GW Branch Line (III) - a Portable Layout Puzzle

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I’m looking at a compact GW Branch Line in OO Gauge.  The initial proposal was for a portable 8’ x 4’ layout that could be set up in a shared home office, but increased home working has ruled it out.  An idea for a layout in the cellar was quickly deemed non-viable.  However, this prompted some creative thinking and an alternative idea for a lightweight portable layout has been suggested…

 

Layout Criteria

The basic criteria is for a OO-Gauge GW Branch Line (flexible period: 1915-1945) with train length up to 40” (3 coaches plus Loco).  I want a station with a visible full-length platform and Station Building, a couple of Goods Sidings with a Goods Shed and Loading Dock, an Engine Shed for the Branch Loco and a Carriage Siding.

Track is Code 100 and I have some track and Streamline points, and still run a couple of Airfix locos.  I’m happy to incorporate Setrack curves, preferably 20” or 3rd Radius (min. 2nd Radius).  Control is DC.

 

The Portable Layout Puzzle

The puzzle to solve comes in three parts.

 

1.  I have use of a small outbuilding for a workshop.  It isn’t suitable for a layout (it’s small and unheated), but it is somewhere to build and paint baseboards, glue down cork, ballast track and solder.  As noted by @mike morley in the previous thread, it is essential to have somewhere for this work, and combinations of modules up to about 8’ x 2’ at a time can fit.

 

2.  With somewhere to build modules, I can set up a portable layout in a room belonging to one of our grown-up children, who’s just been offered a Training Position and is staying in her student digs away from home (so she’s mainly away, but needs her room for a permanent base).

 

3.  The only condition is that the room is unaffected and the layout can be cleared away when needed, which is fair enough.  It will mean careful baseboard design to create something lightweight and easily movable – almost like building a small exhibition layout?  This is not an area where I have any experience myself, so guidance and advice will be appreciated.

 

I’ve therefore separated the next two posts as follows:

 

First – the possible layout space.  What do I need to think about for a lightweight portable layout?

Second – some ideas I’ve had a quick look at.  There will be others.

 

Keith.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

The possible layout space:

 

The available part of the room gives a nominal max. layout space of 100” x 70”.  This includes end pieces overhanging a desk and part of the bed that I’ve set at 15.5” each (approx. 400mm).  This should keep the diagonal reach into corners and the unsupported overhang manageable:

 

 

There is furniture North and South of the layout space, so no access on either side.  A simple cross-section A - A looks like this:

 

 

With space being tight, it’d be wise to keep baseboard width and module length to a minimum, and the final design will need to incorporate a set up and set down routine for one person (me).  On the other hand, modules won’t have to be a uniform size as I won’t be packing the layout to travel.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Layout Ideas

 

For this compact space I’ve had a look at three ideas from CJ Freezer’s “60 Plans for Small Locations (1989).”  [Note: some major buildings are shown, but I haven’t drawn platforms].

 

1.  The first plan is a simple continuous run, which CJF himself describes as more of a test track (SP18).  I like the simplicity of the idea and the use of large points, which I have, but operation is limited.  I’ve drawn the bay platform as CJF had it – it should come off the loop to remove a facing point from the running line, but I found the same problem fitting it in that I guess he probably did. 

 

 

Construction (and set up) is simpler as this plan doesn’t need to overhang the desk to the right.

 

1a.  I also looked at another plan for this type of concept in a slightly bigger space than I have (SP28).  That gave space for a multi-track traverser and storage sidings, which I have omitted to fit it in.

 

I’ve replaced the turntable with a “St. Ives” type branch engine shed.  Several of CJF’s plans split the Goods Yard facilities on either side of the running line, as here, but the Coal Yard would ideally not be taken directly off the main platform line:

 

 

Although this plan has greater operating potential, I’m not sure I like it more than the simpler one.  

