Jump to content
 

Musings on "The Perfect Layout"


Robert
 Share

Recommended Posts

Having just tidied and renovated my office at home, I am finding myself drawn back to railway modelling.  Unfortunately, I have a habit of getting distracted by other things (amateur radio, retro-computing) and before I get a layout finished, I move onto something else and the layout sits around gathering dust.  My previous layout - "Pot House Sidings" spent several years untouched in the spare bedroom, then suffered several more months of me falling over it in the office, before it got dismantled.  This was despite me saying (at the time of posting the Pot House thread on here) that this layout would get finished, or I would give up railway modelling completely.

 

I am sad to say it, but I have never finished a layout!

 

The problems to be surmounted:

 

  • Big ideas
  • Little space

 

More on my progress in the next post.

Edited by Robert
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife, Mercedes, commented that a particular spot in the office would make the perfect spot for an L-shaped layout.  The space available is shown in the diagram below:

 

IMG_20190505_135722.jpg.9c2427312ac1b60795285883cf322f4e.jpg

 

Now - Obviously I am under no illusion that I am going to be running mainline length trains in this space, but it did look quite large compared to what I have had available previously so I eagerly set about planning what I could fit into this space.

 

My first idea was a variation on the piano line.  While I was tidying up, I found a copy of Hornby Magazine which featured "Gas Lane".  Obviously, such a layout would probably be freight only in this sort of size.  However, it would fit in the space (without needing to be L-shaped).

 

To plan my layouts, I made a start using the online Trax editor - but unfortunately, I found it to be rather buggy.  This may be due to me using Linux, but I gave it up as a bad job and installed Xtrkcad.

 

Not a lot better!  Also buggy - However, the version that came with my Linux distribution was a couple of versions old, so I decided to build the newest version from source.  Ugh!  Cmake - the tool of the devil - but eventually after a certain amount of tweaking, I was now running 5.1.2a and although there are still some bugs, it is a lot better (it no longer crashes regularly) and I was able to make a start planning something.

 

Screenshot_2019-05-05_14-15-58.png.6a9f2d1992066bc6ee4a7884838e211b.png

Edited by Robert
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always wanted to build a layout based on Minories, so I set to work seeing if I could get something to fit in the space available.

 

Screenshot_2019-05-05_14-22-03.png.26a070367711731496f0235e24edc083.png

 

Well, it will fit - but 50cm is far too small for a train!  To be honest, I'd forgotten just how big OO gauge really is.

 

Several years ago, I contemplated moving to N-gauge but the problems of fitting decoders to split chassis locomotives (at that time) put me off.  Plus, I have quite a bit of OO gauge rolling stock.

 

Two mark one coaches works out at around 54cm, a smallish locomotive (Hymek, Class 25 etc) 20cm - Making a realistic minimum platform length of 75cm.

 

Screenshot_2019-05-05_14-29-37.png.a73a5b3105b458f4df0ba88b4ec4b608.png

 

The observant among you will notice that that the layout width has increased to 170cm here.  That will fit in the space available (just) but I had originally planned on 150cm to allow access to an adjacent shelf.

 

The 75cm length of a locomotive and two coaches will fit, but I am not sure of the aesthetics.

 

Please ignore the ugly curve at the exit to the traverser.  I was trying to get the layout to work without using curved points - but to be honest, I am not sure it is feasible.

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

The L-Shaped layout is actually proving to be more of a problem than I thought it would be.  Getting track around a corner takes up an awful lot of space!Screenshot_2019-05-05_14-38-09.png.a16d603a4b8118f38f9f8da29a446d7f.png

 

This was another unsuccessful draft that I tried.  This time using Piko track rather than my usual Peco.  Sadly, my usual supplier has stopped carrying Peco track and other local suppliers only sell it for ridiculous prices.  Of course, at the moment, I can still order from Hattons but I am exploring alternatives.

 

At present, I am tending towards giving up the L-shaped layout idea as a bad job.  There just isn't enough space to get the curves in.  I was hoping to get a bit of run, rather than just shunting backwards and forwards but at the moment I don't see how I can do it in the space available.

 

More to follow as the ideas develop!

Edited by Robert
Removed references to the political "elephant in the room"
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are quite right Mike - that's definitely information that would help.

 

Era and area are fairly well fixed.  Most (if not all) of my rolling stock is green and blue diesel, so that would fix the era pretty much in the green-blue changeover period.  Of course, it also means that passenger rolling stock was considerably larger than some of the older items.

 

For the area, I am looking at the Western Region portion of the Midlands.  Why?  Because I would like to integrate a canal scene on the layout, and get away with running hydraulics!

 

While I was writing this collection of posts, I had another idea which comprises a "Bitsa-station" with sidings serving some sort of industry.

