Jump to content

jamespetts

Suburban alternatives - London Underground layouts (00 gauge)

Recommended Posts

Update: See this post for the latest selection of London suburban designs.

 

 

A short while ago, I started a thread about a possible suburban terminus layout design to fit in the space that will be left over in my shed by the other layouts that are under construction/planned for there. The thread is here, and, for reference, here is the latest version of the plan for that layout:

 

399505983_SuburbanVictorian7.png.e6c3d1974d29109471d88ddf64f60ce0.png

 

That is intended to be a terminus station of the East London Railway served by LBSCR and District Railway trains set in the 1870s/1880s. One might call that layout "Old Cross Road" or similar (being a portmanteau of Old Kent Road and New Cross).

 

I have also considered other London suburban layouts to fit this space. The first of them is this, which I call "Pudding Lane" because pudding is tasty:

 

2120936460_Underground2.png.a0d812cfca9f1565648528c519d66e56.png

 

This is intended to represent an Inner Circle location in the 1930s, loosely based on Liverpool street, allowing locomotive hauled trains (Metropolitan Bo-Bo hauled) as well as EMUs to terminate in the bay platform as well as continue through the through platforms.

 

The third and most recent of the designs is this, which I call "West Acton":

 

152273705_Undergroundjunction2.png.d43c7bde387b02cab75fceae06890686.png

 

This is intended to represent a west London location in the early/mid 1980s, being loosely based on a combination of Greenford and Ealing Broadway with shades of Rayners Lane. The lower three platforms represent the London Underground and the upper platform British Rail. The idea is for trains originating from the dark green fiddle yards to the left (representing the Central Line) to terminate off peak, but continue along the line during peak times (as the Piccadilly line did at Rayners Lane - the service now continues all day), and the trains originating from the light green fiddle yards to the left (representing the District Line) to continue through all day. With a slight revision to the track plan, they might also be permitted to terminate to represent short terminating trains in the peak shoulders and early mornings/late evenings.

 

The BR line (served by the purple fiddle yard) is intended to have class 121s from Ealing Broadway off peak, with services extended (and perhaps provided by 117s) in peak time, and possibly also a service to Willesden Junction on an imagined branch of the North London Railway served by a class 104. The idea is to imagine that the station was once a converging junction between the GWR and Metropolitan District Railways (with later running powers for the NLR) before all links were severed in the 1960s and the GWR/NLR reduced to a DMU shuttle service.

 

***

 

For general information: white tracks are in the scenic section, green and purple represent the fiddle yards and light or dark blue represents locomotive storage in the fiddle yards. All layouts are in 00 gauge and intended to be able to be built with Bullhead track in the scenic sections and Streamline in the fiddle yards. The layouts are intended all to be DCC and computer controlled/automated using TrainController. My main interest is in intricate and complex passenger operations.

 

By way of comparison between the layouts: Old Cross Road is built with more generous tolerances as is allowed for by being a terminus station in the same space. It has longer platforms and a minimum curve radius of 600mm. Pudding Lane and West Acton have a minimum curve radius of only 438mm. (The sharp curves are confined to the fiddle yards in all cases; the scenic areas all have much more generous curves). However, I believe that multiple unit trains should not have a difficulty in traversing 438mm curves, and the Heljan Bo-Bo is likewise capable of sharp corners easily.

 

What I am really interested in is comparison for operational interest, but also any possible practical issues that I may have missed. I am concerned that Pudding Lane may not have enough variety. Old Cross Road is more interesting, as there are locomotive hauled operations, but I wonder whether this will end up being too operationally similar to (and, operationally, merely a smaller version of) the larger 00 gauge layout being planned. I am keen on realistic service frequencies, which may also be somewhat lacking with Old Cross Road.

 

West Acton, the latest plan, has interesting features in that it has three different lines, two of them converging, and an interesting and complex mix of peak and off-peak operations. It also has the possibility of plausibly representing any time between the early 1970s and early 1990s as many lesser Underground stations did not change enormously during this time. This would allow the running of a great variety of rolling stock and different service patterns in different operating sessions.