 

2.  The second idea is a for a “Deane pattern” BLT – FY with continuous run (CJF plans SP15 and SP29).  The baseboards along the bottom of this plan are wider, which could be a disadvantage. To get round this, the Fiddle Yard board could be separate from the Station boards and they could all slide together onto a common sub-frame?

 

 

The Fiddle Yard is concealed behind a scenic divide, and it is suggested that the curve behind the station is hidden under a high road.  Past versions of this idea had the continuous run emerge through a Gas Works siding, allowing “loads in / empties out” operation.  The straight junction is more convincing for passenger trains though.  I’ve loosely based this Fiddle Yard on the CJF plan – every version I’ve seen involves quite a bit of Fiddle Yard shunting, which I’m not keen on.  However if it gets any wider the rear tracks would be out of reach.

 

I remain unconvinced this idea is for me.

 

3.  The third idea is for a conventional BLT – U – FY Country Terminus (based on plan SP47).  The continuous run is traded for a walk-in aisle and a 4-track Fiddle Yard with spare loco pocket:

 

 

This “upside down” view can be a bit disorientating, so here is the station as the operator will see it:

 

 

It uses 3 Trap points (I think), but avoids kickback sidings for Goods Shunting.  At Ashburton, a Passenger Train and a Goods Train could “pass” if needed, so two trains could appear together.  Ideally, the Engine Shed might have a small headshunt entrance (eg: St. Ives, as used in Layout Idea 1a).

 

I also quite liked a smaller terminus in another plan (SP25), so may look at that one too. 

___________________________

 

As I’ve basically redrawn established designs, it hasn’t taken long to put together these drawings at all.  I can’t fit in everything I’d like in the space I have, and don’t have the option of a more complex multi-level scheme, but the thing I like most in these drawings is the more spacious feel of designs 1. and 3a.

 

With a bit more space I’d look at combining them somehow, looping round into a small Fiddle Yard perhaps, but that may not be possible.  Or is there something I'm not yet seeing?

 

Keith.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[AndyB]

Hi Keith. 

First of all really pleased that the cellar is no longer going to host your layout. 

Second, congrats on negotiating a better space for the layout. 

 

Slightly off topic - I believe there was a type of layout known as a "vicarage study layout" - the key element being that the central section had a fold-down flap at each end. There's an example if it in the Peco "Track Plans for layouts to suit all locations book" on page 15. Layout #14 is in OO, although originally in N gauge as Ashcombe by John Spence. 

Coincidentally this has (nearly all) the features you ask for, I believe.

[Harlequin]

Hi Keith,

The new arrangement sounds very sensible.

What is your preferred method of getting into the operating well (if there is one)? Would you accept a duck-under if it made the best layout design?

 

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

34 minutes ago, AndyB said:

Hi Keith. 

First of all really pleased that the cellar is no longer going to host your layout. 

Second, congrats on negotiating a better space for the layout. 

 

Slightly off topic - I believe there was a type of layout known as a "vicarage study layout" - the key element being that the central section had a fold-down flap at each end. There's an example if it in the Peco "Track Plans for layouts to suit all locations book" on page 15. Layout #14 is in OO, although originally in N gauge as Ashcombe by John Spence. 

Coincidentally this has (nearly all) the features you ask for, I believe.

Thanks Andy - even better, the space was suggested to me (I didn’t have to ask - really a sign of appreciation for the general advice from RMweb on helping us manage the cellar, thank you all).
 

Thanks also for the link to Ashcombe - nice video and, as you say, the station has the kind of features (and feel) I’d like, though as an N Gauge layout I think that particular one is a table top?
 

I’d not thought of a fold-down (or drop-leaf) type approach - might be worth looking at.  There are two similarly titled Peco plan books however, both available on Pocketmags, could I check which one:

 

There’s the companion volume to CJF’s Small Layout book: “The Railway Modeller book of Track Plans for Various Locations” (also by CJF), and the Steve Flint book: “A Compendium of Track Plans for Layouts to suit all locations.”  Is it the second, newer one?