 

I am not averse to urban grot.  One of the weeks I spent on a canal boat was back in the 80s before the touristy side of the canals had really taken off.  We toured through some really run down parts of Birmingham where the industry, canals and railways were all on top of one-another and that is something of what I would like to recreate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm .... looking at the draft plans that you have created, a question arose in mind: Is there anything stopping you from building your station on a curve? It might be a way of squeezing in a little extra.

 

As an aside, if you're having difficulty with your track package, you could investigate Scarm. There is, I understand, a free (limited) version that may suit your needs.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply Philip.

 

No, there would be nothing to stop me from building the station on the curve - except that it would move the station to the middle of the layout.  That would mean either a shorter fiddle yard, or having to build the fiddle yard on a removable extension.  I really want to avoid a removable extension if possible, because it would clutter my office up again - which I promised myself, and my wife I wouldn't do!  It wasn't cluttered with modelling stuff - but it took so long to clear out, I vowed never again! (Too many things that "might come in useful") :wacko:

 

As regards Scarm - I've read good things about it, but at the moment it is only available for Windows.

Edited by Robert
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Bearing in mind where you're starting from and the space you have (don't have) I would ignore just about anything to do with passenger trains apart from the occasional enthusiasts' special 'doing' a freight line.  That means you can forget about long vehicles such as passenger coaches.  Secondly I would go 'industrial' in the way of serving an industry (which could be low relief so no real track beyond the factory gates so to speak).

 

But as a very personal choice I would take my inspiration from a little scene south of Wolverhampton High Level where sidings from what became the steel terminal led to a transfer shed on a canal basin - here it is on Google maps

 

455162902_Whampton.jpg.fab2c3a511f48fc21b17b3d63857eefb.jpg

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

Thank you Mike - That's rather nice.  Just off the old main line.

 

I need to do some research on what the area used to look like when the infrastructure was still there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Robert,

 

I have an additional question for you: Are you wedded to straight turnouts, or could you live with curved ones if they were shown to be a viable proposition?

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

PS: Code 100 or 75?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Mike!  That's a very modellable area.  Unfortunately, I cannot post the maps here for copyright reasons, but hopefully these links will work:

 

Chillington Wharf - 25 inch to the mile

 

It would also appear that the Wharf was there right up until the late 1960s so that would put it in the right time frame.

 

Later Map - Late 1960s

 

Philip, I would also consider curved points, but I have been led to believe that they aren't too reliable.  Is this just one of those modelling myths?

 

I have a certain amount of Code 100 track - so may well go with that as far as possible.  However, like I said in my original posts, Peco track is getting increasingly difficult to get outside of the UK, and so I am exploring alternatives.

Edited by Robert
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It does look very interesting - there's lots going on and a number of different levels. (On the maps you can see that the LMS and GWR lines ran parallel at this point and there is a GWR wharf just bit further North.)

 

The question is, how to compress and distil this down to your small layout footprint? It would be great to make the most of the L shape and I'd suggest making both arms scenic rather than consuming one with a fiddle yard, if possible.

 

So looking at Chillington Wharf, one arm could be transfer shed, basin and a small array of sidings and the route out could curve round, under the LMS main line as a scene divider to a set of exchange sidings, which act as the fiddle yard on the other arm. (You could pose mainline locos on the over bridge even though you haven't got room to run them.)

 

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

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Robert said:

Wow Mike!  That's a very modellable area.  Unfortunately, I cannot post the maps here for copyright reasons, but hopefully these links will work:

 

Chillington Wharf - 25 inch to the mile

 

It would also appear that the Wharf was there right up until the late 1960s so that would put it in the right time frame.

 

Later Map - Late 1960s

 

Philip, I would also consider curved points, but I have been led to believe that they aren't too reliable.  Is this just one of those modelling myths?

 

I have a certain amount of Code 100 track - so may well go with that as far as possible.  However, like I said in my original posts, Peco track is getting increasingly difficult to get outside of the UK, and so I am exploring alternatives.

I can remember seeing it (from the Stour Valley line) with track still in place although moribund which would mean it was probably still there as late as the 1980s and maybe even the very early '90s.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick update.  Yesterday evening, I had a chance to sketch out the next draft plan.  Things are starting to come together, I think.

 

IMG_20190508_095814.jpg.8b589d07769bd99282161b926f44823c.jpg

 

I have adapted the idea of the Chillington Wharf interchange, together with a small station which is modelled in the "Bitsa Station" format.

 

Following rationalisation, the station lies at the end of the line.  The now truncated branch would have originally continued, but the station has survived largely to bring workers into work at the local factories, the occasional weekend special, and of course the interchange with the canal basin.  Passenger services will be either DMU or loco hauled - only the locomotive and the first carriage being visible.

 

The intention is to give the illusion of a much longer, station, the curve into the traverser disguised by a high level station building and road, which also serves to block the view of the fiddle yard from the scenic part of the layout.

