Jump to content

A snippet of Victorian London


Recommended Posts

I've penned many plans which describe urban termini, but rarely have they been built. Many years ago Bob Hughes (of I believe, RMweb) designed a 'bitsa' station called Sutton Road which represented just the station buffers, with the remainder of the station notionally 'off layout' but in reality nonexistent. This kicked off a train of thought and discussion which described how proper stage management (of the theatrical kind) could deemphasise our oft less-than-scale train lengths by chopping the train up with scene dividers such as buildings and bridges, as well as focusing on the areas of interest such as a station throat or bufferstop.

 

A link to Sutton Park is on Carl Arendt's Micro Layouts for Model Railroads site here (and links to 'Southwark Park', one of my early efforts at designing in Templot): http://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-103-november-2010/

 

I wrote a couple of plans which focused on this, including one where a commenter even suggested I move from S7 to S-scale (which is interesting, seeing as I'm toying with that idea right now!).

 

The result of this experimentation is thus, a 10' by 1'8" shelf layout, depicting the throat and platform ends of a suburban terminus.

Stage left is the truncated station - the middle area shows the station throat before diving into a tunnel .The other half of the crossover (to permit the dock and lower platform face to get on the running rails) is assumed to be off-scene.

On the  Crystal Palace High Level prototype, there  was an overall roof (see here: for an  example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Palace_(High_Level)_railway_station#/media/File:Crystal_Palace_High_Level_Station_1908.JPG) ) and had a signal box adjacent and then almost immediately dive into a tunnel (see here: https://boroughphotos.org/lambeth/high-level-station-crystal-palace-upper-norwood-3/) Of course - it had dozens of sidings and many more platform roads than this layout could support!
 

There aren't very many photos, but the Greenwich Park branch shows a more low-key approach to the same problem - canopies on the platforms, and the station throat running into a tunnel almost immediately (see here;http://disused-stations.org.uk/g/greenwich_park/index.shtml )

 

The station pilot siding is taken from the ELR's Norton Folgate plan - each side of the station having a pilot siding (presumably to support the GER's fast turnaround 'jazz train' services).

image.png.f614b0e90353131f38483f5456e9abf5.png

Operationally, the layout is a minories plan - trains arrive and are pulled back out by suburban tank locos that simmer in the loco pocket. 'Diverted' specials and boat trains would have tender locos that would need to be released and exit before being turned and rejoining the next outbound service. NPCS such as parcels, newspapers et al. could be shunted into the dock siding at the front of the layout.

Logistically, the Tim Horn baseboards I potentially have available for a layout are 4' + 3' + 3' and this fits nicely - all of the pointwork is on one board (depicted above as a symmetric threeway but presumably an asymmetric to match british prototypes). 

In terms of stock - a passenger train of half a dozen four-wheelers, four six-wheelers (pictured) or three bogie coaches comfortably fits into all of the platform roads with any generic victorian tank/tender loco. It is my assumption that the FY would be cassettes, so while the 10' limit can be adhered to when space is constrained, longer trains (such as the bogie coach train with a horse or parcels van) can be staged when the layout is out of my home environment. One would assume a secondary station like this would be the domain of robust tank engines like the LBSCR D1's, GER J68's or SECR H-classes by the turn of the century - but if the SE&CR can run an L1 (allegedly one of their most premiere 4-4-0 boat train expresses) down the sleepy ex-single track Caterham branch, then I think one could justify some interesting tender locos here too.

One of the key, obvious drawbacks is the lack of goods stock - there would be almost no justification for any railway to offload minerals or vans of individual goods at a station like this - it would have been handled by Ewer Street, Bishopsgate, etc. - but presumably newspapers, parcels and the occasional dignitary's horse/carriage wagon would be appropriate.

Scenically, much would depend on ensuring there was sufficient Z-axis variation - setting the tracks on a mid level with drainage ditches between, and staggered verticality - platforms, roof supports, retaining walls, overall roof, footbridges and the like would all need to be effectively managed to ensure the layout didn't become boxy - another reason to angle the bay platform tracks and have the retaining walls not parallel with the backscene or module divisions.

