GW Branch Line (III) - a Portable Layout Puzzle

[Zomboid]

... And if a cassette deck isn't your thing, you could do a traverser or sector plate. That's probably as much space as you're likely to get, though with the bed being where it is, the assembly/ disassembly required probably means a cassette arrangement has a lot to offer.

 

This is may be another place where the hockey stick traverser would offer benefits if you fancy trying that 

 

Sadly I don't see there being room for a return loop 

[Harlequin]

57 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Sadly I don't see there being room for a return loop 

No, but you can turn the cassettes around!

[Nearholmer]

I like the idea of cassettes in this application, and am wondering if there is a bargain to be struck with your daughter that might allow them, with trains in-situ, to remain in the room when she is at home.

 

I’m thinking of a set of shelf-brackets on the wall above the fiddle-table to hold them, plus some way of concealing them and achieving an acceptable look to the room.

 

One possibility that strikes me is to use a wide roller-blind in the manner of a tambour front on a filing cabinet, so that it can be drawn-down to ‘disappear’ the trains. It could either be a neutral colour, close to that of the walls in the room, or a feature in itself, patterned, coloured etc.

 

As an aside, I think roller-blinds are an overlooked tool for hiding things like Deane FYs. If fixed to the ceiling, a blind can be drawn up or down easily, and the lower foot or so could have scenery painted onto it, even a printed vinyl glued to it, if that portion of the blind is never drawn-up far enough to go round the roller. Not something for this scheme, but something that could have application to fixed layouts with FYs that need to be concealed most of the time, but accessible periodically.

 

It would even be possible to ‘loose’ an entire narrow layout using blinds, either rollers or those top-hung ones that run on tracks, which might suit someone who lives in a small flat and has to have their layout in the living room - students or retirees maybe. It would help protect the layout, and make the place respectable for visitors.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Thank you - I'll be busy with other things today, but to acknowledge these quickly:

 

On 26/08/2020 at 08:09, Harlequin said:

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.

 

I like this, thank you.  The layout is a 'guest' in the room, so an arrangement that fits into the space is better than one that looks as if I'm trying to take over the room - I think this outline, with the wide operating space as well, definitely achieves that.  The R2 curve for the far corner is a good idea, with benefits on both sides.

 

It's clear the project will seriously stretch my limited woodworking skills (and budget) - whatever the layout design looks like - but of course, this is part of the puzzle.  So while I'd be more comfortable laying a fan of points for a Fiddle Yard, cassettes look like a good option here, for the reasons Harlequin gives.  @Jack Benson's Universal BLT is a recent example in this Forum of a compact layout where they've been used successfully.

 

I'd want to practice using them, as I don't want to end up spending more time 'driving' the Fiddle Yard when operating, but there can be clear benefits when setting up / setting down a layout.

 

The baseboard sizes look useable - the 1' width my micro-layout uses is narrower than I'd want (but is part of the micro-layout constraint, as well as being the size of spare boards I had).  There are some recent photos of @St Enodoc's layout which show scenic boards 20" wide which I liked, so anything in the range 20" - 24" seems suitable (having a narrower Fiddle Yard board is a good visual trick to make the scenic boards look wider).

 

On 26/08/2020 at 08:17, Zomboid said:

... And if a cassette deck isn't your thing, you could do a traverser or sector plate. That's probably as much space as you're likely to get, though with the bed being where it is, the assembly/ disassembly required probably means a cassette arrangement has a lot to offer.

 

This is may be another place where the hockey stick traverser would offer benefits if you fancy trying that 

 

Another advantage of a cassette deck in this compact space is that the entrance track can come into the Fiddle Yard nearer the back of the board, as there's no requirement for further lateral movement: at 18" it's a comfortable reach - well within arms' length.

 

Depending on how it might be constructed, a disadvantage of a sector plate / traverser can be that it's effectively a double-thickness board (so heavier).  If I were to go down that route I'd want to explore open frame options.

 

On 26/08/2020 at 08:17, Zomboid said:

Sadly I don't see there being room for a return loop 

 

It wasn't deliberate... 