Thanks, Keith.

 

 

[AndyB]

Hi Keith.

It's the 2nd one by Steve Flint. 

 

The Ashcombe layout in that book is 12'x4'. The hinged flaps are each  2' in length with a scenic area of 8' in length. The FY is at the back and is around 1' (depth) by 8'.

 

For a layout that will need to be portable I'd really think about the size of each baseboard and how you're going to move them without damaging them. How much will it weigh? Will it need legs? How quickly can our put the layout together? Where will you keep the layout when your daughter is in residence?

[Keith Addenbrooke]

35 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Keith,

The new arrangement sounds very sensible.

What is your preferred method of getting into the operating well (if there is one)? Would you accept a duck-under if it made the best layout design?

 

 

Hi Phil, thanks for the response.  It is a small room, but of course that’s the puzzle, and it will stop me overextending myself.
 

Simple answer to a duck-under is “Yes” - either a duck-under or a lift out section (given that the whole layout has to be easily removable anyway).  That corner of the room is a particularly tight fit because of the door and furniture, so a narrow duck-under would be much easier to navigate.

 

There could be a good case for your cassette lift-out sections, but I’m not sure there’ll be enough room for a 40” straight section there?  Or even the swing-bridge, which could double as a sector plate and entrance, but I need to walk before I try and run!
 

My aversion to a duck-under for the previous, cellar proposal was simply because the primary use of the cellar is for storage and the need to access and move 64 ltr RUB crates that would have been under the layout.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Jeff Smith]

I think you should consider very carefully whether a continuous run is what you really want because it will complicate the construction, set up and operation (ie. duck-under or hinged flap).

From personal experience I got pretty bored with a continuous circuit other than just watching the trains go by....  It also forces end curves where you probably want a straight section to the buffers.

[Jeff Smith]

20 minutes ago, AndyB said:

Hi Keith.

It's the 2nd one by Steve Flint. 

 

The Ashcombe layout in that book is 12'x4'. The hinged flaps are each  2' in length with a scenic area of 8' in length. The FY is at the back and is around 1' (depth) by 8'.

 

For a layout that will need to be portable I'd really think about the size of each baseboard and how you're going to move them without damaging them. How much will it weigh? Will it need legs? How quickly can our put the layout together? Where will you keep the layout when your daughter is in residence?

These are excellent points..  My simple GWR BLT is one 3'x18", one 3'x18" tapering to 1', and a 3'x1'.  It is constructed with braced 6" x 1/4" ply and open top except for the 3 'x18" which is solid top.  This is the heaviest board and most awkward to carry through doorways etc. as it also has some 12" trees on it.  It is not self supported and sits on a 2 ' wide solid shelf with the track a few inches below eye level (the best way to view a model in my opinion!).  My work bench is underneath.  Before set up in my current house the boards were stood on end on the top shelf of a cupboard.

 

This is obviously not anything like your requirement but I wanted to indicate to you that baseboards are best of manageable size for carrying, storing and working on as well as keeping the weight down.  And you might even get further ideas about narrow eye-level layouts.  Perhaps building some dual purpose shelving which could be cleared for running sessions.......!

[Nearholmer]

Have you got access to the “Buckingham Branches” books by Rev Denny?
 

The first one is really an extended essay on solving this puzzle, and is both informative and humorous.

 

I love roundy- roundy  layouts, but I have to agree with others that a FY-terminus looks more feasible here, and I think I’d go for a small ‘vicarage study’, using the full length of the room, so a centre board with four legs, from which two other boards cantilever, one over the bed, one over the desk. Each board 1000mm maybe, and folding to form a single crate for portability.

 

In short, I think less might be more here, especially when it comes to packing away to allow conventional use of the room..

Edited August 25, 2020 by Nearholmer

[DLT]

Interesting stuff

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, AndyB said:

Hi Keith.