Anyway, I hope you've enjoyed reading this - it's given me alot to think about!

All the best,

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been mulling this over, and infact I think I may have found a really compelling prototype. Central Croydon was a very short lived branch off of the brighton mainline created by the LBSCR when it completed the line from Victoria to Croydon in the 1860's - there was already an 'East Croydon', so the lines ran to a new set of platforms named 'New Croydon' on the far side of the station. Apparently this was deemed to be too far from the centre of the town so a small branch was built, so a 1/3 mile branch was built to serve a suburban terminus right in the heart of the town.

 

Unfortunately for some unknown reason, trains that departed from this new terminus into the city were all slow stopping services - so it was much quicker for patrons to walk the 5 minutes to East Croydon and get a fast train - and after less than four years the branch and station was closed.

 

What I think was pretty captivating was that it re-opened after the completion of Blackfriars for through trains from the London & North Western via Crystal Palace/Kensington and the Great Eastern via the East London Railway - effectively a joint terminus for the LBSCR, GER and LNWR in the heart of the brighton mainline - Umber and Ochre brighton locos rubbing shoulders with royal blue GER and blackberry black LNWR liveries. Nobody would believe you!

 

I've had a quick play with the layout plan, and there's certainly alot to do - but I think it does suffer from not having the full set of crossovers operationally - unfortunately there is no way to include them on the visible part of the layout - it would crush the staging entrance to be right up against the station throat pointwork. Happily there is a prototype example of this very arrangement. Below is a link to the OS grid map for Greenwich Park station. There appear to be a set of scissor crossovers underneath the 'P.H' marking on the map, in a tunnel!  https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18.049999999999994&lat=51.4782&lon=-0.0100&layers=168&b=1

 

If you follow the line of the westernmost platform, it would be unable to reach the up mainline without this extra pointwork, but it is some distance (and a bridge away) from the rest of the pointwork. After some thought, I actually quite like the look of the trackwork for greenwich park, so I have superimposed it into the plan for this layout and it works quite nicely:

 

image.png.d8edfdfde9bca6dd03cab37024349330.png

 

With gaps at 4' and 7' the trackwork easily maps to portable three and four foot boards.  I see the Fiddle-Yard board containing Park Lane Bridge and the endcap backscene about six inches inboard of the joint, while the track itself will terminate ready for cassette loading at that point.

 

Scenically I would imagine the station using Central Croydon's sawtooth canopies and station building, you will see provisions for them in the left of the plan:

central_croydon_old1.jpg

(credit; Disused Stations http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/central_croydon/)

 

Just out of interest here  are few pictures of Greenwich Park station whose track plan I have surreptitiously pinched,  which as per the usual miserly LCDR practice looks pretty grim. The following shot was taken roughly from where the green pilot loco in my plan is located:

 

image.png.b52c09f26083ab4b0ca90e2786861f6f.png

 

And here's another shot looking from the bufferstops towards the tunnel portal - you can see a signal box and the bridge covering the rest of the station throat:

 

image.png.226822146cbae0604b4005cc7cf2977a.png

 

It would be lovely to include that signal box and I think it would make an effective view block in what would otherwise be a fairly abrupt transition from track to retaining wall and buildings overhead but the geometry in XtrkCAD where I'm sketching this prior to drawing in templot makes it impossible to fit. 

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenwich Park drawn with Templot over the OS map looks promising initially, but is a real space hog. That double runaround formation is a hair under four feet by itself, and the throat is three feet. As drawn there's three feet of plain track in the middle:

 

image.png.e153b38324a59267b697c76df2f9ffa6.png

 

Were this to fit in my space, that whole middle section would have to be chopped out. If the buffer end of the station were plain, it would be passable - but seeing as there's this really distinctive formation, having it right up against the throat just won't look right. It's shared by both Central Croydon and Greenwich Park which made me want to include it.