Edited October 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Keith Addenbrooke]

18 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I like the idea of cassettes in this application, and am wondering if there is a bargain to be struck with your daughter that might allow them, with trains in-situ, to remain in the room when she is at home.

 

I’m thinking of a set of shelf-brackets on the wall above the fiddle-table to hold them, plus some way of concealing them and achieving an acceptable look to the room.

 

Thanks - we should assume that everything comes out of the room.  It's the smallest bedroom, so space is tight and the walls are already home to lots of pictures (many of which she's painted herself).  Until it was suggested to me, I'd not even considered asking about putting a layout in the room, such are the constraints, but with other options ruled out, it has become a place of opportunity.

[Zomboid]

32 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I'd want to practice using them, as I don't want to end up spending more time 'driving' the Fiddle Yard when operating, but there can be clear benefits when setting up / setting down a layout

Limiting the amount of rolling stock you use in a running session will probably help. You don't need a huge amount to run a BLT.

[AndyB]

I like this baseboard arrangement Phil, @Harlequin

 

As the layout is going to be in situ for perhaps lengthy periods can I just mention one word on behalf of the household authority?

 

DUSTING.

 

I'd suggest this baseboard arrangement will be more acceptable than one that fills the room. My first layout as a nipper filled a large bedroom and would be "down" until my mother put her foot down and ordered it lifted so she could clean. I ended up with a more acceptable 8'x18" layout as a result!

 

@Keith Addenbrooke the plans book I mentioned yesterday has a number of variants on the U-shaped boards that Phil has proposed. 

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

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:

 

 

 

If you have a level crossing the signal box has to be immediately adjacent to it OR you put the signal box at the centre (roughly) of the main area of pointwork it controls and have a separate Crossing Keeper, with a suitable hut,  to operate the level crossing. (e.g. Lambourn with the distances considerably compressed).  in view of the distances in this plan the signal box should go next to the level crossing.

 

Incidentally I've so far only got this far with the thread but have the following points -

1.  Agree with everyone else re baseboard size and weight; some of my portable layout 'boards; can only be easily manoeuvred by two people.

2. Think very carefully about going for a circular layout or end-to-end, only you can make that choice so perhaps forget the plans for a moment and list the things you want in a model railway (if you haven't already done that.

3. Unless you happen to have very long arms Plan 2 does not work because trains have to reverse in those loop sidings which means transferring engines and freight brakevans from end-t-end of a train and at a reach of two feet.   Just try it and see if you can do it uncoupling, re-railing, and coupling models plus get unavoidable amount of handling they will get.
4.  Think carefully about duckunders and the fact that even if we still think like teenagers we have an irreversible tendency to get older and I can assure you from bitter experience that arthritic knees do not like being knelt on to get under what is laughingly called a duckunder and at usual layout height is actually a crawl under (not that I wish arthritis upon you).

5. Some points in respect of layout/track planning -

a. Yes please get trap points in the correct places but remember doing so shortens, slightly, sidings

b. If space allows think of Tony Wright's rule of thirds.  One easy way to apply this - watered down admittedly - is to try to make your platform lines & platforms sufficiently longer than your normal maximum train length which will make things look more 'open' and not squeezed in.

c.  Always think about curve radius in two ways - firstly if tight it can restrict what you run but far more importantly it will steal space along both axes out of any curve and the space stolen is governed by the radius.  lots of CJF plans look pretty good until you realise just how tight some of the curves are

d. Remarkably all the plans you have posted thus far can be very easily signalled - quite unusual for model railway plans!  which at least proves there is a bit of 'prototypicality' about them.

 

PS. I have now seen your comment about limited woodworking skills (you and me both) so you have two possibilities -

1.  join a club and find a good carpenter there, or

2. Are they any carpenters among your parishioners? 

Edited August 26, 2020 by The Stationmaster

[Flying Pig]

17 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

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:

 

 

 

 

I like this - if you can live with terminus to fiddle yard and small engines, it might well be all you need. You can up the challenge by using some sort of wagon operating system if that's the sort of thing you like.  

 

 A small point, but flip the kickback siding so it can be shunted from the main line and extend it to make a  nice long mileage siding.  Yes it's conventional, but there's a reason for that.

[AndyB]

We often think of BLTs as having the platform at the most distal point from the FY.