 

All of the layouts (intentionally) have some element of London Underground in them, albeit for Old Cross Gate not in quite the way that one would normally imagine the Underground.

 

All of the layouts are limited by being in 00 gauge in a relatively limited space. If it were easier to obtain a good variety of London Underground or pre-grouping rolling stock in N gauge, this would definitely be preferable, but, aside from a good LT pannier tank, availability is limited to 3d printed kits for which good chassis are not readily available, giving poor fidelity compared to the excellent quality of modern ready to run N gauge, and I do not fancy the prospect of having to line several 3d printed Metropolitan Bo-Bo locomotives in N gauge. I suspect that N gauge is best confined to areas which can readily be represented by ready to run rolling stock, the quality of which in modern times is excellent.

Edited by jamespetts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of "West Acton" .  I moved from the London area to the US in the early 70's. Given the mists of time. I can't remember how common it was/is to have tube stock and surface stock using the same tracks and platforms?

 

Andy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

I like the idea of "West Acton" .  I moved from the London area to the US in the early 70's. Given the mists of time. I can't remember how common it was/is to have tube stock and surface stock using the same tracks and platforms?

 

Andy

 

This occurs along two lines in west London: on the District/Piccadilly between Turnham Green and Acton Town and on the Metropolitan/Piccadilly between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge. I have distinct memories of the strange practice of stepping down into a train when travelling on the Piccadilly line in the 1980s! This persists even now.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the BR line at West Acton could be singled completely without losing any operational interest. This would allow more breathing space at the left hand end, where facilities for the District are rather cramped, and more visual separation between the LU and BR lines at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

I think the BR line at West Acton could be singled completely without losing any operational interest. This would allow more breathing space at the left hand end, where facilities for the District are rather cramped, and more visual separation between the LU and BR lines at this point.

 

An interesting thought. There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach. It allows a little more space for the District Line roads. Greenford is singled for some distance back from the station, albeit this is because there is a diverging junction onto the freight line.

 

This is what the simplified version looks like:

 

992418691_Undergroundjunction3A.png.779bb864fc65974b5895ab15b6fe1ab9.png

 

I have also removed a crossover that is unnecessary if none of the District Line trains use the terminating centre platform, which they cannot do unless the long crossing is turned into a single slip, as there is no way back onto the District Line eastbound from the central platform.

 

On the other hand, there is not sufficiently more space freed in the eastern District Line roads for any extra sidings of the necessary length (~1.6m). I could possibly fit in another BR line, but there is not likely to be sufficient traffic to warrant more than three roads. The reason that Greenford is singled so far back is that the singling starts from just before the diverging junction to the line that connects with the freight only through lines next to Greenford. The aim with West Acton was to show clearly how the track layout had gone from a station with four through lines and converging main lines to a separated arrangement with Underground and BR not connected.

 

Moreover, this arrangement will allow a train to be held at a signal awaiting a place in the platform (as it is intended to represent a somewhat more complex set of workings than at Greenford in that I have added the imaginary shuttle service to Willesden Junction). A single line without any pointwork at all does seem rather sparse.

 

Also, it is probably better to allow District Line trains to use the centre (terminating) platform to allow for more interesting workings, as one can imagine that it would prove useful to turn trains short in the peak shoulders as is often done now (e.g. terminating eastbound District Line trains at Dagenham East rather than Barking or Upminster, as is common in the peak shoulders but not mid-peak or off-peak).

 

The revised diagram with the long crossing replaced with a single slip is here:

 

156658955_Undergroundjunction3.png.3ddeff858a4ac1c053f2cee3cb1ca8cf.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jamespetts said:

For general information: white tracks are in the scenic section, green and purple represent the fiddle yards and light or dark blue represents locomotive storage in the fiddle yards. All layouts are in 00 gauge and intended to be able to be built with Bullhead track in the scenic sections and Streamline in the fiddle yards. The layouts are intended all to be DCC and computer controlled/automated using TrainController. My main interest is in intricate and complex passenger operations.

