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

[Zomboid]

18 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Iain Rice always says design the layout first then work out the support structure (and swoopy edges) to suit the layout.

If only it were that simple! It's always an iterative process, really. But the principle of prioritising the layout over the baseboard is obviously a sound one.

 

I think the reduced swoopiness of the latest design is better than the previous, though a few other curves wouldn't be a bad thing on the other bits, just not quite so exaggerated. Depends on available carpentry skills as much as anything else.

[Harlequin]

So having just said that the baseboards should fit the layout I'm going to be very contrary and post a drawing of some baseboards! (But as Zomboid says, it's an iterative process.)

 

Just working through some ideas. The neck where the track(s) pass the corner brickwork (chimney?) seems to be a natural place for a scenic break.

Board 6 could be a traverser, perhaps?

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by Harlequin

[Lacathedrale]

That's excellent, Phil - thank you - porting that to xtrkcad (yes, I know it's not '94 but I like playing trains on it before going to templot!) it looks roughly like this:

 

 

B to C is removable as before, but with a coved corner on C it might be feasible to leave it as a permanent fixture and make the join at C2 instead of C1. It has been neccesary to bring the tracks in towards the middle of the room so the traverser at D is usable.  At 4' long it should easily swallow up the longest rake of coaches I can think I can afford/need, six Mk1's plus a Class 40. I've had mixed results with traversers, particularly as integral units to operation - but with such a run between the traverser and the layout I think that'd be less of a problem. Not having to build half a dozen turnouts is just icing on the cake.

 

THe angled joint at B makes me a litlte nervous, but seems like it is the only real way to ensure the window can be left unobstructed while also ensuring a 22" minimum radius is adhered to.

 

As you @Zomboid and @Harlequin have said, really the baseboards should follow the plan - but with the parameters broadly set like so (i.e. the area from top left to 'B')  and B to C2 I'm now equipped to actually plan the layout itself, rather than get to the end of the road and realise it won't fit (see: the original HV end-to-end plan with the traverser that had no chance of fitting!)

 

I might be inclined to shuffle the baseboards so the corner board goes from Q-B instead of A-B a joint at Q means the tracks exit perpendicularly with no complex cutting geometry, and can fit inside my workshop while I'm working on them. Additionally, I can build the layout boards + traverser boards and test them without also building B-C1 and C1 to D. Any 'station' that bleeds around from Q towards C is cropped and the tracks leads straight into the traverser instead should the layout need to be erected in this configuration either in a new home or in 'exhibition mode'.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Looking at @Harlequin’s suggestion, I wonder if boards 1 and 2 could end up designed such that the concave and convex curves mirror each other - one wavy curve across a sheet of wood could then be used to create both boards and with no waste.
 

I guess that can’t be decided until you know how you’d like to arrange the station and where the points will go, but it’s just a thought that might make construction that little bit quicker / easier / cheaper.

 

Certainly looks to me like the land has been surveyed and a possible route determined.

[Harlequin]

The angles in the top right corner are tricky but they could actually be useful. Where boards are trapped on both ends if you make the boards wedge shaped they can be disengaged more easily.

4 would slide easily towards the window (and then down, twist and out).

6 is not trapped on both sides so that will come down with no problem.

If you create a less angled joint between 1 and 2 they will each slide out forwards into the room without the need to dismantle anything else.

The corner boards would still require other boards to be removed before they could be removed.

 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Harlequin

[Sturminster_Newton]

Move the computer desk under the window or behind the door.

 

The window is tiny and building the layout across it, even 5' off the floor, will reduce the natural light into the space and increase the hemmed in feeling of a small room.

 

Putting the desk behind the door which is a pain from the reflection on the screen but puts all the movable obstructions on one wall. Also puts the layout beside not across the desk, so you are less likely to head butt it...until you want a guitar.

 

There is power behind the door, useful for powering the layout etc.

 

I'd strip it all back to an end to end shelf style layout make a virtue out of N-gauge's ability to twist and turn in small spaces and tuck everything into the minimum intrusion of a shelf set at 5' this would of necessity need to be quite narrow 200 - 305mm certainly not more than 400mm wide.

 

It might limit the layout to a section of branchline/light railway but would make more of a virtue of the room's profile and reflect it onto the track design.

