Peterborough North

[trw1089]

Gosh Gilbert - you could have written that just for me!

 My thoughts exactly.  This is about doing the best with what you have.  

 

I went to visit my dentist the other day who is also into model railways (though some of that funny continental stuff).  While trying to engage me in conversation through my half paralysed face, he asked me how big my layout was.  After I told him (well dribbled him would be a better description), he then went on to say well his new model railway shed was going to be 3 times bigger.  My response was to spit in his face, well actually, it was to ask "and so what do you plan to do with all that?".  He didn't have an answer, because all he wanted was something big.  I think it is always nice to want more (locos anyone??), but I think having a clear plan and working to get that to fruition, is a far more satisfying and fulfilling approach.  Your thread here, and the results of your work surely attest to that!

 

Cheers

Tony

[great northern]

G'Day Gents

 

That's alright Gilbert, you keep adding pictures, we'll keep looking at them.

 

manna

Fair enough. Today is however so dark and 'orrible that it nearly defeated me, and the camera. My intention was to put a white background behind the signals at the North end, to see if that made photoshopping the lattices any easier. The gloom however decided to render the gleaming white as a dirty grey, about the worst possible colour. Thus, you get only this one shot, from down South, where the gloom is less stygian. Still six seconds exposure to get this though. Here is the Down West Riding behind Bois Roussell. Ask a twelve year old spotter to pronounce that! I make the decisions round here, so it is a much nicer day in 1958.

Having been so unfairly frustrated by the weather, I shall now do comfort eating. Sausages for tea.

[The Great Bear]

 

. The old adage,less is more, has worked for me folks, so I commend it to anyone contemplating that nice empty space!

 

Of course, with a 25x10 space and having employed in part a team of skilled craftsmen, your idea of less is a lot more than many could ever hope to achieve   As well as an excellent example of a mainline model PN is an example of good project management and discipline. Well done.

 

There is another layout on this site of course similar in ambition and space, a saga with many twists and turns, still with...erm...some way to go to get a train running around that room. Perhaps you could mentor Gordon? 

Edited October 13, 2014 by The Great Bear

[great northern]

Of course, with a 25x10 space and having employed in part a team of skilled craftsmen, your idea of less is a lot more than many could ever hope to achieve   As well as an excellent example of a mainline model PN is an example of good project management and discipline. Well done.

 

There is another layout on this site of course similar in ambition and space, a saga with many twists and turns, still with...erm...some way to go to get a train running around that room. Perhaps you could mentor Gordon? 

Oh yes, I agree that I am very fortunate indeed, both to have the space I have, and to be able to employ people to do the bits I can't or don't want to do myself. Whatever space or funds one has though, the principle of less is more is, in my opinion any way, a very good one to follow, even though my "less" is very much more than most people will ever have. As to Gordon, well, a certain amount of "mentoring" has occurred over the years, both by myself and my much lamented friend Dave Shakespeare, and Gordon has found some of our suggestions useful. It is all very well being preached to by others though, but perhaps difficult to accept all that is said without having oneself tried things out and making a **** up of it. I think we do learn by experience, but generally our own, rather than that of others. That is especially so when we really,  really do want something very badly, and don't want to hear the negative side.

[great northern]

I'll keep referring to this for my layout build. I'm convinced my space is too square. 15' 10" by 13' 9". 

Hi David,

 

I've sent you a PM with one of David Jenkinson's plans attached. It is Settle and Carlisle based, but the basic principle I thought was a good one.

[LNER4479]

Congrats on 500,000 well-deserved views, GN

 

I can especially relate to your comments about realising a long-held dream. You gotta have a dream - or else how you gonna make a dream come true? (someone ought to make a song out of that  ). Successful projects like PN are rarely achieved at the first time of asking.

 

Looking forward to my next visit.

[Oldddudders]

As to Gordon, well, a certain amount of "mentoring" has occurred over the years, both by myself and my much lamented friend Dave Shakespeare, and Gordon has found some of our suggestions useful. It is all very well being preached to by others though, but perhaps difficult to accept all that is said without having oneself tried things out and making a **** up of it. I think we do learn by experience, but generally our own, rather than that of others. That is especially so when we really,  really do want something very badly, and don't want to hear the negative side.

As GN with Peterborough, and Tony Wright with Little Bytham, consistently point out, they have, in different ways, "employed" others to undertake key aspects of the layout construction. Gordon has - AFAIK - got his sleeves rolled up and done it himself. A huge task, and one that - particularly when the weather is fair and golf calls - must occasionally be offputting. I have a trivial layout room by comparison, only 20' by 17', and have lacked motivation for several years. Doing it all yourself is satisfying when a task is ticked off - but does demand an almost obsessive determination and few distractions. Life does its best to frustrate that!

[great northern]

As GN with Peterborough, and Tony Wright with Little Bytham, consistently point out, they have, in different ways, "employed" others to undertake key aspects of the layout construction. Gordon has - AFAIK - got his sleeves rolled up and done it himself. A huge task, and one that - particularly when the weather is fair and golf calls - must occasionally be offputting. I have a trivial layout room by comparison, only 20' by 17', and have lacked motivation for several years. Doing it all yourself is satisfying when a task is ticked off - but does demand an almost obsessive determination and few distractions. Life does its best to frustrate that!