 

All of the layouts are limited by being in 00 gauge in a relatively limited space.

 

In a way this seems to simply be a second version of your main layout - lots of operation, lots of complex trackwork, lots of DCC and other stuff for computer operation.

 

Ignoring the simple issue of cost for all that electronics and rolling stock, is it going to be too similar to your main layout to offer any satisfaction?

 

There is a part of my that like the idea of modelling a large urban terminus, but I don't know that I would want to be building 2 of them at the same time.  Perhaps a smaller, simpler layout - maybe in O - might offer a change from the main layout.

 

A secondary advantage would be less stock to buy, less expensive trackwork, and by being a much simpler layout something that you can relatively quickly get built to the point were it is operational manually so that you can have something to operate in a spare 15 to 30 minutes while waiting for the main layout to get finished.  It may even offer a simpler platform for testing your automation ideas before going full in on the more complicated main layout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bucolic

1 hour ago, mdvle said:

 

In a way this seems to simply be a second version of your main layout - lots of operation, lots of complex trackwork, lots of DCC and other stuff for computer operation.

 

Ignoring the simple issue of cost for all that electronics and rolling stock, is it going to be too similar to your main layout to offer any satisfaction?

 

There is a part of my that like the idea of modelling a large urban terminus, but I don't know that I would want to be building 2 of them at the same time.  Perhaps a smaller, simpler layout - maybe in O - might offer a change from the main layout.

 

A secondary advantage would be less stock to buy, less expensive trackwork, and by being a much simpler layout something that you can relatively quickly get built to the point were it is operational manually so that you can have something to operate in a spare 15 to 30 minutes while waiting for the main layout to get finished.  It may even offer a simpler platform for testing your automation ideas before going full in on the more complicated main layout.

 

 

Tastes vary in these things - I do have a strong preference for complex, intensive and automated operations generally. I like to run a realistic timetable at 1:1 scale speed, so a country branchline with one train every two hours (or less) would not be what I should enjoy.

 

As to being too similar to the main layout, that is more of a concern with the Old Cross Road plan, as the operations would invariably entail steam hauled trains arriving, the locomotive being released (or a kickback locomotive being used) and the train departing again, the arriving locomotive being coaled and watered. This is potentially an interesting operation, but the larger 00 gauge layout will have very similar operations but on a larger scale, albeit with the use of a pilot engine and carriage sidings. There would be a difference in era and theme (1880s vs 1930s; suburban vs. long distance), but this may not be enough to create sufficient variety, especially as the larger layout is planned to be able to be backdated to the 1910s, subject to me being able to build/commission sufficient suitable rolling stock

 

The Pudding Lane and West Acton plans are quite different in theme, era and operational style; they model electric traction and focus on the London Undergrond in its more modern recognisable form. Both involve a mixture of through and terminating operations, one with locomotive hauled trains and one with EMUs only, but more complex interleaving lines.

 

If I wanted something simpler and more bucolic, I should be more tempted to model in 009 than 0, and an 009 layout has been another thing that I have had in my mind as to what to do with this last remaining space.

 

The plan hitherto has been to build the larger 00 gauge layout (which will be above this in height, suspended by brackets mounted to the wall) before considering what to build in this space. However, it occurs to me that this may not be feasible; it will be very difficult to reach the track to lay at the rear of the layout with the other layout's baseboards above me.

 

That is a shame, as I had hoped that it would be possible to build this layout some years after completing the others, and when I have learnt more from experience of operating them what I especially enjoy and what I find lacking, and whether something more bucolic or more urban and intensive would be what I might be after to complement the other layout; but I may actually have to build this one first.

 

If anyone can think of any sensible way around this, that would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jamespetts said:

Tastes vary in these things - I do have a strong preference for complex, intensive and automated operations generally. I like to run a realistic timetable at 1:1 scale speed, so a country branchline with one train every two hours (or less) would not be what I should enjoy.