 

Otherwise it has the potential to be claustrophobic to live under/with. It will also be arm archingly head bumpingly painful to build with broad sweeps of baseboard to cover at shoulder height which is very tiring action to repeat for hours at a time.

 

As a shelf line it could be sectional, and thus demountable which would ease things down to a more comfortable working height for construction.

 

[Lacathedrale]

You're not wrong, Sturminster.

 

One note is that I'm modelling in 2mmFS, not N gauge - so the minimum radius is more like that for OO/EM at about 22". By taking the suggestion to demote the layout from a mainline to a branch terminus in the vein of Bodmin:

 

 

• Boards 1 and 2 can fit into my workshop during construction with no problems, as can boards 6 and 7 (both are 7'6" long). They can also connect directly to 7 for earlier running and testing.
• Board 4 is the lift-out section  to be stored under Board 1 (or drop down from Board 5)
• Boards 5 and 6 look like they are  wildly inefficient, but a need to bring the running line close to the front by the time it reaches board 7 so the traverser works, somewhat mandates this. Some notional extra storage indicated on board 6.
• Board 7 is a traverser with runaround loop formed with the headshunt on siding 1 and keeping siding 2 empty, the remainder could have headshunts at both ends.

Introducing a traditional FY ladder is certainly possible but doesn't seem to improve anything and adds another five turnouts:

 

 

Potentially a solution if the traverser idea doesn't pan out and better for automation/etc, though.

 

Part of me feels like a single line branch terminus could be more authentically modelled in this space and is more achievably than an urban city sprawl, despite the similar footprints. I also feel like it would give everything a chance to properly breathe - the main station platform can happily accomodate six Mk1's and a tender loco, or eight pre-group 45' bogie coaches and similar. It becomes a 'big branch' rather than a 'compressed mainline' station. I'll have to muse on that!

[Zomboid]

A Bodmin style BLT is a very different proposition from the urban grimness that you had before. Of course the question is what do you want to build a model of? A BLT isn't really going to scratch the same itch as a city terminus...

[Lacathedrale]

Oh for sure - the plan above started as an experiment with smaller curve radii and @Sturminster_Newton's suggestion of a branch - but then I found I could use fairly generous curve radii. The exact same geometry supports a double track mainline for a city terminus also:

 

 

I think it proves more that a 7'6" visible area with a parallel exit off the main boards is the 'best' way to handle the main layout section, and the arrangement of boards 5, 6 and 7 make the most sense.

 

As you have said @Zomboid - what remains is to determine what lives on boards 1 and 2 - which I guess is the next question.

[Zomboid]

Combine some BLT clichés with a two track approach and just build Ilfracombe.

[Harlequin]

Sturminster apparently didn't read much of the thread above, which discussed lighting under the railway, depth of boards and removable sections for ease of work.

 

Don't worry about boards 5 and 6. They'll either stay simple, just doing the important job of getting the track past the corner intrusion or you'll find some natural way to use the space.

 

Another possibility for the FY is cassettes, which seem to be a natural fit for a shelf layout in 2mm scale. The FY shelf could then be thinner (a good thing next to the door and above the desk) and the FY would effectively become vertical, making use of the wall space above and below. Cassettes storing whole trains would be manageable. The downside is more manual fiddling would be required.

 

Where is your heart? Urban or rural? Branchline or commuter line? Pre-grouping, post-grouping? Modern image? Decisions, decisions...

 

[Lacathedrale]

Well, @Harlequin - while RMweb has been down I've been beavering away at some plans I think we both know...

 

Caterham 1899:

XtrkCAD

 

Templot version from some time ago

 

Boards 1 and 2 are an dead scale represntation of the station in 1896, without compression. - the home signal for the station is at the border of boards 2 and 3 and permits an orthogonal exit to a fiddle yard or 90 degree bend. The entire branch was doubled in 1900 so it would make sense that everything is running at capacity. No dedicated shunting neck or goods runaround, and very limited facilties would ensure that any freight workings would have to dart in and out of passenger trains. 