 

Disregarding the OS map and drawing the track straight into templot, it looks like the below, fitting into  a seven foot visible space with some room to spare around the edges for scenic work, and breaks nicely into my 4' + 3' declension:

image.png.bf88013448bd017b72ab9e03730eab2a.png

 

I'm still not totally happy with the middle road turnouts - but it does seem serviceable.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Operationally I see the layout set in the 1880's - ochre LBSCR passenger tank locos and four/six-wheeled coaches pulling in and running around, while larger tender locos escape back up the branch to get turned by the mainline before heading back in, all the while an E1 or A1 shuttles NPCS and coaches around the terminus. Only the rumbling of a slow loaded gravel train from the kickback Fairfield Yard (off layout) hauled by a grubby tender loco interrupts the intensive service.

 

If we fudge the timeline, maybe the north platform stables the LNWR Willesden train, or provides a spot for a GER train from Liverpool Street?

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it is a nice track layout.

 

It will all depend on what changes you can accept visually.  I would be tempted to see, given that certainly the tank locos are likely to be about 6 inches or less (based on wikipedia, the terrior would be about 4", the e1 about 5"), if you could perhaps "steal" some space from the track at the left where your templot version appears to give the locos about 12 inches at the station end.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not wrong - but I did want to be able to host tender locos such as the B1 Gladstones, and G-class Singles - which seems that about 55 feet minimum is required between the switchblades of the turnout and the buffers. Central Croydon's odd buffer arrangement of wedges instead of actual track buffers means that I could probably get away with that as written. It would mean the E- and D-classes would look pretty natural with a few inches either side, where the more rare tender locos could just about squeeze in.

 

I'm not aware of any practise where a runaround would be constructed small enough that only some locos would be able to use it - but if I did that, I guess it would be an opportunity for the station pilot to shine by peeling off the coaches Minories-style.  There was a turntable at the end of Fairfield where these tender locos would shuffle off to, to be turned (part of the reason why Stroudley did his best to wipe out the Craven tender locos that preceeded his tenure, it seems!) - so maybe the runaround is less important to them.

 

In any case, with shorter runaround pockets the gap between the pointwork increases from six to eight inches. Still not great, and I'm not sure that stealing another two and precluding tender locos from using the runaround would make a huge amount of difference?

 

I did have a thought in the car on the way to work today, which was maybe to flip the schematic front-to-back, so the unobstructed rear siding was towards the front, instead of hidden behind platform buildings and a sawtooth canopy. It could be a nice framing device as-is, but it means only the (current) north inside platform face and the runaround are going to show the bottom half of the locos and stock I'd be building for the layout!

 

I think it  could compromise the realism of the layout a bit more, because it would imply the pilot would constantly be going out along the 'up' main to shunt carriages (i.e. an area ostensibly controlled by the next signal box) - rather than the 'down' main which would be controlled by the box on-layout.

Edited by Lacathedrale
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

I did have a thought in the car on the way to work today, which was maybe to flip the schematic front-to-back, so the unobstructed rear siding was towards the front, instead of hidden behind platform buildings and a sawtooth canopy. It could be a nice framing device as-is, but it means only the (current) north inside platform face and the runaround are going to show the bottom half of the locos and stock I'd be building for the layout!

 

I think it  could compromise the realism of the layout a bit more, because it would imply the pilot would constantly be going out along the 'up' main to shunt carriages (i.e. an area ostensibly controlled by the next signal box) - rather than the 'down' main which would be controlled by the box on-layout.

 

Any reason the fiddle yard has to be on the right?