 

Absolutely tastes vary, but the question then (to me) becomes why build 2 similar layouts?

 

Really, your large main layout is likely at least a 5 to 10 year project(*) - unless you instead spend money and have all or large parts of it built for you as some people do or have a lot of free time - so planning on a second layout that is essentially the same seems unusual.

 

I would also point out I didn't say a country branchline - almost any layout would be simpler compared to your main layout.

 

You could do an inner city goods yard, or an inner city themed dock scene, either of which would give you lots of trackwork to do while still being in a manageable space that could be finished in a lot less time than your main layout.  This then would give you an option for something to run trains on when you go to your shed, take a look at the main layout, and decide you just aren't in the mood to work on it that day.

 

* - Leed City, The Midland Side, seems in many ways comparable to what you want to attempt with your main layout.  Look at the first page and note started in 2012, then look at the last 5 or so pages and see how much still yet needs to be done despite being 7 years in the making. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64065-leeds-city-the-midland-side-in-4mm/

 

 

9 minutes ago, jamespetts said:

If I wanted something simpler and more bucolic, I should be more tempted to model in 009 than 0, and an 009 layout has been another thing that I have had in my mind as to what to do with this last remaining space.

 

So perhaps that is something to explore as well, lots of new OO9 stuff in the last couple of years including the new steam loco being done by Model Rail.

 

9 minutes ago, jamespetts said:

The plan hitherto has been to build the larger 00 gauge layout (which will be above this in height, suspended by brackets mounted to the wall) before considering what to build in this space. However, it occurs to me that this may not be feasible; it will be very difficult to reach the track to lay at the rear of the layout with the other layout's baseboards above me.

 

That is a shame, as I had hoped that it would be possible to build this layout some years after completing the others, and when I have learnt more from experience of operating them what I especially enjoy and what I find lacking, and whether something more bucolic or more urban and intensive would be what I might be after to complement the other layout; but I may actually have to build this one first.

 

If anyone can think of any sensible way around this, that would be appreciated.

 

Smaller layout that can be done more as modules, and thus can be removed (perhaps even to the yard/driveway) for work sessions.

 

But it is really the problem with multilevel layouts.  Unless the upper levels are quite narrow you need to lay the track from bottom to top, and then ideally do scenery from top to bottom.

 

It will be interesting to see how you try and solve these conflicting wants/issues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jamespetts said:

Moreover, this arrangement will allow a train to be held at a signal awaiting a place in the platform

 

I'm doubtful that the signalling would allow that, as the overlap beyond the "home" signal would be occupied by the train in the platform, which is why I don't think singling would affect operational capacity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about the West Acton junction. If trains from one line generally terminate at a platform, why would their path cross the line used by the other? Seems like a design to create unnecessary conflicts. It seems more likely that the top or bottom platform would be the terminating one (as at Plaistow and Dagenham East, if those are still in use) and the other two would have a conventional double junction.

 

The old 4 platform arrangement at Whitechapel would be a bit more interesting, and if you've got the height then the "East London Line" could be above or below for your BR service. Edgeware Road is a potentially interesting one, too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your thoughts. First of all as to the junction arrangement at West Acton: I have had a go at an alternative plan for this along the lines suggested:

 

1426708569_Undergroundjunction4A.png.f1e92ab453c0fcb1f83c54f724a64541.png

 

However, I am not sure that this helps much, as the Central Line trains still have to cross the path of the District Line trains in order to terminate.

 

The original design with the centre terminating road was based on the common London Underground practice (consider Queen's Park, Willesden Junction, Mansion House (until recently), Tower Hill and doubtless other places) of having the centre of three platforms be the terminating platform so that trains terminating do not have to cross any tracks and trains starting from the terminating platform do not cross the tracks of trains going in the opposite direction.

 

With the original version of this plan, these features are maintained, although the double junction itself entails conflicting movements. In the revised version of the plan, trains arriving from either the Central or District line from the east have to cross the path of the westbound trains to reach the terminating platform.