 

SER O-class, a likely freight engine

 

A view from the road showing the station building, goods shed (centre) and crane

 

A simple option for a layout, only four turnouts, a threeway and a double slip - but most devilish for stock: SER black and red locos, dumb buffered wagons, horses and carriages and whatever hand-me-downs the joint  company (SER/LBSCR) left to run on the line line.  That said, It has been adroitly suggested to me that I could model the track plan at this period but continue to wind the clock forward or backward as neccesary, which I think is a great idea until I settle on a period and/or have enough pre 1899 South Eastern stock to 'pin' it properly.

 

Caterham 1900:

 

This is a depiction of the 1912 OS Grid map showing the station at its maximum extent - what a beast! The station area is to dead scale, but the throat on board 2 has been selectively compressed in length (while maintaining all the original routes) to fit, the area occupied by the station's throat is more than double the length of the whole original station site! This is really a secondary terminus to a much greater degree than the previous plan, sacrificing the simplicity and compactness in order to depict a much more extensive plan both in track layout and operation.

 

 

This plan would be suitable for any period in the first half of the 20th century and so a very versatile layout in terms of epoch. Operationally there's alot more going on with both up and down passenger trains, loco servicing and goods yard operations all happening (in theory) simultaneously. The scope of trackwork has increased to 19 turnouts (four of which in a double scissors) and two double slips and the stock required skyrockets.

 

On the face of it, I think that both plans have alot to offer - It seems to me like C1900 would be a 'decade' project, and C1899 would be more of a 'biennial' project. Frankly speaking I don't know if I have the dedication to stick to a single layout until ~2030 based on my track record!  My gut feeling is that C1899 fits my space more easily, meets more of my original design criteria and is generally a more 'manageable' project. I feel like with C1900 I would be stuck in the weeds for so long for every single aspect, I'd lose interest.

 

Any thoughts or opinions gladly taken.

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by Lacathedrale

[Harlequin]

Have you got enough capacity to perform lots of simultaneous (theoretically) operations? Maybe it's just too much for one person to control???

 

Have you thought about a fictionalised version of Caterham that brings together all the elements you want from the different eras under a convincing back-story? For instance, simplifying the fictional ownership so that stock is more straightforward to obtain/create. And/or maybe revising the track plan without doing away with the original station building? That would also allow you to adjust the composition of the scenery.

 

[Lacathedrale]

I had considered (again with prompting) to amend the 1899 plan for two platform faces, like so:

 

C1899 with engine shed replaced with additional platform face

 

However, for this additional platform road to make any sense (particularly given the omission of the loco shed) it really does need a runaround and it all starts to get rather messy:

C1899 with engine shed replaced with additional platform face with runaround

 

At this stage, I've got neither the victorian simplicity of the original terminus, or the edwardian splendour of the latter - to me it looks 'off'. Making the above plan trouble track ends up with something which is probably the least offensive of these hybrids:

 

Hybrid plan

 

This plan provides for similtaneous arrivals and departures and goods workings, without the extensive throat of the C1900 plan. It retains the original station access road and building,  moving the goods shed into the yard instead of adjacent the main building.  Ten turnouts and two double slips make it twice as complicated to build as the standard C1899 design but not magnitudes higher.

 

I think the point you make however @Harlequin may be very astute - building a layout to support complex operations is all well and good, on the assumption that you can actually run those operations. Otherwise it's just window dressing while you run a branch shuttle with your one pair of hands and eyes.

 

I wonder if the C1899 plan with a flexible time period is the best of both worlds - it's got a high level of prototypical fidelity and is aspirational but achievable. Particularly with a flexible time period in the same way that Copenhagen Fields runs both garter blue LNER A4's along with fully lined outside framed MR 0-6-0s, I find it hard to believe many would raise umbrage with me running SE&CR trains six years too early on a plan over a hundred years old!   

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

Another SER terminus not very far away was Bromley North - another station that can be modelled in dead scalein

 

SER map of Bromley North

 

XtrkCAD of Bromley North

 

I have chosen in this example to flip the plan rather than rotate it, to keep the goods areas at the front of the layout. I have also omitted the council-owned siding (being shunted by horse with a very short headshunt) and the spur on the 'carriage dock'. That said, it does fit nicely and illustrates that the space required does not preclude a double track branch. Note absolutely no way for a train to arrive into the 'up' platform, every train would need to be shunted onto the up main and back into the platform, even after the loco has been turned. Strange stuff.