It's the 2nd one by Steve Flint. 

 

The Ashcombe layout in that book is 12'x4'. The hinged flaps are each  2' in length with a scenic area of 8' in length. The FY is at the back and is around 1' (depth) by 8'.

 

For a layout that will need to be portable I'd really think about the size of each baseboard and how you're going to move them without damaging them. How much will it weigh? Will it need legs? How quickly can our put the layout together? Where will you keep the layout when your daughter is in residence?

Thanks Andy. As @Jeff Smith notes, this is the checklist this kind of layout needs, just as much as a track plan.

 

Incidentally, as it happens, my own desk is actually a drop leaf table, complete with castors under the central section, and of course it is in the Vicarage Study, though it’s quite a bit smaller (and never gets folded down).

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Thanks Jeff, I think I’ve seen photos of your BLT elsewhere on RMweb and wondered what the dimensions were.  It’s a very nice layout.

 

54 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

I think you should consider very carefully whether a continuous run is what you really want because it will complicate the construction, set up and operation (ie. duck-under or hinged flap).

From personal experience I got pretty bored with a continuous circuit other than just watching the trains go by....  It also forces end curves where you probably want a straight section to the buffers.

 

Good point - I’ve always insisted on a continuous run for anything bigger than a micro-layout before, and have yet to get bored of watching trains run, but that’s partly I think because I’ve never had a permanent layout, so have only run trains occasionally.  This is something I’m looking to change of course.  As I’ve had a bit of practice with kit-building, I’m also more interested in spending time building and detailing a nice layout, which is another reason for thinking through a layout design I won’t lose interest in.

 

The point about end curves is a very good one in this kind of space - with a 20” min. Rad. a basic end curve needs double the space of a 10” loco release - I had more trouble with the continuous run concept sketches above than I did with either the BLT or the Deane branch station.

 

22 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

These are excellent points..  My simple GWR BLT is one 3'x18", one 3'x18" tapering to 1', and a 3'x1'.  It is constructed with braced 6" x 1/4" ply and open top except for the 3 'x18" which is solid top.  This is the heaviest board and most awkward to carry through doorways etc. as it also has some 12" trees on it.  It is not self supported and sits on a 2 ' wide solid shelf with the track a few inches below eye level (the best way to view a model in my opinion!).  My work bench is underneath.  Before set up in my current house the boards were stood on end on the top shelf of a cupboard.

 

This is obviously not anything like your requirement but I wanted to indicate to you that baseboards are best of manageable size for carrying, storing and working on as well as keeping the weight down.  And you might even get further ideas about narrow eye-level layouts.  Perhaps building some dual purpose shelving which could be cleared for running sessions.......!

Interesting to note your module length is 3’, which is what CJF also recommended.  At this stage I’ve not had to start thinking about baseboard arrangements, which is one of the benefits of a clean sheet, but the 3’ module length “rule” is a good one.

 

Previously I relied on traditional 2” x 1” softwood framing under 4’ x 2’ sheets 12mm ply, which proved very durable, to be fair, and survived several house moves.  It would have been OK for my original portable layout idea for the home office / study, being a bigger room with smaller furniture,  but this layout needs something lighter for manoeuvrability.
 

Afraid the furniture in the room precludes shelving on this occasion, but it would be a good idea under other circumstances: Iain Rice’s Kalmbach book of Shelf Layout designs is in my collection of plan books.

 

 

 Thanks, Keith.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

40 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Have you got access to the “Buckingham Branches” books by Rev Denny?
 

The first one is really an extended essay on solving this puzzle, and is both informative and humorous.

 

I love roundy- roundy  layouts, but I have to agree with others that a FY-terminus looks more feasible here, and I think I’d go for a small ‘vicarage study’, using the full length of the room, so a centre board with four legs, from which two other boards cantilever, one over the bed, one over the desk. Each board 1000mm maybe, and folding to form a single crate for portability.