 

Also, if we imagine this set in the early 1980s, with the Central Line running peak time only beyond to the west, one can readily imagine that until 10-15 years previously, the Central Line would have run all day, and so would not have been the predominant line terminating, although this probably does not matter: whichever line is terminating will conflict either inbound or outbound with the other line because of the double junction.

 

As to signalling overlaps, I cannot find complete information on this, but a source that I found earlier but can no longer locate suggested an overlap of circa 75m for a line speed of circa 30mph. One can well imagine such a speed on the approach to a station such as this, although I could not find any reference for how long that the line speed has to be this low for this overlap to apply. In the track layout above, the signal is a scale 94m from the turnout.

 

In the diagram below, a slightly modified version of the original plan, the overlap distance is 71 scale meters:

 

412481046_Undergroundjunction4.png.ee7d50e30b3bad60f3d718dd3cc8dd2e.png

 

On both diagrams I have also indicated where signals should be for the Underground lines: the yellow/green signal part way along the platform is a repeater, not a true distant signal, and is necessary because it is intended that the signal under the end of the platform will be under a large bridge carrying a road overhead and at the end of the platform will be off scene.

 

As to the more conceptual issue of whether to build this rather than another layout (or use the space for something else entirely), that is not a question that it is easy for anyone else to advise on given that what different people enjoy varies so much. All that I will note is that the Underground is a very interesting topic and it would in many ways be disappointing to miss this as a layout subject. I should model it in N gauge if I could to get a more interesting track layout in (a pastiche of Earl's Court, Harrow-on-the-Hill or Barking, perhaps?), but the rolling stock availability in that scale is too poor.

 

This thread is really intended to be a comparison of three conceptually quite similar layouts and a discussion of their relative merits from a model railway perspective, as well as refinement of the concepts of each of them (especially the two that were not the subject of its own thread).

 

However, one useful practical consideration to come out of this discussion is the sequence of building. Quite how far that this discussion can usefully go, I do not know, but the preference is definitely to defer the decision about what to do with this space until later; but if the track needs to be built first, this will be difficult.

 

I do not really have anywhere other than my shed to build layouts, so the idea of building a layout in modules elsewhere and then transporting it to the shed is not feasible, so far as I can fathom. I should also note that I do not do woodwork, and use outside contractors for all my baseboards (with some

success so far: the baseboards for the N gauge layout on the other side of the room are of good quality).

 

In any event, thank you all for your feedback so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/11/2019 at 14:46, Andy Reichert said:

I like the idea of "West Acton" .  I moved from the London area to the US in the early 70's. Given the mists of time. I can't remember how common it was/is to have tube stock and surface stock using the same tracks and platforms?

 

Andy

 

The District Line ran to Hounslow (in peak hours) until 1964 - IIRC the line was originally the Metropolitan District railway and the Piccadilly took it over in due course.  Also (peak hours) the Piccadilly and Metropolitan Lines still run Rayners Lane to Uxbridge I believe.

Edited by Metr0Land

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I had in mind when suggesting a Plaistow type arrangement (or the other way round, not sure which route trains would terminate on).

IMG_20191129_180244861.jpg.dedad36c604e1fb19f4285e8a09d7bd6.jpg

 

The centre platform is generally used when only some trains terminate such as at tower hill or mansion house (as would be the case here too), a single platform or reversing siding doesn't have the capacity for an entire service worth of reversals on a tube line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an interesting thought, but that would then not give the District Line trains the ability to use the bay platform.

 

As to a single platform not being enough for an entire line's worth of terminating services, that is not correct: in the 1980s, all off-peak Bakerloo Line trains terminated at Queen's Park. That has a single platform.

 

Of course, this was only sufficient to terminate off peak services - at least half the services at peak time continued to Willesden Junction or Harrow & Wealdstone, but the same will apply here, with peak time services running through beyond the station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Queens park has two turnback sidings in the shed though, the platform was effectively the penultimate stop on the line.

