Back to the beginning - home based room-layout in 2mm

[Harlequin]

It's great to see the new and improved images. They are wonderful!

 

Did you spot the tricycle? And the full stop on the station name board is interesting - maybe just the word alone didn't look right to the Victorian eye?

 

The design of that station building is incredible. It looks like the space inside might not have been very practical, which is maybe partly why they tore it down but what a shame that was because today we would really value the form and the craftsmanship.

 

But all is not lost because you can recreate it in 2mm!

 

[Lacathedrale]

Yes indeed

 

I've recently read 'The Hawkhurst Branch' by Wild Swan and can highly recommend it - it too is a single line branch worked by literally identical stock to Caterham - 118's, Q- and O- classes supplanted eventually by H and C classes. I whipped up a quick templot plan for the branch terminus, which fits perfectly into a 7' x 18" footprint including the bridge, station approach road and coal dealership.

 

 

Hawkhurst is so similar to Caterham if you squint that it's a little mind boggling - a single line rural branch terminus with an loco shed operated by the SER with a personal connection to me (my family were one-time owners of the Slip Mill that Slip Mill road is named after).

 

Objectively I think it's probably a 'better' plan - it has five goods sidings (and an oil dealer) rather than three, two platforms rather than one. Both plans share an engine shed and a goods shed and 'standard' goods and passenger operations, but Hawkhurst  additionally has excursion and school trains which use the dock and hop picker specials whose carriage stock need to be shunted around into the goods yard to make space for regular services.

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

"Hawkham"?

 

"Caterhurst"?

 

 

[Zomboid]

Did Hawkhurst have a station building as lovely as the pre-1899 Caterham one?

 

If you're fictionalising it then you could mix them of course. If I were into building structures then that Caterham one would be one I'd have to find a home for.

[Lacathedrale]

The station building is the normal SER clapboard affair so no, nothing like as nice as Caterham - but one could easily merge them as @Harlequin has suggested. The footprint is almost identical, and everything makes 'more sense' as in Hawkhurst (no doubt due to being 50 years the junior of Caterham) with the Engine shed off the loop instead of being sandwiched between the platform face and the goods yard, the crane being outside the goods yard rather than abreast the entrance, etc.  Operationally the lack of a goods headshunt (which would require the train to shunt back into staging) is not ideal, but the shuffling of wagons for both facing and trailing sidings is more interesting, especially while sharing the loop with, and avoiding, the passenger services. 

 

Locomotive stock in Hawkhurst would definitely be more interesting in the SE&CR period - the Q and O classes (and their rebuilds) in majority, with the earliy 2-4-0 open cab '118'-class showing up from time to time, as well as de-rated passenger express locos like the B-class 4-4-0 and cascaded tank stock like the H-class and R/R1 ex-LCDR tanks.

 

Thinking out loud, we are at 11 turnouts and 10 square feet of layout.

 

In less space with fewer turnouts, we can also fit in a four-platform Holborn Viaduct:

 

Same stock - the 118's, Q's, O's, H's, C's and B's - and probably not altogether different carriages - but obviously it's a different kettle of fish - Minories on steroids - but I must keep reminding myself to investigate options with an open mind.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Lacathedrale

[Harlequin]

You could happily shunt the yard  up the main line in your U shaped format, of course.

I prefer that basic design because:

• The BLT directly connected to FY is a cliché. (Although obviously your subject would makes this version rather special.)
• 2mm scale ought to give you room to do more than the restrictions suffered by larger scale modellers.
• You would have more scope for non-railway scenery, which would add to the realism.
• Your trains could stretch their legs and get up to speed instead of making short journeys at walking pace.
• There would be the chance to admire the stock clear from the station infrastructure.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Harlequin

[Lacathedrale]

Yes, indeed - one of the major factors for the U plan was that trains would go SOMEWHERE. I wonder if another review of the 'opposing side' plan is worthwhile. In this case I've used the Bromley North sketch, but would work for any of the 7'-ish plans we have discussed:

 

Firstly, a removable traverser (in pink) - this would block the door in a closed position. This allows a short run out of the station - about six hundred scale feet on the approach and four hundred and fifty feet past the outer home. Definitely better than going straight into a FY for length, but I'm not sure how practical a removable traverser would be! See below:

 

Opposing Side Fig 1.