 

Would it be interesting to do something a little different? My mind is turning to Fairford on a curved site.

 

Perhaps with a curved platform in the bottom right-hand corner. 

[Zomboid]

Or the other way round, with the run round on the corner and the platform beyond, like at Uxbridge Vine St. Using a cassette FY would also allow a double track approach (again, like Vine St).

 

Though given the curvature, Fairford is probably a better thing to rip off.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Zomboid

[Harlequin]

I'm thinking Hemyock (again) - a bit like the Rockfield design I did recently. (Run round further Up the line than the platform and in the curve.)

 

But I think we're all on the same basic wavelength: Trying to do something a little bit different than the Universal BLT...

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Harlequin

[Flying Pig]

A possible drawback of Fairford is that it puts the platform on a sharp curve.

 

Uxbridge Vine St (signal diagram) is a good basis for a busier sort of layout (it could easily represent a small country town), sacrificing open country for more railway.  A bitsa runround completed in the fiddle yard is a possibility if length is tight if you can't fit in both crossovers (was this how the 0 gauge exhibition layout was set up?).  I would compress by taking the down side sidings off a slip on the inner crossover.

[Flying Pig]

3 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

But I think we're all on the same basic wavelength: Trying to do something a little bit different than the Universal BLT...

 

Nope. I think the universal BLT fits the bill perfectly

 

 

[Kris]

Do you really need a bay or second platform? Many BLTs didn't. Loosing this could give you a little more space. 

[Zomboid]

12 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Nope. I think the universal BLT fits the bill perfectly

 

 

It does, but just going for that doesn't make for a very interesting discussion. Even if the conclusion turns out to be that it is indeed the optimum solution.

[AndyB]

And so far no-one has used the phrase "Curate's egg" on this thread, which I feel is rather remiss of us all. 

 

I think it might be helpful to hear from @Keith Addenbrooke on how he envisages operating the layout. I wonder if Hemyock might be somewhat bucolic, whereas @Zomboid has suggested a busier concept. 

[Nearholmer]

Have a look at Chesham on the Met.. Goods yard beyond the station, amazingly bucolic for a place so close to the centre of London, and a pretty busy service. It wasn't electrified until c1960 IIRC. Very pleasant station even now, with a good few "heritage features" still in-situ and well looked after by TfL.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, AndyB said:

We often think of BLTs as having the platform at the most distal point from the FY.

 

Would it be interesting to do something a little different? My mind is turning to Fairford on a curved site.

 

Perhaps with a curved platform in the bottom right-hand corner. 

Looe is another good one in that respect - with added 'water feature' to front off the layout.  

 

Which gives rise to another idea, and it takes us back to what you think you want out of your layout because it is somewhat radical.  Taking Phil's ('Harlequn) latest 'u' shape baseboard arrangement put the passenger platform on the short visible area of the right hand side - perhaps going into the wider radius curve and put all the busy stuff along the bottom long edge - run-round, engine shed, goods sidings and so on.  No apologies for it being 'inspired by Looe/Fairford' but it could turn into a rather original layout arrangement with some interesting potential and by moving the platform you have a lot more flexibility on what amounts to the main scenicked board.

[Zomboid]

Or take it a step further, and don't include the platform at all. You can still run round passenger trains like at Fairford/ Looe, but without filling space with platform. More space for freight...

 

Of course you've got a part built station building to include so it might not be for you.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Wow!  Thank you all.  It is genuinely quite humbling to check back in after a day elsewhere to see such interest.  I'll try and respond as best I can - there's plenty to think about here already.

 

First up though, under the heading of "You couldn't make it up!" - Storm Francis found a way into our daughter's room through the ceiling last night - directly over part of the proposed layout space, and we all thought the problem with damp was in the cellar!!! 

 

(To be fair to our landlord, roof repairs had been planned in March, but had to be postponed.  They are scheduled).  So, responding to the points raised - all of which are good:

 

11 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Limiting the amount of rolling stock you use in a running session will probably help. You don't need a huge amount to run a BLT.