 

Back to Caterham

I did some research on a 1903 WTT to get an idea of what Caterham around the turn of the century would look like operationally, and certainly it's a beast. After the rebuild, an intensive service was instituted with 50-something movements a day with empty carriage stock and light engine movements all over the place, shunting the gasworks siding at Whyteleafe (remembering the only yard or runaround during the single track period is at Caterham), as well as top-and-tailed troop trains that are being banked up tto the terminus. It seems there was always a float of at least one full fixed rake of coaches and two engines after doubling.

 

Some research for stock in the early period suggests that O-class freight locomotives, R-class shunters, Q-class passenger tanks would be very appropriate for the SER setting. Q-class  235 was allocated to the branch from 1887 onward, joined by sister 367 in 1891. It would make sense that passenger branch traffic was handled by these.  I have no access to an SER timetable,  but my conjecture is that there were four or five through trains per day, the rest being shuttle services. There were definitely two inbound and one outbound goods train per day - and those goods trains would be of wildly different lengths (any wagons missed off the morning inbound would be attached to the afternoon). Through trains would not have been handled by the top-link SER locomotives, but there is a history of using the Caterham branch as a 'running in' job - the Caterham Railway book shows the picture of a brand new L-class 4-4-0 express on the turntable (just!) in 1914. I have photographs of unindenfitied 'Stirling-cab' locos pulling six wheeled rakes bound for Caterham, so I will hesitate to suggest these could have been an A-class!

[Keith Addenbrooke]

A station with a platform end turntable always has interest and it does look to fit well.

 

Only problem with flipping the Bromley plan is that, instead of there being no way for an arriving train to reach the Up platform, you instead have no way for a departing train to set off from the Down platform, which changes the operation.  The main station building is also now on the arrivals platform, not the departure platform.  
It would change the plan a bit more, but could you rotate just the passenger platforms, and flip the goods yard?

It does start to get a bit messy: shunting goods from the arrivals line etc...
 

But it does seem to fit the space.

 

 

[Harlequin]

Pre-1900 Hawkhurst is very similar to Caterham of the same period but with some differences that might be useful.

 

Remember that, along with all your analysis, your heart has to be in it. No point arriving at an entirely logical design if the era, the stock or the setting don't grab you!

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by Harlequin

[Lacathedrale]

I've just put a bid on the Hawkhurst book - interestingly, that's my  family's home town (Primrose Hill) - but I'd not really thought about modelling it despite being dimly aware it had a branch. I also actually drove right through it about a month ago whilst camping near the K&ESR and Bodiam.

 

I kind of hate myself for even thinking of this option:

 

Doesn't have to fit above/below the desk, doesn't have to span the room, doesn't need drop-out sections. Can be expanded to re-introduce the L or U curve if the layout moves to a larger location. Can be exhibited without modification. Can fit into my workshop for building/repairs.

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

I kind of hate myself for even thinking of this option:

 

Doesn't have to fit above/below the desk, doesn't have to span the room, doesn't need drop-out sections. Can be expanded to re-introduce the L or U curve if the layout moves to a larger location. Can be exhibited without modification. Can fit into my workshop for building/repairs.

 

From time to time I draw up some ‘creative’ layout design ideas for fun, but there’s a reason they never get further than the drawing board - the novelty of the idea just doesn’t last long enough.  But there’s a reason that ‘conventional’ schemes do get built and enjoyed: they’re proven to work.  This looks manageable, and faithful to your prototype.  It can grow later anyway if you want.

While I was really taken with the U-shape - and it could work - if this was the first idea posted (with the ‘pros’ you’ve listed), my guess is few would have suggested taking it across the window on a long lift-out section to a fiddle yard over / behind the desk - chances are we’d never have seen the room plan, let alone photos?  If I’d come up with this, I’d be measuring wood by now.

 

(Is there a link between the guitars and the Electric Light company, or am I just giving away my age?)

Edited July 27, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Lacathedrale]

Sadly not, the building noted here with a pink tick was the Caterham Electric Light & Power Co. - allegedly rail served but I can find no evidence of that despite the large door in the lower left corner of the building.