 

The other plan is to  offset the entire 'bridge' of the U by 9" in order that it can fit into the room with the door open.  In this particular case I'm pointedly not letting the FY overlap onto the desk area:

 

Opposing Side Fig 2.1

 

 

It's also feasible to overlap the FY slightly to provide some smoother gradients and a good sized scenic area on the drop out board. Definitely more suited for open country side given the likelihood of damage during frequent handling, and in my mind removes the 'set-track' look of Fig 3.1 below.  The drop-out section still fits handily underneath boards 2 and 3, and  it is required to exist 'in full' to work.

 

Opposing Side Fig 2.2

 

By amending the curves, a more standard orthogonal drop out section is possilble. This is similar to 2.2 but would allow the FY to bolt directly onto board 3.

 

Opposing Side Fig 3.1

 

 

Certainly, blocking the door 'open' rather than 'closed' is preferable. I'm not sure what other conclusions I can draw at this point - the ideas are a little too fresh - except that a third of a mile  / ten feet of clear running is definitely something I think I'd like!

 

The only other wildcard I can think of, is that I'm thining of moving in the next 2-3 years assuming there's not another ginormous financial collapse.
 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Lacathedrale

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Some fascinating research and insights into a part of the world which obviously has personal connections for you - and with a choice of prototypes to pick from (or blend) too.  Really interesting.

 

In terms of the layout suggestions, I liked the U-shape when I first saw it suggested - for the reasons @Harlequin has listed above: it's certainly something I'd want to incorporate into a "BLT-U-FY" design if possible.

 

My enthusiasm for your alternative, simpler "BLT - FY" idea rather depends on the phrase I finished that sentence with: "if possible."  I'd suggest the straight shelf design is one you could start straight away.

 

Noting you might also move house, I therefore wonder if settling on a "first stage" straight shelf layout design might be the way to go, but make sure that there's expansion room (and 'planning permission') for the full U later - in this room or at a future address?  I don't know how much time you have, but my guess is 2mm FS means everything needs care and attention, so might building in stages make sense from that perspective?

 

Of course, that doesn't help decide if you want to block the door or the window - which is still an important decision to make by the look of it: have you got some cardboard (or something) lying around you can use to mock up a full-size lift out section and try it at both ends of the room to see what is easier?

 

Just some thoughts.  I hope that's OK, Keith.

[Lacathedrale]

Hi Keith,

 

Thank you for the kind words, I only hope this kind of discussion isn't too tiresome for the kind folk who comment. Certainly I feel myself circling ever closer to what I want, but I am quite aware that after 2+ years posting plans on this forum I've had one aborted OO layout and a 3' micro to show for myself!

 

I think the most sensible choice is as you have suggested, to make a layout that is essentially terminus-to-FY with the assumption or understanding this will be extended to an L or a U at some point. With that in mind, here is a broad comparison of all the plans under consideration at this stage. Broadly they are 7'-8' in length and 16-24" in width:

 

 

Each one has its own appeal.

 

Harestone - is an ultra-compressed Caterham by Iain Rice, essentially a 'country' version of Halfburn Viaduct. I feel this layout somewhat left in the lurch, being the least operationally interesting and with least fidelity to any real life plan. Included here primarily for completeness.

 

Though the idea still intrigues me, I feel that Halfburn Viaduct - is at right angles to the current thrust of interest for me. Supporting mainline trains, NPCS, 'Minories' style operation in an urban setting is one of my big 'wants' for A future layout, but not clear if it's THIS future layout. Despite its scope, it's one of the smallest and least complex layouts in the list with only six turnouts and twenty feet of track.

 

Caterham 1900 is much more a 'large secondary terminus' than a 'branch terminus'-type layout which is fairly unusual, with extensive passenger and goods faciltiies. It's an outlier in XtrkCAD due to the lack of curved turnouts -but I would imagine it would fit within the notional 8' max width of scenic boards but be constructed of curved baseboards rather than orthogonal ones. -  Really though, it seems like it would be the 'best' plan in another time and another world - on the model the extensive track plan was never fully utilised, and in real life as a sole modeller I think it would be a big ask to complete over twenty turnouts and forty feet of track on the scenic section alone.