 

...bit late for that now !  (I've already confessed to owning three Pannier Tanks elsewhere).  Good point though.  When I looked at a Minories Scheme I suggested a six track Fiddle Yard - I'm happy with four for a BLT.

 

10 hours ago, AndyB said:

DUSTING.

 

@Keith Addenbrooke the plans book I mentioned yesterday has a number of variants on the U-shaped boards that Phil has proposed. 

 

Good point about household access. 

 

I've downloaded the e-book this evening, thanks for the suggestion.  Bit frightening that all I have to do to part with money is put a thumbprint on a button, and there it is - even if it is for just a few pounds!

 

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

2. Think very carefully about going for a circular layout or end-to-end, only you can make that choice so perhaps forget the plans for a moment and list the things you want in a model railway (if you haven't already done that.

 

3. Unless you happen to have very long arms Plan 2 does not work because trains have to reverse in those loop sidings which means transferring engines and freight brakevans from end-t-end of a train and at a reach of two feet.   Just try it and see if you can do it uncoupling, re-railing, and coupling models plus get unavoidable amount of handling they will get.

4.  Think carefully about duckunders and the fact that even if we still think like teenagers we have an irreversible tendency to get older and I can assure you from bitter experience that arthritic knees do not like being knelt on to get under what is laughingly called a duckunder and at usual layout height is actually a crawl under (not that I wish arthritis upon you).

 

5. Some points in respect of layout/track planning -

 

b. If space allows think of Tony Wright's rule of thirds.  One easy way to apply this - watered down admittedly - is to try to make your platform lines & platforms sufficiently longer than your normal maximum train length which will make things look more 'open' and not squeezed in.

 

c.  Always think about curve radius in two ways - firstly if tight it can restrict what you run but far more importantly it will steal space along both axes out of any curve and the space stolen is governed by the radius.  lots of CJF plans look pretty good until you realise just how tight some of the curves are

 

d. Remarkably all the plans you have posted thus far can be very easily signalled - quite unusual for model railway plans!  which at least proves there is a bit of 'prototypicality' about them.

 

PS. I have now seen your comment about limited woodworking skills (you and me both) so you have two possibilities -

1.  join a club and find a good carpenter there, or

2. Are they any carpenters among your parishioners? 

 

Mike, thanks for this - excellent advice as always.  I agree with it all - just a few to feed back to the conversation:

 

2.  Yes - that choice (end-to-end or continuous run) is what I'm pondering at the moment.

3.  Agreed - I included Idea 2 (The Deane pattern Branch) to show I'd looked at it - but it's not for me.

4.  Well put, thank you.

5b.  Could I ask what the "rule of thirds" is - sorry, I can't remember (despite being a long-time BRM reader).  I agree with the example suggested re: longer platforms, although space is tight here.  CJF plans don't tend to have extra platform length, but I think they do add something visually.

5c. Also curved platforms can have horrendous overhangs on tight curves - even I notice them.

5d. Credit to CJF for this.

PS: I enjoy woodwork, I'm just not very good at it.  I'll certainly have a go.  There is a good club nearby and I did pay them a Parish visit when I arrived, but they meet on nights I'm busy (I'm busy most nights).  Good idea.

 

8 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

A small point, but flip the kickback siding so it can be shunted from the main line and extend it to make a  nice long mileage siding.  Yes it's conventional, but there's a reason for that.

 

Fair point - I have it as CJF drew it.  Some of CJF's plans deliberately flip the Goods Sidings to keep all shunting in view, but the Bay Siding means that won't apply here anyway.  Nothing would be lost by flipping it on this plan.

 

7 hours ago, AndyB said:

We often think of BLTs as having the platform at the most distal point from the FY.

 

Would it be interesting to do something a little different? My mind is turning to Fairford on a curved site.

 

Perhaps with a curved platform in the bottom right-hand corner. 

 

Fairford is a favourite - do check out the version in @Harlequin's Gallery.  I'd be wary of a platform on a tight curve though (see response to The Stationmaster just above).  I wouldn't want to artificially shorten an already short run, but at Fairford empty passenger trains (presumably) had to proceed on to the run-round loop anyway, and spare coach sets were stabled in the siding at the very end after it was added.

 

7 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Or the other way round, with the run round on the corner and the platform beyond

 

Has the advantage of moving the platform off the curve.