 

In short, I think less might be more here, especially when it comes to packing away to allow conventional use of the room..

I’m afraid I don’t have the Buckingham books, although I think I do remember photos / plans of an earlier version (MkII ?) appearing in some of CJF’s writings way back.
 

I would prefer a layout which is more than a straight BLT-FY.  A BLT-U-FY (as in my idea 3) is of interest, though I wasn’t taken with the hybrid Deane-pattern branch (idea 2) when I drew it out, even though it did include a continuous run.

 

One thing I should perhaps mention is that these layout modules will need to be carried up and down dog leg staircases, as well as outside steps from the outhouse / workshop into the house proper, so size and weight are critical success factors.

[Harlequin]

Approximate 3ft2in by 2ft modules seem to divide the plan space up very neatly. (No need to make them all the same, as you say, but it's more systematic if you do and they are quicker to build.)

 

They could be constructed from 6mm ply as cross-braced open-frames, which would be both lightweight and very strong and rigid.

 

But the baseboards must serve the layout design and that's the most intriguing part of the puzzle...

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I mentioned in my initial survey of concept sketches that a second CJF plan for a BLT I quite liked is plan SP25.  This is a quick sketch of how it might look - the original used Y points for the Bay siding and Goods Shed, as well as at the entrance to the Station.  I've replaced these.  Trap points would be needed for the Bay, which would be a loading dock not a platform, and at the entrance to the loop.  I've put the Signal Box at the Level Crossing, which is something I've added.  CJF had a road overbridge hiding the Fiddle Yard exit, with the Signal Box at the Station throat.  I don't know if my position is correct - if it was nearer the Station there'd be a separate crossing cottage I guess?  I'd expect this to be a "one engine in steam" terminus.  It just caught my eye as I read the book:

 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[AndyB]

Phil, can you show how you'd divide up the baseboards?

 

Keith, how are you with the idea of a multi-level plan? 

 

I'm wondering about a terminus at the north side (70" edge) that is at a higher level than a continuous run that goes partly underneath it? 

 

This would make that baseboard a heavier and more bulky. So the question is, perhaps - when (and how often) you lug it up and down the stairs, would you get any help?

[Nearholmer]

54 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

One thing I should perhaps mention is that these layout modules will need to be carried up and down dog leg staircases, as well as outside steps from the outhouse / workshop into the house proper, so size and weight are critical success factors.

 

I guess a lot depends upon how frequently the whole thing has to be put away, and/or whether it might be useful to have it compact enough to be popped-up for a few hours in another room if your daughter is in residence for a lengthy period.

 

My thinking was around something that folds-up to roughly suitcase size,  as a single package, and probably weighs no more than 10kg "all up". It would be restrictive, no "run" between T and FY, but by golly would it be user-friendly in the roundest sense.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I also drew a variation on Idea 3 without the Loco pocket in the Fiddle Yard (Loco lifts are easier and it lengthens Track 4). 

I also added another Goods Siding at the station, which seems to fit quite nicely, although I need to relocate the Goods Shed - it isn't workable where I've got it, as the non-rail side is now facing the platform (in the original plan it was shown in low relief over the tracks - the placement is my error).

 

 

 

The idea of a 4-track Fiddle Yard is one I got from @Danemouth - it seems to give the right balance: sufficient variety of trains can be stored for interesting operation while still retaining the branch line feel.

 

I think I've more or less ruled out the Deane-pattern Branch already, at least in the form I had it, but I'm in two minds about whether to go down the Continuous run route or the BLT-U-FY route and could easily be convinced either way.  On the plus side, it certainly looks like there are options worth exploring.

 

Keith.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[Keith Addenbrooke]

11 minutes ago, AndyB said:

Phil, can you show how you'd divide up the baseboards?

 

Keith, how are you with the idea of a multi-level plan? 

 

I'm wondering about a terminus at the north side (70" edge) that is at a higher level than a continuous run that goes partly underneath it? 