 

The canal is to be modelled on the right hand side of the layout, with access to the basin through a bridge, carrying the towpath.  The scenic break to the back of the layout is the bridge which would have carried the now disused branch, with a lock partially modelled under the bridge.

 

I am also contemplating modelling a shed covering part of the tracks/basin as per Chillington Wharf.

 

I hope that goes someway to conveying my current thinking!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Your going to need to try that with a less optimistic set of turnouts, but if it actually fits there's fun to be had there.

 

You're right!  I have also done some playing around with Xtrkcad and I think I can get the track plan to fit.  However, my first and second drafts were far too optimistic!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Remember to leave room for the traverser to move - so that every road can be connected to the feed line! (Obvious but people do forget that...)

Are you willing to keep removing and replacing the traverser cover during operation or accept the look of the layout with the cover removed?

 

P.S. Space is at a premium so I would suggest not modelling the canal, just do the basin and the tow path overbridge to disguise the water's junction with the backscene.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I confess I'm not clear what scale or era you're thinking of now, but the direction this is going in puts me in mind of Easington Lane, a 1970s era layout which plays with themes of truncation and modernisation and includes a variety of freight and passenger movements.  

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

Scale and Era are unchanged Simon.  Still OO gauge, and still green/blue diesels, so probably late 1960s to early 1970s.

 

I realise that the track layout probably isn't that prototypical for the time, but I am prepared to be flexible.  I'd rather build something I like, and will maintain interest rather than worry too much about whether it's 100% prototypical.

 

Interestingly enough, Easington Lane is one of the layouts that I was looking at for inspiration the other day.  I doubt that I will be able to come up with something that looks half as good, but you have to start somewhere!

 

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

P.S. Space is at a premium so I would suggest not modelling the canal, just do the basin and the tow path overbridge to disguise the water's junction with the backscene.

 

Actually, that's not a bad idea.

 

Concerning the traverser, to be honest, I'm not too bothered about it being exposed.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite a quart in a pint pot more a gallon in a thimble.   You 

On 05/05/2019 at 13:33, Robert said:

I've always wanted to build a layout based on Minories, so I set to work seeing if I could get something to fit in the space available.

 

Screenshot_2019-05-05_14-22-03.png.26a070367711731496f0235e24edc083.png

 

Well, it will fit - but 50cm is far too small for a train!  To be honest, I'd forgotten just how big OO gauge really is.

 

Several years ago, I contemplated moving to N-gauge but the problems of fitting decoders to split chassis locomotives (at that time) put me off.  Plus, I have quite a bit of OO gauge rolling stock.

 

Two mark one coaches works out at around 54cm, a smallish locomotive (Hymek, Class 25 etc) 20cm - Making a realistic minimum platform length of 75cm.

 

Screenshot_2019-05-05_14-29-37.png.a73a5b3105b458f4df0ba88b4ec4b608.png

 

The observant among you will notice that that the layout width has increased to 170cm here.  That will fit in the space available (just) but I had originally planned on 150cm to allow access to an adjacent shelf.

 

The 75cm length of a locomotive and two coaches will fit, but I am not sure of the aesthetics.

 

Please ignore the ugly curve at the exit to the traverser.  I was trying to get the layout to work without using curved points - but to be honest, I am not sure it is feasible.

 

The curved point is one of the better set track points.  I would use set track curved points and Streamline Double slip and short points for this space with set track for the tight curves aand straights with streamline flexi for the awkward bits.  The streamline Y point is a great space saver as is Streamline track spcing at 50mm compared to set track at 60mm plus.  Two Ys back to back can replace the Double slip without wasting too much space.

 

I re drew your plan quickly for the above and its below.  The constraint is the curve radius can't be less tan 2nd radius or a lot of RTR can't cope, even 0-6-0s and 0-4-2s.   You can see the progression form plan 1 to plan 2    it should allow 3 coach trains or 9 ish wagons per train (at least as much as you can traverse!)

Other constraint length, the wider the platform the shorter the traverser.  With this plan the shunting has to use the traverser.  However there is no law to say the end or a traverser can't be on a curve. See my "Hockey Stick Traverser" concept.  What ever you do there is always a dead area in nthe middle of an L you can't get tracks to or if you can you can't get enough headshunt to make them useful. Its a fact of life,

Screenshot (332).png

 

Screenshot (333).png

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

  • 3 weeks later...

My planning is still ongoing, but rather interestingly Andy Tidy (a.k.a Captain Ahab) has posted some very recent pictures of Chillington Wharf in his blog this month.

 

http://captainahabswaterytales.blogspot.com/2019/04/chillington-wharf-backstage-pass.html

 

He also mentions that it is the best preserved interchange basin on the BCN.

Edited by Robert
  • Informative/Useful 1
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...