 

7 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I'm thinking Hemyock (again) - a bit like the Rockfield design I did recently. (Run round further Up the line than the platform and in the curve.)

 

But I think we're all on the same basic wavelength: Trying to do something a little bit different than the Universal BLT...

 

 

Certainly demonstrates the creativity.  My only concern about this type of scheme (separating the run-round from the platform) is that it eats into what little "free-run" might be possible between the station and fiddle yard.  Sorry to be boring, but I'm inclined to go for a more compact station and a gap before the Fiddle Yard.

 

7 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Uxbridge Vine St (signal diagram) is a good basis for a busier sort of layout (it could easily represent a small country town), sacrificing open country for more railway.  A bitsa runround completed in the fiddle yard is a possibility if length is tight if you can't fit in both crossovers (was this how the 0 gauge exhibition layout was set up?).  I would compress by taking the down side sidings off a slip on the inner crossover.

 

I've had a look thanks.  Interesting, and would make a great layout but not what I'm after this time (sorry).  I do like more urban settings, but if I was to build one it would be for a US Outline HO Scale Layout instead.

 

7 hours ago, Kris said:

Do you really need a bay or second platform? Many BLTs didn't. Loosing this could give you a little more space. 

 

Agreed - I'm assuming the Bay Sidings in the BLT designs are not used for passenger trains, but are all loading dock sidings.  (Note to self: the sidings need trap points, and the platform probably needs a fence).

 

The one exception is the small bay siding in the continuous run test-track Idea 1, which has to be used for the branch passenger train (assume a 14xx and Autocoach), so the second train (the Goods?) can run round.

 

 

6 hours ago, AndyB said:

I think it might be helpful to hear from @Keith Addenbrooke on how he envisages operating the layout. I wonder if Hemyock might be somewhat bucolic, whereas @Zomboid has suggested a busier concept. 

 

Yes - I need to give that a bit more thought now I'm happy the basic space can accommodate a compact layout.  Given the constraints, I started looking at the basic feasibility first on this occasion to see if anything would fit.

 

5 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Have a look at Chesham on the Met.. Goods yard beyond the station, amazingly bucolic for a place so close to the centre of London, and a pretty busy service. It wasn't electrified until c1960 IIRC. Very pleasant station even now, with a good few "heritage features" still in-situ and well looked after by TfL.

 

Will do - not my part of the world, sorry, so not one I know of.

 

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Looe is another good one in that respect - with added 'water feature' to front off the layout. 

 

Years ago I think RM did the Looe Branch as a Plan of the Month, but this was in the BR Blue era after track layouts were rationalised.  Another one for me to check out.

 

4 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Or take it a step further, and don't include the platform at all. You can still run round passenger trains like at Fairford/ Looe, but without filling space with platform. More space for freight...

 

Of course you've got a part built station building to include so it might not be for you.

 

Correct - I do want to include the platform and station building.  This was tested in the original portable layout discussion when I realised I might not have room for a full width platform and station building - and immediately knew I wanted them!

 

I think that's it.  Plenty for me to think about and a couple of stations I don't know to look at.

 

The big question in my mind today is the "continuous run" v "end-to-end" decision.  All the logic points towards the BLT-FY solution, from the household point of view as well as the layout options.  With the entrance to the room being tight (and at right angles), the contortions that might be involved in a duck-under could be prohibitive...so why am I reluctant to let the idea go?  I'll have a think.  Much appreciated, Keith.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Zomboid]

36 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

...bit late for that now !  (I've already confessed to owning three Pannier Tanks elsewhere).  Good point though.  When I looked at a Minories Scheme I suggested a six track Fiddle Yard - I'm happy with four for a BLT

Hence I said "the amount you use in a running session".

 

If you own 15 panniers, then (in between your trips to the psychiatrist - assuming such an addiction can even be treated), you only need to use a couple of them (at most) each time you operate the layout. Similarly with coaches and wagons. The operating fun is moving trains around on the layout using locomotives, not getting stuff out of boxes and putting it away again.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 25/08/2020 at 17:56, 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?

