Jump to content

Return to Hannet Purney


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Chimer said:

 

 

 

My wants are pretty close to Phil's, and my most likely available space is 12'3" x 8'.  I know it's a lot more than many people have available, but it's ever so difficult to squeeze in even most of what I would like to achieve, without significant compromise.

A main line run and a station are entirely doable in 12x8, but at the cost of off scene storage. But then the layout you drew up for @halsey doesn't have much storage but has lots of operation. Or @Aire Head's design in about 8x8.

 

it's not a huge space in OO or HO, but you can have a lot of fun in the space.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

A main line run and a station are entirely doable in 12x8

I can agree with that. The attic bedroom I use for my layout has a main area of 10.5 x 8.5 feet, although it's an "L" which makes the 8.5 stretch to 11.5 feet in one corner and lets me fit in a branch terminus as well as a main line junction station. It limits the amount of space for scenery, but I am much more interested in running trains so that does not bother me overmuch.

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Phil, I've read your thread over lunch and a few thoughts jump out at me which I hope it's OK to share:

 

1.  I think any idea you keep returning to is one worth pursuing - that fact alone passes the first test ("Am I really interested in this?).

 

2.  At the same time I think there is a tension in the concept to resolve:

 

On 05/02/2021 at 11:29, Harlequin said:

...The fiddle yard is a bit inflexible and the extensive pointwork is troubling.

 

On 06/02/2021 at 09:06, Harlequin said:

A simple goods yard suits me very well. Keeps the station simple, focussing more on through services with the occasional stopper and some light shunting every now and then resulting in a few vans and wagons scattered artfully around the yard. :smile_mini:

 

If I'm understanding it correctly, achieving the kind of "front of house" operation you'd like does come with an expectation / assumption of a quite extensive fiddle yard.

 

Further, if you want a train that has passed through in the "Up" direction to next appear heading "Down" (which I think I've read as one of your preferences), the ability to reverse trains is important, and needs more than just staging loops.

 

If this only applies to locomotives, a "loop-to-loop" design might be an option.  If you want coach sets to remain facing the way they were you do need more extensive fiddle yard operations (to replace two terminii).

 

Looking at the original design, the inclusion of cassettes, the absence of a turntable / wye, and the Slip Coach Launcher (nice!) suggest a lot of time will be spent driving the Fiddle Yard - ie: operating from the rear.

 

So my main thought would perhaps be to revisit operating a home layout like this first.

 

3.  In terms of space, the thought was forming in my mind that building over the test track (which is quite low) might be a space saver.  I then got to the photo and had second thoughts: would you be blocking out too much light with a higher layout?  The sunspace is an excellent feature which I suggest may bring light into the rest of the living space, depending on the aspect of the property:

 

On 07/02/2021 at 12:09, Harlequin said:

This is what the sunspace looks like currently...

 

IMG_20210207_114546r.jpg.b0710d3cb5fe81813a76dcfacdef86ab.jpg

 

 

4.  My final thought is about time?  How much time do you have for layout building (I know and have benefitted from the amount of time and attention you invest in helping with layout design)?  It's stating the obvious to say any large layout in this space would have a significant impact - but I'd worry that any large, unfinished or part-build layout in this space could really start to take over everything, for a very long time.

 

Just some thoughts - hope they help, Keith.

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

If the layout is going to dominate such a "nice" space as much as it seems to in your current thoughts I would say it also needs to happily be a very large part of your life to make the intrusion worth it - I would find it too much of a "faff" to be bothered with - better to have something that fits that you can go back to at a moment's notice - IMHO you will use it and enjoy it more.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if it was me I'd look to consolidate down to one layout in the sun room (sorry I don't know the dimensions).

I'd either ditch the minories, or integrate it into an out and back; one of my first layouts was exactly that.

If later I wanted a new challenge I'd get rid of that and start again. 

I fear if your overall living space progressively fills with layouts they may not be the delight that one well executed layout could be. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/02/2021 at 14:05, Keith Addenbrooke said:

  My final thought is about time?  How much time do you have for layout building (I know and have benefitted from the amount of time and attention you invest in helping with layout design)?  It's stating the obvious to say any large layout in this space would have a significant impact - but I'd worry that any large, unfinished or part-build layout in this space could really start to take over everything, for a very long time.

Just some thoughts - hope they help, Keith.

I ran into the same issue on two previous layout iterations both in a bedroom as well as a garage.  In both instances it became a PITA, I had difficulty opening the windows in the bedroom as well as losing space for an office and a guest room.  As we have no through access through the sides of our house the next layout in the garage eliminated one way of bringing in items meant for the garden at the rear.    At the start of building the base for the model railway shed last summer I had to hand carry all the materials through the lounge and dining area.  It wasn't long before the garage layout was dismantled to give me through access. The OP may want to think about a shed as an option to preserve the living space in his home.  With insulation, an armoured cable for electricity supply and an oscillating fan heater it's quite a nice place to have for a hobby!  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Thanks for the wise counsel everyone.

 

I certainly wouldn't intend to keep multiple railways in the one space. Minories, by definition, can be folded up and moved very easily and the test layout would become semi redundant if I had another roundy-roundy available so it would get stored, broken up or re-used.

 

I would never build a fixed layout in my living space. So it would always be possible to remove part or all of it when required, to allow normal life to go ahead or or if it was becoming mentally oppressive. (Chimer makes a good point about where it would go, though.)

 

I have built one shed already and it would be perfect for housing a railway (electricity, insulation, sturdy walls, wired internet). But the conundrum is that it's my workshop and I wouldn't be able to build a railway without it! Catch 22. I could build another shed but that would be a big commitment.

 

The question of why I can't do what I want in a smaller space is interesting. Lots of people achieve great things in small spaces, many of them with similar aims to me on the face of it. On the other hand, there are many people out there who feel the need to make large layouts. It needs a bit more thought but I suspect it boils down to train length. A main line train must look long enough and must not fill the scene that it's in.

 

I thought of a good way to fit a layout into the space with some of the same attributes as HP2:

1542863895_R4Plan3.png.597a8df9a7d3d6844c1b523605c313e1.png

 

Red: layout (approx 3300mm square), Blue: fiddle yard (possibly removable), Yellow: Duck-under or lifting section (all or partial).

 

That could be lived with for long periods. The fiddle yard could be fed from a triangle and can be seen and operated from inside the operating well to some extent.

 

But is it big enough to do what I want to do and does the shape allow it? It's another design challenge.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've followed with interest ut have struggled to find something useful to say, or ask, and have only just realised why: it's because I've not understood what the layout is.

 

What you want from it as a model railway (feel, scenes, operations etc) is as clear and coherent as we've come to expect from a Harlequin Track Plan...What it has to be as a physical entity, not so much.

 

Is it to be an exhibition layout, which could be set up in its entirety at home for pre-show testing or a long weekend of (multi-operator?) train-driving? Is it an American-style room-filler - the main, if not sole, bit of interest/furniture/entertainment in that part of the house? Which takes precedence - the layout or the space it's in? Is there anything down the modular avenue that would be worth exploring?

 

If the former, you're on to a winner really - it does what you want, and it fits in the space. It'll be a pain to deal with, but you're no muppet and can make the call about where you tolerance for layout admin runs out. If a permanent room-filler...well, make that call and fill the room! If the space is more important than the layout which will dominate it (and you're attached to the design as it stands) then maybe a dedicated home in a new shed would be the answer.

 

Work out the realities and your layout design chops will get the pieces of the puzzle to come together beautifully, I have no doubt.

 

Looking forward to it :)

 

Schooner

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the points  @Schooner makes, and for me the suggested revised shape answers some of the questions - but, as you say, also raises new ones.  If someone offered me the shape you’ve now drawn I’d be more than happy, but my objectives aren’t the same, even if the locos share the same livery.

 

Looking at the space as drawn, I wondered how flexible it might be?  A couple of variations (the first is from the @Harlequin playbook): 1.  Gentle curve across the bottom right corner:
 

C7734A97-8D3E-4F6B-9482-627D1C77DF4E.jpeg.dbd3aeb60c8a472888b315c48ad26081.jpeg
 

2.  Fillets to ease the curves in the corners (I’d suggest only reason not to have them would be they do make portability a bit more awkward):

 

D1010147-16E7-4A7A-BF21-6D221AC8B0AF.jpeg.496d2af1786dce77ae841bcf00b1fb72.jpeg


I’ve also stretched the fiddle yard - the picture in my mind is your Minories Fiddle Yard, so the extension is for a locomotive turntable (as opposed to a Denny-style fiddle yard turntable).  I had a thought for a scheme which I’ll sketch out and post.

 

Hope this is helpful, Keith.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Just a thought which occurred to me whilst reading this - how hot does your sunspace get - is it going to present an issue with expansion?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One idea could be to have a double-deck fiddle yard, kind of like this:

 

32D07AB5-9809-4C70-8D91-BB4A01B17A23.jpeg.6d11ab42888d0a27d6b3d6d27d8e79ec.jpeg
 

There would be various clever ways to arrange such a fiddle yard (beyond my level of woodworking, but eminently possible).  An operating session starts with trains ready to depart from both fiddle yards and ends when they’ve all swapped over.

 

The operator then emerges from the central area, refills their coffee and resets the fiddle yards for the next shift.  A disguised branch line offers a continuous loop for testing and tracks on the lift out are kept level.  If the ‘critical curve’ can be broad enough for the incline I think this idea could perhaps work.  Just a thought, Keith.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
On 08/02/2021 at 11:34, Chimer said:

 

 

 

My wants are pretty close to Phil's, and my most likely available space is 12'3" x 8'.  I know it's a lot more than many people have available, but it's ever so difficult to squeeze in even most of what I would like to achieve, without significant compromise.

 

Hmmmm..........?

 

I know someone who is very good at proposing designs and prioritising compromises - just realised - its you!!

 

No complaints about "our" final design still enjoying it 

 

Cheers........

 

Back to the OP - the "Achilles Heel" for me is and probably always will be a "lift out" section - I like running trains whilst modelling and would see this as too much of a compromise not to be able to do this but the last few weeks have reminded me what a barrier a "lift out" section can be as we all get either more infirm or simply older - the good thing with the "Hawkesbury" design is the 2 connected internal areas (goods and docks) do still allow for some limited "operation" but that style of operation still doesn't quite hit the spot for me - compromise :rolleyes:

Edited by halsey
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So as I understand it there's a space around 10' 10" x 10' 10" in old money plus the possibility of a fiddle yard. 

 

I guess my main question is "how many coaches on a mainline train do you envisage?" Or, put another way, how long is your train going to be. Is this going to be so long that it chases it's tail? Or are we talking 4 or 5 carriages?

 

Next. Could we envisage some FY sidings behind a backscene in addition to the FY on a spur. This may help avoid the tail chasing effect.

 

Lastly, Keith is I think, proposing double deck FY on the spur. Could the upper deck be a branch line terminus? Apologies Keith if that was your intent!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

A BLT on the top deck of Keith's suggestion would probably be more operation than one operator could deal with. So the question would then become how many people are going round to Harlequin's house to play trains on a regular basis?

 

I would modify Keith's design slightly, so that the incline is on the straight side. Obviously that puts it over the removable section, but the Minories layout suggests that Harlequin would be up to the woodwork required for that in a way that a pleb like me wouldn't.

Edited by Zomboid
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
33 minutes ago, AndyB said:

"how many coaches on a mainline train do you envisage?" 

 

Five minimum, Six if possible. Each one could be 70ft long (280mm). Plus loco, for example, King, Castle or 47xx.

:smile_mini2:

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, AndyB said:

So as I understand it there's a space around 10' 10" x 10' 10" in old money plus the possibility of a fiddle yard. 

 

I guess my main question is "how many coaches on a mainline train do you envisage?" Or, put another way, how long is your train going to be. Is this going to be so long that it chases it's tail? Or are we talking 4 or 5 carriages?

 

Next. Could we envisage some FY sidings behind a backscene in addition to the FY on a spur. This may help avoid the tail chasing effect.

 

Lastly, Keith is I think, proposing double deck FY on the spur. Could the upper deck be a branch line terminus? Apologies Keith if that was your intent!


Hi Andy, my suggestion was for a “Fiddle Yard - Fiddle Yard” scheme bent round into the available space so that trains can be run through the station scene without reappearing.  The ‘branch’ is simply a disguised continuous run connection mainly included for testing purposes (in case the layout replaces the existing test track).   It is just an idea: I haven’t made any assumptions on curve radii, gradients or train length.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

A BLT on the top deck of Keith's suggestion would probably be more operation than one operator could deal with. So the question would then become how many people are going round to Harlequin's house to play trains on a regular basis?

 

I would modify Keith's design slightly, so that the incline is on the straight side. Obviously that puts it over the removable section, but the Minories layout suggests that Harlequin would be up to the woodwork required for that in a way that a pleb like me wouldn't.


You’ve nailed exactly the reason I drew it as I did - to avoid a gradient on the lift out.  If the lift out is straight, the curve beyond it might also be quite tight a radius (not a good idea at the base of an incline?).
 

A smarter option might be to have the “layout level” somewhere in between the levels of the “lower” and “upper” fiddle yards, with gentler gradients either side of the station.  


The big thing in this space will be how to manage all the curves.  No doubt there are much better ideas than mine: it’s an interesting challenge.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

A BLT on the top deck of Keith's suggestion would probably be more operation than one operator could deal with....

 

Quite possibly true. But turning the opportunity on its head it might be possible to operate a branch terminus as an out and back. So you sort of get 2 layouts for the price of one. By sitting in the well you can play with the mainline. And by sitting next to the BLT you could play with that. 

 

Edited by AndyB
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, AndyB said:

So as I understand it there's a space around 10' 10" x 10' 10" in old money plus the possibility of a fiddle yard. 

 

I guess my main question is "how many coaches on a mainline train do you envisage?" Or, put another way, how long is your train going to be. Is this going to be so long that it chases it's tail? Or are we talking 4 or 5 carriages?

 

Next. Could we envisage some FY sidings behind a backscene in addition to the FY on a spur. This may help avoid the tail chasing effect.

 

Lastly, Keith is I think, proposing double deck FY on the spur. Could the upper deck be a branch line terminus? Apologies Keith if that was your intent!

I have a slightly different way of asking the question - 'will a three coach stopping train look lost against the length of my station platforms?  So start with a 'design criterion' that I am looking for station platforms around 5 feet in length.  Add in that I want a minimum of 2'6" radius curves at each end of a through station layout and I've got to 10+ft without including any pointwork at all.  put in a couple of crossovers and or siding connections with a 'spacious looking radius' and an available length of c.16ft sounds just about doable in 4mm scale.

 

Yet some suprerb layouts can be built n far smaller spaces and Crewlisle is probably one of the best exponents of how to build a really good looking roundy layout in a smaller space.  in the end it comes down to personal choice of what we want to see on our railways (and the space available in which to build them)

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I have a slightly different way of asking the question - 'will a three coach stopping train look lost against the length of my station platforms?  So start with a 'design criterion' that I am looking for station platforms around 5 feet in length.  Add in that I want a minimum of 2'6" radius curves at each end of a through station layout and I've got to 10+ft without including any pointwork at all.  put in a couple of crossovers and or siding connections with a 'spacious looking radius' and an available length of c.16ft sounds just about doable in 4mm scale.

 

Yet some suprerb layouts can be built n far smaller spaces and Crewlisle is probably one of the best exponents of how to build a really good looking roundy layout in a smaller space.  in the end it comes down to personal choice of what we want to see on our railways (and the space available in which to build them)

Agree. The platform must be longer than the average stopping train. You might get away with longer non-stoppers flying through where the lengths might not be immediately comparable and some visual trickery might disguise things. (BTW: Readers, I'm really not a fan of the "Bitsa" station!) The minimum radius I have always had in mind is 610mm for off-scene areas but I've recently discovered that that prevents close-coupling of a Hornby King to it's tender, so I reserve the right to increase the radius!

 

The down platform at Patney & Chirton, the longest, was ~520yds long. A passing Cornish Riviera Express with maybe 12 coaches on(?) would be approximately 280yds long. So, even at a tiny through station in the middle of nowhere where expresses would rarely stop, the platform would dwarf the train.

 

Correction: The down platform at Patney & Chirton, the longest, was ~520 feet long (173 yards) according to the 1924 OS 25inch map. A passing Cornish Riviera Express with maybe 12 coaches on(?) would be approximately 280yds long. So, If the train stopped at this tiny through station in the middle of nowhere, it would in fact would dwarf the platform. This may be a useful precedent for a small layout.

 

I think the best current example of a finescale (OO-SF) main line through station curled into a remarkably small space is Stoke Courtenay. (Note that Stoke Courtenay at 13ft by 12ft is bigger than my sunspace...) And it's a junction too!

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

My very first layout in my "Hawkesbury" thread had an upper level BLT and the gradient was built in to the lift out section - neither of which worked for me - the BLT was hard to access and the lift out was difficult to get to hinge well 

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
8 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

One idea could be to have a double-deck fiddle yard, kind of like this:

 

32D07AB5-9809-4C70-8D91-BB4A01B17A23.jpeg.6d11ab42888d0a27d6b3d6d27d8e79ec.jpeg
 

There would be various clever ways to arrange such a fiddle yard (beyond my level of woodworking, but eminently possible).  An operating session starts with trains ready to depart from both fiddle yards and ends when they’ve all swapped over.

 

The operator then emerges from the central area, refills their coffee and resets the fiddle yards for the next shift.  A disguised branch line offers a continuous loop for testing and tracks on the lift out are kept level.  If the ‘critical curve’ can be broad enough for the incline I think this idea could perhaps work.  Just a thought, Keith.

Thanks Keith! There are some very creative ideas in this design. It’s a great reminder that a triangle does have to be so literal as I have been thinking.

 

Maybe the two fiddle yard levels could be traverser tables on full extension drawer runners. The lower level could be fully accessed that way.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

The down platform at Patney & Chirton, the longest, was ~520 yds long. A passing Cornish Riviera Express with maybe 12 coaches on(?) would be approximately 280yds long. So, even at a tiny through station in the middle of nowhere where expresses would rarely stop, the platform would dwarf the train.

 

 

Surely that's a very special and exceptional case?  Why on earth would anyone (even the GWR!) build a platform that long?  There must have been some very specific reason surely?  I've often been told to move up or down the train because a platform is shorter than the train, but never been advised I needed a bike to get from one end of a platform to the other!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

Surely that's a very special and exceptional case?  Why on earth would anyone (even the GWR!) build a platform that long?  There must have been some very specific reason surely?  I've often been told to move up or down the train because a platform is shorter than the train, but never been advised I needed a bike to get from one end of a platform to the other!

I checked and rechecked my scaling and my maths before I posted that but you’ve got me doubting it now. It doesn’t look like a very long platform... (Source: 1922 25inch OS map on NLS maps site.)


Update: I went to a different source, Vol 1 of “A historical survey of selected great western stations” and scaling from that gives 440 feet, inc. ramps.

 

Further update: Measured the map a different way and got the answer 520 feet, not yards. I have corrected the post above.

 

:unsure:

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.