 

This would make that baseboard a heavier and more bulky. So the question is, perhaps - when (and how often) you lug it up and down the stairs, would you get any help?

 

Hi Andy, I think I'd find a multi-level scheme quickly became too cumbersome (and the 3-D jigsaw too complicated), especially as the doorway is quite tight. 

 

A more permanent layout in this space could certainly use this kind of idea, but as I expect there'd need to be a gradient crossing several baseboard joints between the levels it might be too ambitious for me.

 

I think I have to assume a fair bit of exercise will be involved, certainly during construction, as the messy / heavy-duty work has to be done in the outhouse, and it will be my job to carry it up and down the stairs for that.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

27 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

I guess a lot depends upon how frequently the whole thing has to be put away, and/or whether it might be useful to have it compact enough to be popped-up for a few hours in another room if your daughter is in residence for a lengthy period.

 

My thinking was around something that folds-up to roughly suitcase size,  as a single package, and probably weighs no more than 10kg "all up". It would be restrictive, no "run" between T and FY, but by golly would it be user-friendly in the roundest sense.

 

Good points.  I am also slowly building a Micro-Layout which is a simple BLT/FY with no "run" - so I already have a layout like that to finish.  As it uses Setrack and can only just take a two-coach train, I'm after something different for this bigger project - so it's OK to have something that is heavier and a bit more work on this layout.

 

The Micro-Layout was designed as a Test piece so I can practice techniques (especially scenery).  As you say, such layouts are user friendly and fun to work on and operate for a while.  It's reached the ballasted track stage and trains have been run, though widening sleepers on old Setrack proved far more arduous than I'd anticipated!  For this project I'm after sustained interest for a number of years.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[sigtech]

Hello Keith,

I've been following this discussion since it started, as I'm a great fan of Harlequin (Phil's) drawings,  and also own a small (6'7'' x 5'2") BLT.

My layout 'Sproston', is on here under the blog of 'Sigtech',   a contraction of my previous job title  under Network Rail, Amec and previously British Rail.

The layout is in the loft, oo gauge, and uses two interior flush doors - fixed together in a wooden frame as its baseboard. The trackplan is very similar to the terminal station - u- 4 track fiddle yard, you are discussing. This is the plan drawn in 'Anyrail'.

 

Regards,

SIGTECH

Steve.

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

9 minutes ago, sigtech said:

Hello Keith,

I've been following this discussion since it started, as I'm a great fan of Harlequin (Phil's) drawings,  and also own a small (6'7'' x 5'2") BLT.

My layout 'Sproston', is on here under the blog of 'Sigtech',   a contraction of my previous job title  under Network Rail, Amec and previously British Rail.

The layout is in the loft, oo gauge, and uses two interior flush doors - fixed together in a wooden frame as its baseboard. The trackplan is very similar to the terminal station - u- 4 track fiddle yard, you are discussing. This is the plan drawn in 'Anyrail'.

 

Regards,

SIGTECH

Steve.

 

 

Hi Steve, this is really helpful - I'd wondered whether an idea that "draws together" the end of a Fiddle Yard and the far end of a Terminus station would help make best use of the space, and here is an answer that's been built already - I'll check it out. Thanks, Keith.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Harlequin]

Hi Keith,

Here's a rough outline suggestion:

• The two bottom boards are 3ft2in by 2ft, the two side boards are 2ft11in by 2ft and the fiddle yard board is just under 4ft long but only 18in wide. (Sorry @AndyB, my earlier thought didn't quite work out!)
• I'm suggesting a cassette table fiddle yard because:
  • It avoids a turnout fan.
  • Cassettes allow rolling stock to be moved around the house as easily as the layout itself and safely stored.
  • You don't have to re-rail your stock, you just unpack and connect cassettes, so set up time is quicker.
• The thinner cassette table allows the operating well to be wider.
• No visible tight radii.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Harlequin