 

1936

 

The original station track layout can be clearly inferred in the 1936 photo, the first turnout in my layout plan is that to the right of the new platform's starters, and light coloured ballast on the platform runaround is on the site of the original carriage siding. The dormer roof of the masonic hall is just visible to the right of the blue market on the platform. It's been conjectured that the goods shed was the old loco shed - it's definitely in the right spot. Another thing you can see is the goods roads kinking to the right, they cut over the site of the old platform (leaving just a stump as a loading bank), and the crane is in broadly the same position as the 1899-station. The rear of the Valley Hotel is shown, but the old livery stables on the corner have given way to a parade of shops.

 

[Lacathedrale]

Added an annotated photo just for ease of identification:

 

1936 - annotated

 

1952

 

Still no idea how that massive coal staithe was meant to be accessed - there's a tiny area between the goods shed and the nearest goods yard road (where the coal wagons are in the 1952 picture) that could just about be big enough to reverse into and out of, but hardly enough to turn - let alone the extra hundred feet to the coal staithes. Maybe the wagons themselves were used to shuttle coal between the storage bins and the 'commercial' area behind the parade of shops? The ginormous building visible in both adjacent the goods shed is the Capitol cinema, built 1929.

 

In correction to my annotations, it looks like the valley/railway hotel was rebuilt between 1894 and 1936, see here for the original frontage of the Railway Hotel:

 

 

 

I've also found a shot in the other direction a few years later, showing the livery stable still in-situ:

 

Lastly, I managed to find a shot of Station Avenue before the new station was built, a young trainspotter hanging over the fence and the name of the coal merchant:

 

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Lacathedrale

[Lacathedrale]

Of note, I also found the following reference in Bradshaw's 1863 guide:

 

 

There was definitely a view that the branch would bring in significant stone traffic - the Godstone (that 1.5mi distant location) was the site of much quarrying for firestone until around 1900 when better stone from further afield became more economical to source.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

13 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Of note, I also found the following reference in Bradshaw's 1863 guide:

 

 

There was definitely a view that the branch would bring in significant stone traffic - the Godstone (that 1.5mi distant location) was the site of much quarrying for firestone until around 1900 when better stone from further afield became more economical to source.

Not exactly a glowing recommendation - though the prediction of housebuilding to come seems to have been correct.

[Lacathedrale]

Speaking with the East Surrey Museum has turned up some high quality scans of two of the three well known shots of the pre-1899 station:

 

Some very tonally divergent covered wagons, a goods platform and an SER bow-topped open wagon. It is hypothesised that this is the last day of the old station being open - note all the metal signs removed, and the multiple sets of signals in the top-left of the view. IF only we had a few more degrees, we could possible see the new station platforms just adjacent the carriages. AS previously mentioned, the crane stays in roughly the same place and the station building and goods shed is removed, and a new line laid curving an arc starting where the platform canopie is, curving around to the lower right of this view with the lads watching the onloading, leaving a truncated stump of the old platform (where the pile of bags are!) as a loading dock.

 

Clay Cross wagons. Engine shed to the left of the building - the lack of awning and clear view across to roman road show this to be an early shot indeed. Plain arris rails, and a very dainty seat under the windows. Check out the decorative carving on the roof!!

 

And a new one:

 

The building to the right of the top hatted gentleman must be the engine shed. Other bits of note - the lower quadrant signals, the water tower on stilts, and lots of rubbish under the platform edge. The building to the left of the top hatted gent looks to be the stables or workshop that was hard up against the outermost goods road. I believe between the loco and rear of the carriage on the left is the old signal box. Check out the profile of those timbers!!

 

And the old etching showing the railway hotel and station buildings is fairly familiar, but there's also a one facing due north - the station building is centre and railway hotel is on the right. To the left is what I think is the country house of 'Minley', now the site of a fire station:

[Lacathedrale]

I've also just realised the buildings in the etching are visible in the 'early' photo.

 

The building behind and to the left of the Railway Hotel is  middle-right on the early photo. On the hill on the right in the etch include a terrace (shown with three chimneys) is visible just next to the station roof.

 

With the kind help of @Gareth Collier I've come to realise that an SER Q-class and O-class are eminently doable in 2mmFS - the former is available as a 3D print and can fit ajn association M7 chassis underneath (with a scratch-built trailing bogie) and the latter from Worsley Works, powered by a 2mm Association terrier chassis. In fact, my research has shown that every single tender locomotive produced by either the SER, LCDR or SECR has a wheelbase which (within 0.75mm) matches the terrier. Who'd have thought!?