 

If you want both lines to use the bay platform then you're going to have conflicts (unless you have a second terminating platform on the other side, with similar pointwork on the approach).

 

Here's another food for thought sketch:

15750590160873143126309356617799.jpg.9916b145bda9478b70e2bbd096cc5906.jpg

Terminating District trains would get in the way of through Central line trains though, so more than the 5 seconds thought I gave it necessary...

Edited by Zomboid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an improvement on that sketch. Terrminating trains use the outer platforms, which are shown as loops to enable more flexible operation at peak times when there will be more through trains.

For something like this I would definitely rip off Whitechapel and have the BR line running at a different elevation  crossing the LU station at an angle- you could have two platforms and a hidden reversing siding over the RH storage yard. Even run it like the old ELL Whitechapel where for much of the day trains terminate, but then during peak times they run through to "Shoreditch".

429730438_LUJcn1.png.5177a7fa178fd1a3acbf129ad5ed6d23.png

 

I'm going to see if I can find the old Whitechapel station plan now, that had a lot of interest going on for an LU station...

 

http://www.wbsframe.mste.co.uk/public/Whitechapel.html

 

It had a traditional double junction just down the line at Aldgate East, and the off peak H&C used to terminate. Trains could terminate from either direction (if the line to Aldgate was closed then the Westbound service would finish here). The double junction shown to the right of the station (West, geographically speaking) is the curve down to the ELL.

Edited by Zomboid
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go, I started with Whitechapel and built a double junction into it. Trains from the bottom left can terminate in all platforms and trains from the top left can terminate in the top 2, and conflicts whilst doing so are minimised as much as possible for a flat junction. Terminating trains from the Right are also possible into the bottom 2 platforms, but you could just bring the loops into the running lines if you don't think that's necessary.

 

You might need to change the junction around from a Left divergence to a Right divergence to fit it into your space, but that's a fairly minor thing to do. And obviously the platform lengths need extending to fit actual trains, but that's not the point of this drawing.

 

1297905806_LuJcn2.png.e4d0ec35cc7efcc28c0cc3fe83862b44.png

 

Feel free to ignore, I had fun drawing it out.

 

(Points are peco mediums, given that it's supposedly LU I wouldn't be shy about using short ones, which would squish it into a shorter length).

Edited by Zomboid
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your thoughts on that - the difficulty with those plans, however, is that I do not have the space available to connect both outside roads and have junctions to the right of the platforms in the diagram.

 

Another possible design is this, based loosely on pre-war Moorgate, which is a combination of the Pudding Lane idea with the West Acton fiddle yard design:

 

775924627_Undergroundnew1.png.9dc809853ae8ff6e715479f76e9ed1aa.png1718285347_Moorgatetracklayout.jpg.fadad4d84c24151cf78ff4182e964fa2.jpg

 

This is harder to fit into the space; one of the crossovers is missing in the scissors, meaning that trains from platform 3 cannot access the widened lines. Also, a further crossover is missing from the widened lines in the scenic area, meaning that trains accessing the widened lines from platform 3 will need to leave the scenic area wrong line on the assumption that there is a crossover off-scene (as there actually is). I have also added a locomotive siding between platforms 3 and 4, as it is not clear how the terminating locomotive hauled Metropolitan line trains would have reversed at Moorgage given the plan above.

 

This does have the advantage of allowing a wider variety of rolling stock, including a mix of steam and electric and locomotive hauled electric trains. Changing ends for the locomotives on the widened line will require through running through one of the city side fiddle yards, which is not ideal, but there is no other space for locomotive stabling facilities. There are also some points where things are fitted quite tightly in place.

 

As to medium radius points - the Peco long radius points are approximately equivalent to a B8. Would the Underground really have used anything shorter?

Edited by jamespetts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jamespetts said:

Thank you for your thoughts on that - the difficulty with those plans, however, is that I do not have the space available to connect both outside roads and have junctions to the right of the platforms in the diagram.

Those are not essential, you could have either the outside roads continuing (Aldgate) or the inner roads continuing (Baker Street). Or that whole affair could be off scene on the curve if curved points work.

 

To be honest I think it's a bit too much to try and have the double junction on scene in the space you seem to have. I would imagine it is a little way down the line as at Edgeware Road or Whitechapel.

 

Moorgate looks to offer quite a lot of interest, I would probably look to rationalise it down to just a couple of widened lines platforms and a shared bay - it would fit a lot easier and you'd keep the essence of the place pretty much intact.

 

Other things to possibly consider might be South Kensington back when it had a central east facing bay, or Woodford (imagine the Hainault line is the district or something).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have managed to fit in a connexion to the right to allow the centre platform to accept through trains in the West Acton plan:

 

943564525_Undergroundjunction5.png.64688ac6e9cdf09bc22c960186b4e4db.png

 

I then had a go at adding a crossover and imagining the scene as one in which central London is to the right, not the left, and the tracks thus diverge rather than converge (imagining perhaps a Northern Line location, and possibly removing the BR line, although I have not altered it in this version), using some of Zomboid's track plan ideas above, but I am not entirely happy with the result:

 

1373690203_Undergroundjunction6B.png.c7f5995fcc271ddd3cd451be99b4c0ef.png

 

The arriving trains from the right can only use the two lowest platforms, leaving only one for terminating and one for through trains. Meanwhile, the upper platforms are likely to be less used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have improved on the Northern Line based version of the plan, imagining central London to the right and two different branches of the line to the left - see below:

1535515902_Undergroundjunction7B.png.a45d90b6da7c363d1c8d2a1beed187b0.png

 

I have also removed the BR lines and added a siding for terminating trains so that incoming terminating trains arrive at the lower platform, then move to the siding (most of which is off-scene in cyan) before returning to the station at the uppermost of the centre platforms. All four platforms are thus unidirectional. The siding is not in an ideal place, which would be in the centre of a pair of running lines, but there is no space to do this at the same time as having the necessary fiddle yard crossovers.

 

The transition between the scenic area and the off-scene area at the right is somewhat abrupt, in the middle of a junction, which is not ideal, but this can perhaps be concealed by a road bridge or suchlike.

 

This is a sufficiently different concept from the layout that I have so far termed West Acton that it probably deserves a separate name - South Finchley, perhaps.

 

Incidentally, West Acton is a real station on the Central Line, which I had not remembered; since I will not be modelling actual West Acton if I build that layout, I need to find another name for that layout. "Acton Green" is probably as good a name as any for a layout set in that part of the world.

 

Also, simply removing the BR lines from this gives a Rayners Lane equivalent, with Metropolitan and Piccadilly Line trains. A good name for this would be the original name for Rayners Lane, Harrow Garden Village.

 

It may be helpful to have an overview of the latest versions of various different layout concepts at this stage:

 

Old Cross Road

Era: 1870s-1880s

Locale: east London, south of the Thames

Lines: East London, District

Rolling stock: LBSCR A1 (Dapol/Hornby), LBSCR 4 wheel carriages (Roxey kits), MDR A Class (CDC 3d print), MDR 4 wheel carriages (CDC 3d print)

 

1703543845_SuburbanVictorian7.png.7174f833a3ccdd75d44feeb252471a3f.png

 

Pudding Lane I

Era: 1930s

Locale: central London

Lines: Metropolitan (incl. H&C), Inner Circle, GWR through services

Rolling stock: Metropolitan Bo-Bo (Heljan), Dreadnought carriages (Radley Models), GWR Metropolitan and City carriages (bodies available on Shapeways; no chassis available), Q38 stock (Radley Models no longer seem to sell these), Q23 stock (Radley Models), F stock (Radley Models)

 

322885578_Underground2.png.155325d63937475490eb13f73d5e15b0.png

 

Pudding Lane II

Era: 1930s

Locale: central London

Lines: Metropolitan (incl. H&C), Inner Circle, GWR through services, City Widened Lines

Rolling stock: Metropolitan Bo-Bo (Heljan), Dreadnought carriages (Radley Models), GWR Metropolitan and City carriages (bodies available on Shapeways; no chassis available), Q38 stock (Radley Models no longer seem to sell these), Q23 stock (Radley Models), F stock (Radley Models), LNER N2 (Hornby), LNER quad-art carriages (kits available; cannot immediately recall the source), LMS Fowler 3P tank (not available anywhere), LMS suburban carriages (Hornby)

251459275_Undergroundnew1.png.5a47a0b7288f1ea917d65f9cd11c587d.png

 

Harrow Garden Village

Era: Variable - 1950s - 1960s

Locale: north-west London

Lines: Metropolitan, Piccadilly

Rolling stock (1950s): Standard Stock (Radley Models), F stock (Radley Models)

Rolling stock (1960s): 1959 stock (EFE), 1938 stock (EFE), A stock (Radley Models)

 

1400157065_Undergroundjunction4C.png.804b8fe296f200964f82c7ab2f9548e1.png

 

Acton Green

Era: Variable - early 1980s - early 1990s

Locale: west London

Lines: District, Central*, BR (WR)

* Could possibly be re-imagined as Picadilly

Rolling stock (early 1980s): 1962 stock (EFE), R stock (Radely Models, but seems to be discontinued), CO/CP stock (Radley Models, but seems to be discontinued), class 121 (Dapol/Bachmann yet to be released), class 104 (Bachmann)

Rolling stock (mid 1980s): 1962 stock (EFE), D stock (Metro Models), class 121 (Dapol/Bachmann yet to be released), class 104 (Bachamann)

Rolling stock (early 1990s): 1962 stock (EFE), D stock (Metro Models), class 165 (converted from Bachmann 166), class 117 (Bachmann, yet to be released, shortened to two cars)

1966579692_Undergroundjunction5.png.a68a1df35de9a976d0155a1aaa623896.png

 

South Finchley

Era: early 1980s

Locale: north London

Lines: Northern

Rolling stock: 1938 stock (EFE), 1959 stock (EFE), 1972 stock (Radley Models, yet to be released)

309200519_Undergroundjunction7B.png.26b876b37c8494ea932dc5a49979354f.png

Edited by jamespetts
Addition of Harrow Garden Village

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jamespetts said:

Thank you for your thoughts on that - the difficulty with those plans, however, is that I do not have the space available to connect both outside roads and have junctions to the right of the platforms in the diagram.

 

Another possible design is this, based loosely on pre-war Moorgate, which is a combination of the Pudding Lane idea with the West Acton fiddle yard design:

 

775924627_Undergroundnew1.png.9dc809853ae8ff6e715479f76e9ed1aa.png1718285347_Moorgatetracklayout.jpg.fadad4d84c24151cf78ff4182e964fa2.jpg

 

 the Peco long radius points are approximately equivalent to a B8.

 

If you build an HO (16.5mm gauge) B8 with double track centres at 45mm, it is indeed about the same length as a Peco long radius turnout. Not much else about it is remotely similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of that LU rolling stock appears to be kit built. Will that handle the curves that this scheme requires? My understanding is that it's less forgiving than rtr in such matters.

 

If so, is there any way that this could actually be built as a roundy? That might improve the off-scene operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

A lot of that LU rolling stock appears to be kit built. Will that handle the curves that this scheme requires? My understanding is that it's less forgiving than rtr in such matters.

 

If so, is there any way that this could actually be built as a roundy? That might improve the off-scene operations.

 

 

Multiple units tend to be more forgiving of these things than locomotives, but I have e-mailed Radley Models to inquire. The couplings, I imagine, are the critical part.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamespetts said:

 

 

Multiple units tend to be more forgiving of these things than locomotives, but I have e-mailed Radley Models to inquire. The couplings, I imagine, are the critical part.

 

 

Yes, on multiple units it is unlikely to make much difference whether they are rtr or kit built. In addition, LUL stock is easier to get round tight curves as there are no buffers to lock.

Share this post


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.