 

If not, simply rotate the layout 180 and you get your siding at the front.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/10/2019 at 23:09, Lacathedrale said:

Greenwich Park drawn with Templot over the OS map looks promising initially, but is a real space hog. That double runaround formation is a hair under four feet by itself, and the throat is three feet. As drawn there's three feet of plain track in the middle:

 

image.png.e153b38324a59267b697c76df2f9ffa6.png

 

Were this to fit in my space, that whole middle section would have to be chopped out. If the buffer end of the station were plain, it would be passable - but seeing as there's this really distinctive formation, having it right up against the throat just won't look right. It's shared by both Central Croydon and Greenwich Park which made me want to include it.

 

Disregarding the OS map and drawing the track straight into templot, it looks like the below, fitting into  a seven foot visible space with some room to spare around the edges for scenic work, and breaks nicely into my 4' + 3' declension:

 

 

I'm still not totally happy with the middle road turnouts - but it does seem serviceable.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Operationally I see the layout set in the 1880's - ochre LBSCR passenger tank locos and four/six-wheeled coaches pulling in and running around, while larger tender locos escape back up the branch to get turned by the mainline before heading back in, all the while an E1 or A1 shuttles NPCS and coaches around the terminus. Only the rumbling of a slow loaded gravel train from the kickback Fairfield Yard (off layout) hauled by a grubby tender loco interrupts the intensive service.

 

If we fudge the timeline, maybe the north platform stables the LNWR Willesden train, or provides a spot for a GER train from Liverpool Street?

 

 

Are you sure you drew the tracks correctly as there is no way for trains arriving at the lower platform to depart on the upper line or for arriving trains to shunt to the departure tracks.  Quite likely the cartographer did not correctly record the track plan or someone misunderstood it, but as drawn it is inoperable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

Are you sure you drew the tracks correctly as there is no way for trains arriving at the lower platform to depart on the upper line or for arriving trains to shunt to the departure tracks.  Quite likely the cartographer did not correctly record the track plan or someone misunderstood it, but as drawn it is inoperable.

 

If you back to the second post he mentions Greenwich Park appears to have had a scissors crossover a short distance up the line, underneath a bridge/in a tunnel to solve this issue.  In the case of his layout plan, this is all conveniently (as in he doesn't need to take up space for it) off scene.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

If you back to the second post he mentions Greenwich Park appears to have had a scissors crossover a short distance up the line, underneath a bridge/in a tunnel to solve this issue.  In the case of his layout plan, this is all conveniently (as in he doesn't need to take up space for it) off scene.

Aye, there's the rub: Important infrastructure is off-scene and important operations have to take place off-scene.

You then have to be very disciplined to avoid unrealistic operations and to avoid the temptation to cheat to make life easier for yourself!

 

It looks like a very interesting subject but I think it needs a bigger space - or a smaller scale.

 

Or, since there are already critical formations off-scene, a radical solution would be to not model the throat at all! (i.e. move it under Burney Street bridge.) That might work...?

 

BTW: The tracks definitely splay apart under Burney Street - I wonder if they pass either side of a bridge support?

 

If the scene were viewed from the East looking West, as @mdvle suggests, you could edit out the terraced houses above the station and show a more interesting Victorian street scene (London Street) with horses and trams, etc.

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

The space I have available for the layout is a long wall, at one end of which is a window - having the flat 'fiddle yard' board there with cassettes means that the window is still able to cast light fully into the room. Flipping it around would mean that the boxed up end of the layout is up against the corner with the window, so not really suitable.

 

I think the general idea is that this space is just a TINY bit too small for this - an extra three feet for that scissors crossover would make all the difference @Harlequin - as you have said, it would be very easy to 'cheat' ! That said, I'm not sure that modelling proportionally less of a larger station - i.e. like @Mikkel's Farthing diorama-layouts - would be any more sincere. Certainly the goals would be different, but there would be just as much operational cheating on a bitsa station as there would be on one with half the throat missing.

 

Maybe the solution is to have a pluggable 'scissors' module between the end of the layout throat as drawn, and the FY module. This would allow the layout to operate "properly" when fully set up, but still be operational (with potential for cheating) in abbreviated form?