 

 

Phil, noting the conversation yesterday, particularly the contribution from @The Stationmaster, I’d like to modify my answer on duck-unders (if relevant):

 

A narrow lift-out section by the doorway, if needed, would be OK, and would be not be left in place other than during operating sessions.  
 

A more substantial duck-under (that only came out when the layout is being removed), would be unwise - on the grounds of practicality (the space is very tight for getting down and under and up again), as well as to maintain domestic harmony if anyone else wants to get into the room, and for my own personal ‘future-proofing’ now I’m well into my 50s and counting.

[AndyB]

Rule of thirds is explained here. 

 

A simple interpretation of this rule - and imho - slightly missing the point is that the proposed train (loco and I think you said up to 3 coaches) should occupy roughly 1/3 of the scenic part of the layout. Hence the train appears on scene (first third), moves through the scene (second third), and finally comes to rest at the station (final third). 

 

I guess applied to static scenic elements a classic approach to using this rule is to divide the scene into thirds, and then thirds again....placing scenic elements at the intresections. 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

General Update...

 

I'm going to be busy with other things again today, and it will take me a day or two to synthesise the maelstrom of ideas and thoughts buzzing around in my head at the moment (where there's plenty of spare room ).

 

But some further observations as to my thinking - please forgive my lack of brevity:

 

17 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I'm thinking Hemyock (again) - a bit like the Rockfield design I did recently. (Run round further Up the line than the platform and in the curve.)

 

But I think we're all on the same basic wavelength: Trying to do something a little bit different than the Universal BLT...

 

 

I think Rockfield could be modified to fit the baseboard arrangement suggested very well - maybe shortening the bridge a bit so it is less angled, as a 4/7ths calculation still leaves the long side a bit too long (I think).  The tighter R2 curve would then give access to the Fiddle Yard.  It could be a very nice scheme - and a bit different.

 

On the subject of layouts inspired by Hemyock:

 

16 hours ago, AndyB said:

I wonder if Hemyock might be somewhat bucolic

 

The dairy / milk depot / creamery (all three terms are used in Karau's Branch Line Termini) could be busy.  According to Karau up to 12 milk tankers a day could be despatched, so it wasn't always bucolic I guess.

 

But although a Hemyock variation could be interesting, I'm not sure it's what I'm after (as I hinted last night).

 

17 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Nope. I think the universal BLT fits the bill perfectly

 

17 hours ago, Zomboid said:

It does, but just going for that doesn't make for a very interesting discussion. Even if the conclusion turns out to be that it is indeed the optimum solution.

 

I agree with both points here (I just inserted and deleted drawings of Ashburton and its conversion into a generic BLT: inserted it because it can fit the space, deleted it because it doesn't add to the conversation and I won't be building it).  It comes back to the point @AndyB  makes about me thinking of my operating priorities:

 

there is a wonderful video posted a couple of months ago in the Theory of General Minories thread by @t-b-g which I found captivating, showing a well-thought out sequence of trains and movements using Hornby-Dublo (I think).  It's not what I'm after, but it's a great example of how an oft-used design can still hold the attention.

 

I'd thought through clearly what I was after when I began my planning process in May - and a continuous run was top of my list (by quite a long way, to be honest).  I described some old time operating schemes for them.  

 

The clear issue here is that it may not be feasible to design something that will a) fit, and b) sustain interest.

 

Zomboid's point is a very good one:

 

10 hours ago, Zomboid said:

The operating fun is moving trains around on the layout using locomotives, not getting stuff out of boxes and putting it away again.

 

I think for me, not having had space for a permanent layout, I have still enjoyed those days when I've set out some track to watch trains take it in turns on a simple circuit.  It could be one reason why the last two layouts I started never progressed beyond plain, unballasted track.  (What I did to reduce the time I spent getting stuff out of boxes and putting them back, was that I sold off a good share of what I owned.  Result: fewer boxes).  
 

But I need to ask myself if I want to keep doing it...?

 

There are some great ideas being suggested to make really good use of this kind of compact space for something very attractive, and I'll probably be a right nuisance and head off in a different direction altogether (again).  So, let the conversation flow - I'll synthesise my thinking and clarify my priorities and options.  Keith.

 

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke