staging area or hidden sidings a la Pendon Vale scene...

Oh for The Vale of the White Horse! Some kind of hidden storage is nigh-on essential...but I'm keen to keep it to a minimum. Most trains should have jobs to do at various locations on the layout where there will be space for them. A yard to represent London would be useful, but the 'South/West' in generic sense is represented by the scenic run from Bath round to Frome (trains head into the West from Bath, arrive from the South into Frome) in the proposed plan and neither requires nor generates traffic. Workable, or proper wishful thinking?

 

On 08/05/2019 at 01:24, DavidCBroad said:

...sticking with the south west as In Newton Abbott pre 1930s, Kindswear, Churston, Brixham, maybe Dainton incline Brent/ Totnes might be more logical

Thank you, I'll have a proper look at this option...though remain unconvinced about the date ;)

 

On 08/05/2019 at 01:24, DavidCBroad said:

Far less freight than Wessex for one thing.

Is this a good thing? Makes it harder to illustrate the logistics network that held the country together, which is something I would love the layout to touch on...

 

On 08/05/2019 at 01:24, DavidCBroad said:

Building all those outside frame locos would be a nightmare and the green locos and red coaches would be boring. 1930 is far easier/ more interesting.

I may well be misinformed, I am certainly under-informed, but I thought outside framed locos gave more scope for mechanism than their inside-framed brethren, and certainly were not particularly harder to build? As for boring, I cannot see how the period that very reasonably allows for the staunch-if-dull designs of Armstrong, elegance of Dean, or the revolution brought about by Churchward to be represented could be dull or repetitive. Likewise a period where the passenger livery changed three times; passenger stock saw a move away from 4- and 6-wheelers to bogie coaches of several designs, clerestory and non; increasing regulation on wagon design came into effect but (I believe?) PO wagons in particular had a long period of grace to conform leading to much variety...and that's just GWR! If a change of location, or judicious application of Rule 1, allows then there are several other distinct and distinctive railway companies in the South West. So, I thought there was an awful lot of variety in the period, certainly more than the 30's, but I would love to hear the counter argument :)

 

Thank you for your thoughts, it's really helpful to cross-check why I'm thinking of this area in this period, and what about the layout I find attractive or not!

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

Edited by Schooner
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Schooner said:

Very true...and yet (perhaps oddly given my proposal) I've never found their style appealing - single line, tight radii, lots of vertical stacking, vast fiddle yards...all in all very 'busy' trackplans with little room to breath, and unattractive.

 

The first thing to remember is that given the size of those layouts they are much like the proverbial supertanker that doesn't turn or stop very quickly - given the length of time it takes to build many of them inherently have the preferences and biases of layout design from 10, 20, 30, etc. years ago.

 

They also reflect the compromises their owners are willing to live with, which will likely be different to yours.

 

Despite all that, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as they do offer a learning opportunity given that there doesn't appear to be much in the way of large UK layouts to use.  If nothing else they will given examples of the issues faced building such a large layout, and the time required.

 

I am not saying you need to watch / read everything the owners of those layouts put out, but scan through to get an idea of how much time things take, the changes as a result of facing reality, etc.

 

One good example is Mike Deverell and his Colorado Front Range layout, which he has documented building on YouTube in a dedicated 28'x38' building - https://www.youtube.com/user/madeverell/videos

 

Another good example, if you are willing to deal with Facebook, is Jason Shron's Kingston Sub.  Jason took the rather unique path of creating a model railway company (Rapido Trains) to create the models he needs for his layout, but his layout updates are more about the struggles of building a large layout while at the same time running a business and raising 3 kids.  Despite having help from friends and visitors progress has been slow and he has been forced to rethink things several times.  https://www.kingstonsub.com/

 

8 hours ago, Schooner said:

Thank you, I'll have a proper look at this option...though remain unconvinced about the date ;)

 

Is this a good thing? Makes it harder to illustrate the logistics network that held the country together, which is something I would love the layout to touch on...

 

Devon may seem like a boring, dull place from a railway perspective today but go back in the past there was a lot more to like, and I assume that would still be true extended back to your favourite era.

 

The other advantage of your era is that I would guess most stuff would be moving by train, as the road network and lorries hadn't been implemented yet, so even a small place will have a reasonable amount of good traffic.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Schooner said:

In my head I was sort of allowing about 6' for trains, so about 20' for scenic runs (3 x train length); 6'x1' for Avoncliff (4' sidings, 1' for the aqueduct, 1' halt) up to 10-12'x3' for the larger stations, including throats/approach. Useful ballpark, or way out?

 

This blog post in a way seems to have what you are aiming for - it is one industry (a paper mill), some connecting scenery, and at the other end a connection to the mainline with the interchange.  It is in many ways a very nicely designed layout, lots of space for the layout to "breath",  and as such I like what this person has designed.

 

The catch, if you want to call it that, is despite how little there is in terms of "busy" areas the layout takes up a 10'x17' room...    http://hedley-junction.blogspot.com/2019/04/brompton-paper-revisiting-layout-concept.html

 

[its also worth I think a side note, if one looks at any of the other topics in this section of RMweb as people struggle with layout designs the one common issue is just how much space those nice to look out wide curves eat up in a room]

 

10 hours ago, Schooner said:

Is it overly naive of me to think that (for sake of argument) a Hornby London Olympics and Lord of the Isles pack could do the do whilst working towards bigger and better things? Obviously less than ideal, and an overly reductive example, but fun could be had with what's available and more developed over time...? The track on the other hand...!

 

 

It all comes down to the combination of your goals and what compromises you are willing to live with.

 

Do you want the layout to be complete and operational, or are you willing to approach it more as a work in progress that you hope to finish but time and money may mean it never gets fully completed?

 

If you want it completed, then you need to take a look at what your limitations are - time, money, ability to build things or have them built for you, and plan accordingly.

 

Just remember that even with flexibility, a layout eats money.  Track is expensive, and even cheap rolling stock adds up once you start thinking of multiple trains scattered around a large layout.

 

But if you are more flexible, then yes you can take a slower view and make substitutions to allow for playing while working to an ultimate goal.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the good links, I enjoyed those and all very useful :) 

 

I hadn't intended to come across as so rude about US-style room-fillers - horses for courses, and some of the modelling is staggering, not to mention commitment etc! I find it interesting that I can look at something like the wonderful NM&SG layout plan, which is at least as involved as any other 'room-filler', and smile...but so many of those large American layouts generate the opposite gut feeling. Perhaps just a familiarity thing...? Anyway...

 

As for my personal level of compromise - I would be happy to call the layout 'complete' once it had functional track running through passable scenery and had at least one train to run. Once one can play trains, it is a case of improvement and refinement rather than creation. Is it possible to ever 'finish' scenery, or rolling stock rosters...?! I'm sure there will always be a corner for an interesting cameo, or an interesting wagon that could be found space... :) 

 

On 12/05/2019 at 02:37, mdvle said:

The other advantage of your era is that I would guess most stuff would be moving by train, as the road network and lorries hadn't been implemented yet, so even a small place will have a reasonable amount of good traffic.

Absolutely! For example, the below was a major inspiration for thinking of a West Country systemic layout:

https3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.comlowres-pic

...where Westwood Quarry can be seen to supply both rail via the Avoncliff sidings and canal via a small quay on the South side of the river, which itself had been used as a major transport artery for centuries...

 

In this uber-layout in my head, the stone being seen loaded onto narrowboat at Avoncliff would be unloaded at a trans-shipment dock - probably based on Gloucester (though I've often thought Teignmouth would be a good starting point, or even little Topsham quay) possibly squeezed in under and around 'Bath' station, perhaps. I love that a vessel could've sailed across the world's oceans, then made it's way right up a river and canal network, to be met by a fleet of railway wagons, narrow boats, lighters, barges, coasters and, not least, blokes with barrows, and dray teams which then sent the contents of her hold into every nook and corner of the country; and the same process in reverse of course. To read of London-strawberry-logistics (in the Castle Aching and Strand threads in the pre-Grouping forum) makes one realise just how involved transport of goods used to be, and what an efficient (if boring) process it has become. Also what an interesting set of layouts with interesting running programmes could be based on those supply chains...

 

As we're here, might as well share this pic of Gloucester Docks in the 1880's because I like it and it perfectly illustrates (or would if the rail network were more prominent in it), how many networks came together at these docks:

f798454e521c1b3ce20b57e48398e0c8.jpg

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

Edited by Schooner
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Morning all,

 

Just a little update - not a lot to show as I'm mostly just faffing around trying to broaden my awareness a bit so that I least I know where to start looking for information*. I have made some initial primitive forays into SCARM so thought I might as well share and learn from any feedback, and the 'grand scheme' layout has developed slightly. 

 

Following the general idea to work out each main feature section of the uber-plan as an individual layout, I thought I'd start with the simplest trackplan...although perhaps most complex scenery...so here's a first crack at a layout based on Avoncliff:

 

1926666371_AF1887.png.cab5c1f14679fb9b6d412c6d8950619b.png

 

This shows the area as it was in 1887 - a little earlier than my proposed period (1905-1915), but by 1901 the stone yard tramway had been reduced with only the siding (in the above) remaining...and I wanted a little more functionality.

 

As the area is now, looking South-West:

1049237875_AFaerial.jpg.0b24ab31cd5a546ab197f6bf9b725ff5.jpg

and North East:

34290894.jpg.e3be067581b6da86a625c2668bccd7d8.jpg

 

The plan: 

1328555694_SCARMAF2.png.f274a8e5cb6127b946cdab0ed01bceda.png

 

 

1183951528_AFSCARM3D.png.bdcd944ef2eabc10adcc341426950482.png

 

What a waste of 20'x10'! Please forgive the lack of geographical/scenic features - and the use of N-gauge track to mark out the canal - they are still on my To Learn list for SCARM.

 

There are, as I'm sure will be immediately apparent, some idiosyncrasies. I do most of my thinking about the layout late in the evening, which has some risks attached, and I don't have the knowledge to deal with issues like how to model both sides of a valley, encourage views along as well as across the layout, deal with the 'left-in right-out' curves etc...nor the imagination to really work it out! Any suggestions gratefully received :)

 

Some points, from left to right across the layout as they come to mind:

  • general note - due to using the trial version of SCARM, non-scenic trackwork is representative only. It should be double track all round etc
  • general note 2 - baseboard and backscene to be curved, rather than the sharp angles shown. Laziness on the author's part... :)
  • general note 3 - backscene itself a bit of a tricky one, but I think it might make sense to make it a little deeper and show the start of the hill behind the canal and leave it at that, rather than have a backscene board.
  • LH scenic break - based on Dundas Aqueduct (?)
  • stoneyard sidings currently use a single slip so it's possible to run around the siding as nec. If part of a larger layout I would quite like this to be a simple crossing, to encourage light-engine workings to and from the siding.
  • stoneyard tramway layout an attempt to maintain the functionality of the prototype, but give a little more flexibility with the gradient and compression. Headshunt for delivering stone to 'main' yard for cutting, dressing etc, siding for loading on to the railway.
  • Tramway was in reality horse-drawn...but I would love to lay it in 009 and have the option of a 'coffee pot' shunter (as used by one Corsham-area quarry), maybe up to a cab-less Hunslet...as long as...
  • Gradient is a pretty savage 6% between yard and aqueduct...is it too much to even think about using a locomotive for this? The trains will be made up of no more than 3 wagons (think Bachmann's slate wagons).
  • Canal wharf and tramway siding on the S side of the valley could be for the occasional load of stone out and coal in and that's what I'd aim to model, but I've yet to read anything definitive for this period.
  • Cassettes to be used for quarry traffic (I think I should update the layout plan to more closely match the real thing here, with the break halfway down the loop to give more flexibility in this regard)
  • Traffic for the halt was, I believe, largely railmotors. Traffic on the branch was pretty varied and included diverted express workings, but I would love to find timetabling information to improve my very scanty knowledge
  • RH edge of the baseboard to include weir and watermill for distraction and masking the track exit
  • Oddness at the RH end due to my wanting the track to turn away to the South, partly cos that's what the real view looks like, partly to provide a little more interest as there's only a straight run between, partly to avoid it looking so much like an oval :) I'd anticipate this end beyond the scenic section to be covered to the line and height of the 'backscene'.

 

That's probably plenty for now! Thanks for your time, if you have a thought on any of the above please do share - I'd like to hear it all!

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

 

ps. Would a new topic in a relevant sub-forum (Pre-Grouping perhaps?) be the place to collate information I've found, and raise questions? I'm aware that lots of things I'd like to learn about are not strictly related to layout design...

 

*work means frequent moves at short notice, so sadly books aren't a valid option for me. Internet-based research is great, but has risks. I'd appreciate any pointers.

Edited by Schooner
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Given the amount of traffic on the line, you are likely to find that dropping to a single track in the fiddle yard area very restrictive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely agree - it was done to keep the parts number down as I'm only using the trial version of SCARM. Once I know my way around the software well enough, I'll ditch the N gauge track marking the canal and will be able to show the intended double track throughout, and hopefully flesh out the fiddle yard itself :) Previous post edited for clarity.

 

 

Edited by Schooner
Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks like a fascinating long term plan. I love the aspiration to have a whole system - as you say, its really rare outside of US modelling.

 

Building up in stages from standalone layouts is eminently sensible, but I wonder if you might have to think again about scale?

 

The first layout that comes to mind as an example of a realistic "system" but modelled to a more "realistic" manner than a typical US basement empire, is Dieter Bertelsmann's famous "Hochscharzwald" in HO scale. Here's a really informative YouTube video with a nice run through of the track plan - two main stations, two additional key scenic scenes, two fiddle yards, and a branch line - sounds pretty similar to what you had in mind? It also fills an entire traditional wooden Black Forest barn ...

 

 

A great British example of something similar might be John Greenwood's 2mm Finescale "North Cornwall Lines". Very much made up of several distinct layouts, many of which are exhibited independently, but at home (and at a "one night only" exhibition) fit together as a complete system. Even in 2mm though, it's BIG! As a rough approximation, the kinds of curves used in 2mm Finescale (as opposed to N) probably equal those you could get away with in OO.

 

 

Justin

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Justin, thanks so much for those! I hadn't seen either in detail before, and I really enjoyed the Youtube video yesterday and look forward to a proper read through The North Cornwall line this evening :) Even on the back of a quick scan of the thread I learned that it possible to have a large home layout intended to be viewed from the outside. Never crossed my mind that a circuit wouldn't (fundamentally) just run around the walls, and this has opened up a new approach...

 

Still don't feel like I've found the answer for how to join up the system in a convincing and coherent fashion, but it's fun trying! For interest (?), it's looking like Churston and Brixham are loosing out in favour of Teignmouth (potentially just the docks with main line running behind), with the 'network' looking (after a two-minute knock-up) something like:

1420684192_SystemWIP.png.9dace874088bfc43699d1f5904404c9f.png

LSWR and SDJR are just a thought to increase variety and interest - if they were to be included, these are the lines I think they'd run.

 

Re scale: yeah, it's a tough one! I'm hoping to get through a lot of the planning without having to choose :) 2mm feels like the most sensible choice: it allows for a lot of layout in any given space...but I have some reservations, mostly to do with my perception of 2mm (being small and, although no less beautifully detailed, perhaps lacking heft) and concerns about the extra pressure it would put on my modelling skills! I need to spend more time with 2mm to see if these feelings still hold true and to what extent. My abilities (or wallet...) will just have to step up!

 

4mm has benefits in RTR options, 'easier' modelling etc etc but it does make the whole project significantly more intimidating!

 

Part of the answer to this may lie in the digital world. Once I'm reasonably settled on how each station works and how they fit together, making a version within a train simulator of some sort feels like a good idea. This should (I think?) enable a proof-of-concept run. Is this approach viable do you think?

 

Thanks again for the great suggestions :)

 

Schooner

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Not much time for SCARM, or much detailed thinking at all really, recently. That's not stopped me messing about with ideas for the overall layout of the thing. So far I seem to be strolling down two distinct avenues, one I've started thinking of as a 4mm approach, the other 2mm...I think you'll see why in a moment.

 

Note: I've not drawn baseboards or back-scenes in a bid to improve clarity. Light grey line is intended to show non-scenic sections, thick for double and thin for single track (apart from outside Teignmouth Station, which I've just notice should be double track to the scenic break!). Hopefully it is apparent where these would be, but please do ask if not and I'll do my best to draw them in a useful fashion.

 

The 4mm version currently looks something like: 

1167279726_Uber-innyFromefliplablled.png.4e1d1d88adef507e01fc93c2a52ba481.png

 

This intended to show the relationship of the respective areas (not as trackplan!)  for a home layout running around the edge of a large room, with a peninsula in the middle. Bath (station, goods and stone yards), for example, would almost certainly be significantly compressed to allow some space between it and Bathampton, which itself could well just be the junction and a refuge siding rather than a close model of the prototype. Box likewise could, space depending, just be the tunnel entrance and I wouldn't be disappointed. Still a large layout, but please do season the above with a pinch of salt, it's currently just a picture :)

 

It seems the main circuit is fairly settled now. This is where the idea for a systemic layout formed, and the run with which I am most comfortable - it maintains a good level of coherence (both geographic and up/down), varied operations and traffic and is all set in glorious, industrious, countryside. It is the 'main stage' in my head: local goods and passenger services being the normal cast, with guest appearances from GWR mainline, named and special services (being stored in and run from the fiddle yard, representing London, departing from the 'top' for normal running, 'bottom' to mimic the diverted route).  Express services get to stretch their legs between Bath and Frome on the 'Western' section, potentially not calling at either, whilst stopping services can run a decent shuttle between Bath and Frome via Bradford on Avon. A steam railmotor could use the same route but call at Avoncliff and Bathampton, if modelled. Plenty of scope for freight workings along the same routes, with industries in the various towns needing served, and Avoncliff stone yard/sidings providing both visual and (gentle) operational interest.

 

There has been a recent addition to this section, in the form of the engine shed from Trowbridge being bolted on to Frome Junction. This is because I felt that whilst there is, potentially at least, decent enough stock storage on the layout (particularly at Bath and Frome Junction sidings), motive power was somewhat limited by the single sheds at Bath Goods and at Frome, which didn't seem to allow for much more than a station pilot and a tank engine or two. Trowbridge Shed presented itself as geographically handy, but also small considering full suite of amenities and tying in well to the 5 or so roads of the sidings at Frome Junction. The trackwork for this area will require some serious consideration, but is a headache for another day :) I'd welcome feedback on options here, however.

 

The more difficult run, by far, is that to Kingswear. A straight run would be difficult, as a key feature is the descent of the line into the terminus. The lack of starting altitude meant coming straight off Frome wasn't (to my mind and skill-level) achievable. Most sensible then might be a purely scenic climbing run from Frome out along the peninsula boards...but I'd also love to be able to model docks large enough to justify a couple of dock tank engines, and have been eyeing up Teignmouth for some time - as with Trowbridge, it's a small version of a 'proper' prototype. The above is an attempt to crowbar a section of the Teign in to the layout, with a helix (not actually shown on this version, sorry) to gain the height necessary for all the viaducts down the Dart at Maypool and Noss. Frankly, trying to have both the rivers Teign and Dart represented may well be too much, but I'm greedy and have plenty of time to mess about with options. All suggestions welcome!

 

 

I've attempted to deal with some of these difficulties in another version, which I think could only really be achieved in 2mm, and so I have started to think of it as such. This would be viewed from the outside for the 'Wessex' bit, and the inside for the Devon sections, with a back-scene between back-to-back sections on the three sides:

948298922_Uber-outylabelled.png.ecf0db0a7fb3522d0e4558f68a3b9e63.png

This is very much the Kitchen Sink version! I love the idea of it, dislike the complication and have reservations about whether it's even worth spending time thinking through the practical aspects - is it all just too much? It provides so many options, but would it ever be possible to take advantage of them?

 

The 'Ersatz Radstock' bit bottom left is to try to merge the fact that the branch leaves Frome as the GWR Radstock branch, but crosses over the GWR main line West of Bath as the SDJR into Bath Green Park. I'm inclined to think of it as SDJR only, swap the realism for variety, and not worry about representing that the two lines come together at Radstock...but perhaps there is a way...?

 

Hopefully the general gist makes itself apparent through the various routes available, and the knowledge that the left-hand fiddle yard is intended to represent Bath Green Park, Bristol, Cardiff and 'the South West' as well as Weymouth and Bournemouth; the right-hand fiddle yard to represent London (all of it :) ), as well as Newton Abbot, Plymouth and Penzance. Excuses to run GWR, and SDJR are there, and LSWR too if just thinking of the scenic runs through each country's countryside...

 

That's plenty for now, should've stuck with bullet points...!

 

Thanks for your time, all feedback very welcome and all thoughts invited :)

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

 

 

Edited by Schooner
Too much 'seem'ing going on!
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Just to round this thread off: I think I've come to a natural stopping point in arranging all these pieces into self-contained system. A practical layout it is not, but it has been fun to mess about with :) The 'final' Grand Plan I'll attach below, and I've started a new thread in the Pre-Grouping forum as a place to start collating all the other information that I'll need on prototypes, WTT, wagons, signalling, water tower design, local sheep marking etiquette etc etc etc now that the layout design bit is drawing to a close.

 

So, you thought previous versions were ridiculous? Check this out...!

H13.png.99104f5a1dc864630115b6bf218ed740.png

 

 

Cheers and gone!

 

Schooner

 

PS. Forgot to say, but this time the map copies represent the scenic sections and all light grey represents non-scenic track behind back scenes/under scenery etc

Edited by Schooner
Uploaded slightly old layout version, now changed to most recent, and PS added
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Two things -

 

1. 'off scene'  fiddle yards/trains storage - you will need a lot of it if you are to have any variety in what you are running and you will definitely need more than one.

 

2.  the sheer size of it all - you are fairly consistent in what you are choosing to represent in the vicinity of Bath so to scale (in 4mm scale and with no compression that will eat up c.70 feet of floor space withe curvature saving a bit of that of course.  Overall the grand plan in 4mm scale is going to need a space greater than c.100 ft square.   So lots of time and lots of cost - but soem of it can be spread over many years of course.

 

Overall it's a great idea but I wonder about teh practicalities of some of it?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

 

Thanks for taking the time to have a look and share your thoughts - much appreciated - and you're quite right, it's totally impractical :) 

 

On 1) Well noted! 

 

I started off with the idea of a little empire, on which most storage could be on scene...but with this behemoth I quite agree that significant off-stage storage would be vital. To this end I've thought that fiddle yards would take up a goodly amount of the available space between the scenic faces of the hollow square that forms the basic layout, roughly as above. Given what the lines need to do in that void, it would be 4-6' wide for most, if not all, the run - lots of space for storage*. I forgot to mention, but for this version if it's not copied off a map then it's not scenic and will be hidden from normal view :)  This should hide the more cheat-y elements, excuse some tighter radii etc...?

*the trackplan of which I feel nowhere near qualified to even contemplate starting to begin to wonder about how to think about tackling...

 

2) It's of some reassurance to me that those were exactly the fag-packet distances I came up with too! To build at scale would not only be prohibitively excessive on several levels...but I also have doubts on whether it would be any fun at that kind of size, even ignoring the ratio of maintenance time to playing time. Might it not feel a bit too much like work, with someone else getting all the excitement somewhere out of sight? 2mm would be one way forwards, but not one I'm naturally drawn to.

 

With a little more messing about with the geography, a bit of modeller's license and a measure of compression**, I think runs of 40' and 50' for in- and out-side would be possible...and maybe desirable. Still vast and intimidating, but something that it feels might just be within the realms of possibility, more manageable to operate and more enjoyable to own, without losing too much of the sense of trains coming from and going to places on the layout with real purpose.

**about the same 30-40% as I'd use for train length, where 6ish carriages would represent a prototype length of 9-12 etc

 

Anyway, thanks again for taking it seriously enough to respond! It's nice to have an excuse to think through it all again :)

 

Schooner

Edited by Schooner
Like a muppet, I've only just realised that the storage yards could be under the scenics. On immediate reflection this seems like a much better idea all round...maybe the Silly Layout Design Office shouldn't lay off all its staff just yet... :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/05/2019 at 18:57, Schooner said:

The starting point (the plans, above) is ridiculous, I'm aware, and would require a space 100' square...

 

Just realised I predicted the size of this three months ago with my first post here, before I'd started putting the bits together. There's something slightly irritating about that, like when Mary Poppins' reflection winks back at her...

Edited by Schooner
Not really that astounding, or worth a post, really. Can't see an option to delete the post, sorry!
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

Compressing Bath

 

Well...it's been a little while since there's been anything to update, and this isn't much, but I've reach a point where some help would be appreciated. I'm out of my depth with all this, so external opinions on whether this is a reasonable compression of the GWR facilities at Bath would be most welcome.

 

I think I've done about as much as I can, by reducing siding lengths to match my intended train lengths* and dropping what trackwork I can without impacting operations too severely**...but what have I missed? What else coud be done to shorten both goods and passenger station? Have I allowed too much space? Could more trackwork be cut out, or have I already gone too far?!

 

For context, the date is about 1910.  

 

*of <6 feet...  Much reduced from prototype, but about where the Law of Diminishing Returns kicks in for me - perhaps 12-15 wagons for a 'normal' goods service; 5-6 clerestories for express passenger services (and as many of Hatton's cheeky 4- and 6-wheelers as seems reasonable for local stopping trains).

** eg. the loss of a siding from the East end, by the shed is okay; but the loss of a siding from the West isn't.

 

Bath Goods, 1903 OS

BH_goods_1903.png.3beb192cd6d5f654f43497198ead59ac.png

 

SCARM version:

1016819903_BathGoods20.png.a5849ba637cb5ce10efcd93a845727b8.png

 

As well as reducing sidings to accomodate only my shortened trains, I've also tried to 'rationalise' the trackwork to aid compression. Hopefully without loosing operational interest (eg. loosing a siding from the Up yard, RH in the above) but I'd appreciate any comment on whether this is a viable approach, and if it's been successful. I would, in fact, welcome all comments! Peco Code 75 library; express points and double slips, the latter to be reduced as possible.

 

Bath station, 1903 OS:

BH_1903.png.cc4fb2cc5ec6eab4bc61272c8390b502.png

 

SCARM version:

1865284901_BathStation12.png.bf818cbc99a75c3076246744e786ad39.png

Not shown are the goods facilities at each end of the the station. This is just because I haven't found a wagon turntable in SCARM's libraries yet, and the un-connected spur sidings were a pain to deal with. Otherwise it's a first pass at Bath to take 6' trains using standard geometry points. Suggestions cordially invited :)

 

Cheers all, thanks for your time,

 

Schooner

 

ps. Station to follow by edit once I've stopped arguing with the internet...

Edited by Schooner
...station added
Link to post
Share on other sites

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...