Alternatively, if we start talking about extensible layouts then that opens whole 'nother kettle of fish...

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/11/2019 at 12:52, Lacathedrale said:

Alternatively, if we start talking about extensible layouts then that opens whole 'nother kettle of fish...

 

 

Or as per @justin1985's suggestion - a @Mikkel -style bitsa layout of an even larger station - just the throat, just the bufferstops, just the milk dock, etc. Definitely a bit of food for thought on that one!

 

12 hours ago, Ian Smeeton said:

2mm Scale?

 

Regards

 

Ian

Hi Ian, you're not wrong that this would be a good solution, but at the moment I'm thinking to take a step back from 2mmFS to try something that's got a bit more physical breathing room - I don't know if I will be any more successful but it will at least give me a contrast!

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

Is there any mileage in grafting arrangements from more than one prototype station together. If you replace the release crossovers and the three way at the buffer stop end with a turntable, you could save yourself a bit of length. A chap I know has done just that and it works really well. The turntable is only big enough for a tank loco, so anything bigger goes "off scene" to turn. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Nice ideas, Central Croydon sounds fascinating!

 

I suppose the decision also has to do with how you like to run trains. I use shunting puzzles for the small goods layouts I have, which of course i a major compromise in itself, even if you try to make it a reasonably prototypical puzzle. But without a puzzle I'd quickly get bored with those layouts I think. The bay platform doesn't have a puzzle, but the runround, a siding with a "strengthener coach" and a loading dock makes it reasonably entertaining to operate.

 

Having the off-scene operations done by a traverser is again a matter of taste.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I consider the plan, the more I feel that there is alot of interest at the throat, and just not very much beyond it - particularly if the runarounds are removed.

 

An option to consider would be just omitting the left hand side of the plan entirely in favour of some off-scene fiddle yard tracks - and expanding out the throat to contain all the elements required (in the case of Greenwich park, the scissor crossing). This way, the focus stays on the track and pointwork (which I love) and the unobstructed view of the trains (which is also pretty important!)

 

A very quick mock-up below - obviously it needs fettling but hopefully it might give a rough idea:

 

image.png

 

Clearly in this arrangement, the scissors being so close up against the rest of the throat makes slightly less sense - but you get my meaning of putting it all together, with just the tips of the platforms and overall roof on the left, and a bridge or tunnel on the right to bisect the visual space.

 

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

If the runrounds are so short it becomes impossible to run round a reasonable length train, then there's no point in having the runrounds.

 

You know, I was concentrating so much on having space on the middle runaround track that I didn't even consider how many coaches COULD be runaround there! It looks like a shade over 90 feet of clearance - three six-wheeled coaches or four four-wheelers. 

 

20 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Is there any mileage in grafting arrangements from more than one prototype station together.

 

It is a good idea - Crystal Palace High Level (another inspiration) also had this arrangement (see here) - though even more apparent is that the tracks run outside the rear of the station building - so ripe for omission entirely and using a cassette at that end even if one doesn't omit the entire platform area (as discussed above).

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

I like that plan just as it is and I would be quite happy losing the run round and having a 4ft platform length and working it with a pilot. You could always back the train out and use the cross over and the scissors (for a short train) or a traverser in the fiddle yard to complete a run round.

 

Buckingham is worked as a terminus with a pilot and is lovely to operate but there are a couple of short trains that back out and run round using the goods arrival line.

 

Having the centre road to hold a set of carriages for a while, or perhaps for horse boxes, tail loads, vans etc. is really handy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@t-b-g by 'as it is', you mean with scenic platforms and an additional scissors, but without the runarounds, i.e. something like the below (I appreciate that the throat needs to bend and then the scissors need to bend back - there's no way the up main would go through the diverging road on a turnout - but just bear with me)

 

image.png.ce183c360f68cc31f67476c6149c84c0.png

 

As you can see, the scissors form a fairly discrete addition - it would almost make sense to exclude them from the plan and 'drop them in' at a later date, particularly since as you can see it makes the layout 11' rather than 10' long.

 

That said - if I'm going to drop the double runaround then I'm straying far enough away from the original plan I may as well craft something that meets my needs more simply (such as Minories standard or a derivation like Bradfield)

image.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a rough idea, here's the Minories in S in the same area:

 

image.png.2f2b278ca5f91e1a0501c27798444bcd.png

 

As you can see, the platform areas look and feel very vestigial - so even if that board were modelled, would probably benefit from only going as far as modelling the 'front half' of the station - after all, that's where all the interest is in this plan. There would be another six foot of station off-scene on the left!

 

Gross templot sketch below using B6 geometry for the throat, below:

image.png.b02370f4ac35685d00f61fde2ca22a11.png

 

I could make that lowest turnout (with the bold timbers) into a three-way to retain a central road (although it would be even more abbreviated).

 

It's all starting to feel a bit like trying to fit a quart into a pint pot, and maybe would benefit from the 'cameo' treatment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

It's a tricky business!

 

Could you combine the throat with the scissors and make use of the turn in the throat to get some natural crossing angles like Minories does?

LCC1.png.7deda4465df7e9b3ba0881e5c4eca64d.png

 

Then it might be possible to model the whole station within your 10ft, including the characteristic release crossovers but ignoring the fiddle yard. (Bear with me...) That would:

  • Give you the full scene, making a great display on your wall
  • Allow you to work on the full model
  • Give you the opportunity to take photos
  • Reduce the number of joints and so reduce limitations on trackwork
  • Allow you to do limited running by moving shunters and pilot locos around within the scene

Then when you really want to operate it properly you move it to a bigger space (exhibition?) and attach the fiddle yard (which could then be bigger than you've previously shown).

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Harlequin that actually works pretty well (with no FY accounted for):

image.png.4912014f25d5829ec3283ac5f73a6b3a.png

 

However, I'm just really not comfortable with the idea of having a layout which I can't operate (I don't really think that shuttling a pilot back and forth counts).  I can make a photo plank 1/10th of the size to pose models on!


I think the crux of the matter is that my minimum train length is 3' - so the maximum visible layout is 7' - of which three feet is once again allocated to platforms/etc. My idea of:

 

Option 1) - Bitsa Throat - modelling the throat requires 3' either end, so again results in a four foot visible section.

Option 2) - Bitsa bufferstops - see Earl's Court

Option 3) Run the layout around the corner - I have a room with 8' + 8' (instead of 10' x 18") - so if I could fit the relevant throat pointwork (such as those scissors) inside a 90 degree bend, then one arm could be staging while the other could be half throat, half platforms.

 

Option 4) Discombobulate the plans into multiple micro layouts of 2-3' each as per Farthing

Link to post
Share on other sites

I spend a fair bit of time doodling layout plans. If I had a 10ft space, I would be looking for a split along the lines of 3' 6" for the fiddle yard, 3'6" for the platform length and 3ft for the station throat.

 

That doesn't sound a lot until you look at my all time favourite, Buckingham. That has a double track approach, splitting to 4 platforms plus a goods reception road and a loco spur and all the pointwork is in 3ft, including a scissors with a 3 way and a slip built in. You can depart from all 4 platforms but only arrive in 3. The total length of Buckingham from the start of the station pointwork to the buffer stops is almost exactly 8ft and that allows for a 5ft platform, with 5 short bogie carriages and a 4-6-0. A 3 bogie carriage train plus loco is quite possible in 3'6", especially in pre-grouping times.

 

I have looked at a number of plans where big parts of the operation are "off scene" and although lots of people like them, I have never seen one that I found satisfying. Having to swing a fiddle yard traverser or a cassette over for every run round or shunt just doesn't appeal to me. I much prefer a train to arrive and be dealt with fully on scene.

 

I truly believe that a complete, fully modelled station plus fiddle yard, with interesting operational potential, is possible in the space you have available.   