 

The remaining three layouts of Caterham 1896,  Bromley North and Hawkhurst are on a continuum from smallest to largest.  Of the three, Caterham 1896 is the most visually attractive, but with the least operational interest - but we have talked about that to death and I feel like I have a bit more to say about Bromley North as it's one plan I've not really pushed investigation of until now. -

 

Please note, the Bromley North plan in the above comparison is mirrored to fit in the same orientation - so if routing with regard to the main line doesn't make sense, that's why! Here's a small picture showing the 'real' arrangement:

 

Bromley North 1899-1921

 

Both Bromley and Hawkhurst share a bay platform, goods shed (missing on both XtrkCAD diagrams), an oil depot and a coal dealership. In the XtrkCAD plan  I had intentionally cropped the outermost siding from the Bromley  goods yard, and it's attendant headshunt into the private siding on the stone company is not shown in the SER map above as it's 'private'. If that is factored in, both plans have essentially identical freight operations.

 

Passenger-wise, the two faces and a bay platform for Bromley might indicate a busy station - but in reality the platforms were dedicated for arrival and departure. Trains would arrive on the down platform, be run around via the turntable and shunted on the up main back into the up platform. That same runaround loop was required when shunting the goods yard, sorting NPCS into the bay/dock or readying outbound goods for departure on the 'cart road' siding.

 

On my XtrkCAD plan I've noted a potential facing siding on the goods yard throat. If the layout is operated by a single person, occupying both the platform road, the runaround and shunting on the up main is no major issue - but with more than one person operating the layout, it would essentially block any other movements. Making this facing siding a goods lead would alleviate this issue. Alternatively, to forestall the wide wedge shape of the layout plan, the corporation stone yard headshunt could be situated there instead.  At Hayes (only a few miles away), the two middle roads of the goods yard were joined by a runaround, which is another option to consider.

 

So, my current though is to mull over relaxing the stranglehold of prototypical modelling I've found myself in, and see what a Vulcan mind-meld of Caterham's buildings, Hawkhurst's stock and Bromley North's track plan might look like.

 

 

 

[Ian Morgan]

When I started building Freshwater, I intended it to be a 'based on' model, and considered some changes in the history like the building of the proposed tunnel from Lymington, 3rd rail electrification, etc.

 

As the years have passed by, my intentions have  changed to producing a more accurate portrayal of how it actually was. However, I have ended up with some anomalies from the early parts of the build, like concrete sleepers in the platform road, retention of a siding to an end loading bay that was actually lifted in the 1920's, a full-blown bridge over the River Yar which was actually just a small culvert, and a standard SR concrete PW Hut.

 

So, be warned, if you go for a mash-up of different locations, you might live to regret that decision.

 

[Lacathedrale]

@Ian Morgan it's definitely someting playing on my mind - my natural proclivity is towards modelling a prototype.

 

With that in mind, a verbatim plan of Bromley North - in 18" x 7'. If you can believe it (I bet you can't), I have another connection to Bromley North - I used to go past it every week on the bus, and my mum lives just around the corner! I must admit though, it didn't look much like this:

 

Bromley North 1878 to 1925

 

One thing that makes me a little uneasy about this plan is the very tight radii in the goods yard as written - the shorter middle track has a 13" radius curve and the rest of the ladder uses A5's and an 18" radius. This seems far, far too tight for the prototype let alone a model, but I can't find any way to ease it.

 

Bromley North 1929

 

This shot is four years after the station was fully rebuilt, but there are again alot of things to draw the eye to the original layoutsuch as the line of the approach road and the warehouse buildings/hoardings, the line of the old public footpath ( towards the very top of the plan, not the one across the tracks) and the the yard crane. I think the Goods Shed is standing roughly at the location of the Mason's Yard dock, but the oil depot and corporation stone yard have been obliterated in the rebuild.

 

I wonder if with two operators (and thus the reason to think about diverting from the prototype), it might be just as pleasing to figure out how to operate Bromley in such a way to not block each other - run the required trains and let that make things more complicated as it needs to be.

 

Addendum: from the SE&CR society I recieved this period anecdote: "The old Bromley North terminus (Bromley until 1899), made of wood, was freely regarded at one time as the most disgraceful edifice on the S E & C; but only by people who had never visited Dungeness."

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by Lacathedrale

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 06/08/2020 at 14:28, Lacathedrale said:

@Ian Morgan it's definitely someting playing on my mind - my natural proclivity is towards modelling a prototype.

 

I’m very much at the paddling pool end of the modelling scale, but one idea I’m thinking about for a future ‘grand project’ is to pick a prototype that I can work towards - in other words, it won’t matter if the buildings / rolling stock aren’t very accurate to begin with: as long as the basic scheme gives me the foundation I can get started, then have fun upgrading things as I’m able to.

 

I’m thinking that might give me longer term satisfaction / sustained interest than a compromise project where I’m stuck with things I’d like to change (unless I engage in a major rebuild).  I can’t really call it prototype modelling, but it has that direction of travel.

 

In this case, it leads me to suggest a good idea might perhaps be to pick one of the schemes (all look good), rather than meld them.  It’s a variation on @Ian Morgan’s observation - but with the same conclusion.  Just a thought, Keith.

[Lacathedrale]

I think that might be a sensible choice, Keith - and the more I research, the more I'm fascinated with Bromley North's original station. It seems large, but not large enough to be painful in gestation (like Caterham 1900) nor the extremely quaint idyll of Hawkhurst.

 

I've put some more time into researching and come across some lovely photos with the help of the SECR society (they have asked me not to reproduce publically so you'll just have to take my word for it!)

 

The fifteen years from the close of the 19th century to the start of the first world war shows very little change at Bromley North, other than the provision of a footbridge and the beginning of suburbanisation towards the north, oblitering the forest and cricket ground for rows of terraced houses: Presumably the Timber Yard moved to the east (top) side of the station at this time too, and was renamed 'Saw Mill'.  The houses  angled at 45 degrees in the stone yard in middle-bottom of the 1912 picture are also visible at the bottom of the aerial photo above.

 

Bromley North 1897

 

Bromley North, 1912

 

An explanation for the comment of 'the most disgraceful building on the SE&CR' might easily be explained by a period photo of the up station building, looking towards the yard in 1924 just before demolition. That carriage behind the motor car isn't on the bay siding, it's a permanent fixture - there was another one on the other side of the station building too!

Bromley North Approach Road 1924 (Posted with permission of South Eastern & Chatham Railway Soc. and intentionally scaled down)

 

 

Lastly, a picture of the turntable with the hoardings from the 1928 aerial shot clearly visible behind.

Bromley North Turntable looking north-east towards down platform, 1921 (Posted with permission of South Eastern & Chatham Railway Soc. and intentionally scaled down)

 

Some other pictures give lots of context:

• Locos pictured at the station were Q-class Nos. 399 and 299, and F-class No. 240 and No 215 - the latter pictured with what I assume is a 'typical' train of a passenger break van, six 6-wheelers and another break van.
• Another picture shows the 'tail end' of a similar train with oil lamps shunted into the carriage siding at the top of the plan.
• Another picture shows a mixed bunch of very early  and contemporary wagons and vans with a couple of four(?) wheeled carriages in the bay siding.
• The coal merchant was Rickett & Smith, with adverts for Cooperative Coal along the fence around the turntable

 

EDIT: the building in the left foreground of the last photo is marked 'Lobbies' in the SER plan above - no clue what that is!

Edited August 7, 2020 by Lacathedrale

[Lacathedrale]

I bit of fettling on the plan has increased the minimum radius -

 

 

This removes the A5 and A5.5 turnouts in the yard and increases the minimum radius significantly - from 10" to 22"! It feels pretty alien that the prototype had more severe curves than our models will support, I must be doing something wrong. As it stands, I think it would be incredibly difficult to ascertain this skewing of geometry in person!

 

Edited August 8, 2020 by Lacathedrale

[mdvle]

14 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

This removes the A5 and A5.5 turnouts in the yard and increases the minimum radius significantly - from 10" to 22"! It feels pretty alien that the prototype had more severe curves than our models will support, I must be doing something wrong.

 

Perhaps it is an example of why the common suggestion in the use of those maps is to not take the location of the track as accurate and more of a close enough representation - that the map makers weren't particularly interested in the tracks but rather the buildings and other features.

[Lacathedrale]

I guess so - but the tiniset stub of track on the opposite side of the turntable from from the down platform  road is represented at the correct angle and length! Oh well, lessons learned.

[mdvle]

6 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

I guess so - but the tiniset stub of track on the opposite side of the turntable from from the down platform  road is represented at the correct angle and length! Oh well, lessons learned.

 

To their credit the people making those maps generally got things quite accurate - the problems are the random things that they don't get quite right, or where they updated the maps to reflect things like new buildings but don't update the tracks, thus leaving some of the trackwork out of date.

 

This means because they tend to be say 90% accurate enough for our hobby purposes it is easy to slip into the assumption they are 100% accurate - but the frequent advice to use photographs where possible to verify is a reminder that they do have discrepancies.