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
13 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

@Harlequin that actually works pretty well (with no FY accounted for):

image.png.4912014f25d5829ec3283ac5f73a6b3a.png

 

However, I'm just really not comfortable with the idea of having a layout which I can't operate (I don't really think that shuttling a pilot back and forth counts).  I can make a photo plank 1/10th of the size to pose models on!


I think the crux of the matter is that my minimum train length is 3' - so the maximum visible layout is 7' - of which three feet is once again allocated to platforms/etc. My idea of:

 

Option 1) - Bitsa Throat - modelling the throat requires 3' either end, so again results in a four foot visible section.

Option 2) - Bitsa bufferstops - see Earl's Court

Option 3) Run the layout around the corner - I have a room with 8' + 8' (instead of 10' x 18") - so if I could fit the relevant throat pointwork (such as those scissors) inside a 90 degree bend, then one arm could be staging while the other could be half throat, half platforms.

 

Option 4) Discombobulate the plans into multiple micro layouts of 2-3' each as per Farthing

 

I have to say, I don't like the way the tracks generally curve in the opposite sense to the turn within the throat - it makes an unnatural-looking kink to my eye. (Maybe the exit to the FY wouldn't need to be perp. to the end...?)

 

If you omitted the topmost platform line, or made it be departure only by moving the points to the right, then the platforms could be longer and there would be more room for the main focus (the two main platforms and ther release line) and the scenics.

 

I hear what you are saying about operations and obviously it's your decision but the alternative options just look worse to me! The Bitsa stations force some of the action off-stage, The curve in an 8 by 8 L shaped layout would probably take too much room, micro layouts have to be assembled elsewhere to operate and you get much better photos on a big, fully scenic layout than a photo plank.

 

BTW: The variety of rolling stock you mentioned earlier would need a lot of off-scene storage.

 

I hope you can find a solution that works for you... :smile_mini2:

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Harlequin - you're right that it's not my favourite - keeping the tracks towards rear-exit (so the kink occurs in half-hidden pointwork) would only work if the layout was operated from behind (since a traverser would need to move up/back relative to the footprint of the FY module. I'm open to the idea of exhibiting (the practicality of which diminishes significantly with a 90 degree bend and the associated logistical concerns)  but I don't want to mandate it - so the layout needs to be fully operable from the front/side.

 

@t-b-g are you referring to Peter Denny's Buckingham terminus?

image.png.4dada3338cc30954274531eeb2275086.png

 

Is there any scale plan available? The formation between the line of the coal drops at the leftmost platform starter seems absolutely bananas!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Thanks @Harlequin - you're right that it's not my favourite - keeping the tracks towards rear-exit (so the kink occurs in half-hidden pointwork) would only work if the layout was operated from behind (since a traverser would need to move up/back relative to the footprint of the FY module. I'm open to the idea of exhibiting (the practicality of which diminishes significantly with a 90 degree bend and the associated logistical concerns)  but I don't want to mandate it - so the layout needs to be fully operable from the front/side.

 

@t-b-g are you referring to Peter Denny's Buckingham terminus?

image.png.4dada3338cc30954274531eeb2275086.png

 

Is there any scale plan available? The formation between the line of the coal drops at the leftmost platform starter seems absolutely bananas!

 

It does look a nightmare but if you ignore the goods yard and just look at the main passenger lines, it is basically a scissors with one three way, one slip and a short Y for the loco spur beside the diamond crossing. From the signal gantry to the buffer stops in the platform end is almost exactly 8ft.

 

Here are a couple of my photos that illustrate it. If it will help, I will lift the road bridge off, along with the later overhead signalbox, lay a couple of foot long rules down and photograph it later, directly from above.

 

Buckingham_Dec_2014_007.JPG.0fd91d951b44b2050ef4541a437516c5.JPGBuckingham_Dec_2014_006.JPG.64dcce5be79e1b13d0e3ed73253a1964.JPG

  • Like 3
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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.