That is a very good point indeed Ian. When we are younger, what we can spend is generally limited, as is the space and time available, so we have less to do, but no choice other than to do it ourselves. It tends to be in later life that funds and space both become easier to find, and so the "big project" gets rolled out. Alas by this time we aren't as lithe and full of energy as we used to be, so putting in long hours is more difficult, even though we may, theoretically at least, have more time at our disposal.

 

Trying to do it all oneself, praiseworthy though that may be, does create a very daunting task. I had the good fortune to be helped enormously by TW's son Tom, who spent many Sundays under the layout doing all the wiring, seven or eight hours at a time. Even then, and with a good deal of input by me, and help from others too, it was over a year before I could think of seeing a train run, and of course I had also had all the track on the scenic side professionally made too. I shudder to think how long it would have taken as a one man job, even if I could have done it all myself, which I doubt, as apart from any other considerations, my back would not have stood up to all those hours under the baseboards. Just running the bus bars round was quite enough.

 

The result I think would have been that I would have been overfaced by the whole thing, and walked away, vowing to do some more on a tomorrow that never came. And to find, on top of all that, that what I had planned was over ambitious, or didn't work , would have been the last straw. TW has posted on his thread today about the work Roy Jackson put into the creation of Retford, and like Tony I am full of awe and admiration for what he achieved. It is I think given to very few of us to be able to do what Roy did. "Obsessive" is ofetn regarded as a pejorative term, but I reckon you put your finger right on the spot when you used it Ian. I admire those like Roy who can do it, but they are very few and far between. The rest of us need a large dose of realism, and as much help as we can get!

[bigwordsmith]

As someone who has just got the space to be able to build the big layout, but in fairness also had the same chance when my parents acquired a similar sized loft 40-odd yeas ago when I still lived at home, I agree with Gilbert that realism has to have a place.

 

I also agree that you'll never realise a dream if you don't have one to start with!

 

All my previous layouts have been built 'in-house'. My first big one, Abbottsmead, was massively helped by my good friend Tim Bowis before he disappeared off to build garden railways in Oban, but since then, including the current Waverley Shed project I've had to balance building railways with work, marriage, kids, dogs, gardens, home extensions and life in general. It helps to keep modelling as an occasional hobby, and also to break down the tasks as someone said earlier so they are achievable within the time allowed. 

 

That means if the boss wants to go to Bluewater at the weekend for Christmas shopping, planning to wire up the station lights is probably a bad idea. However both of us having an interest means you can get the weekend off to play trains fairly regularly, especially in winter when the gras stops growing, which is wonderful. At that point the choice comes down to 'Baseboards or Warley Show?'

 

I have little doubt that Waverley East will still be gracing the pages of RM Web as a work in progress ten years from now. In some ways I hope it is because if it's completed by then it will mean that either (a) I've won the lottery which would be nice but unlikely as I don't buy tickets, or ( B) I haven't had enough work come in to keep me busy, which would probably mean I'd not be able to afford to finish it anyway!

 

I am massively grateful to Gilbert for his advice in the planning stage - benefitting from his experience, and those others who have also given valuable insight into the challenges they met, means I should be able to build in reasonable order a model that will allow me to enjoy both the building and operating for many years to come.

 

One of the chippies I used on a project once said he always measures twice before cutting. I think as with all things the sect of success lies in the preparation. Better 20 designs on paper to find one that will work, than 12 designs on the board that have to be torn up.

Edited October 14, 2014 by bigwordsmith

[great northern]

I've been thinking again...... I know, its not good for me, but I couldn't help it. The next job for Peter Leyland is likely to be the building of a correct Crescent Bridge, so I need to consider whether it is to drop in as a straight replacement, or whether it should be slightly repositioned. To save you scrolling back, here is an image I posted the other day, with the bridge in its current position.

By careful positioning of the locomotive, I have hidden the severe and totally wrong curve which starts just the other side of the bridge. It occurred to me though that if the bridge were to move back a bit, it would then be able to run along the baseboard, and thus form a permanent scenic break.

The bridge has now been moved back, so what difference does that make from this angle? Not a lot, except that the signalbox is now at an angle which looks even less like the real thing.

This is where the new bridge would sit, but the gap I left, I'm not sure why now, would have to be filled in.

The loading dock would also need to be extended, not difficult to do, but it would be on a severe curve, whilst the real thing ran straight.

Station Road would have to be extended, and pass under the bridge, as it did in reality. That of course would allow some of the train to be seen, but nowhere near as much. My initial reaction is to leave well alone, but any views or suggestions would be gratefully received. I also took the shot below, to see what the effect was from the operating well. The glare from the window ruined it, but then I realised I could photoshop that out.

Was it worth it?

[bigwordsmith]

Hi Gilbert,

 

You could lose the scenery behind the bridge and effectively make it a tunnel mouth so you don't see the trains until they emerge?

 

Don't know if that helps,but as we've discussed tight corners are thebans of realistic modelling

 

ATB

 

Peter

[KevinWalsh]

Personally, I would leave it in the location it is already in, but I don't have as finely tuned a sense of asthetics as your good self.

[stewartingram]

What about a low relief model of the tarpaulin works (?)(the one that still stands, as a Pethouse or something, near Asda? Distance compression again, but it could sit OVER the track so as to hide the train on the curve?

 

Stewart

[Mallard60022]

Gilbert.......I don't think so. 

Phil

[bro sewell]

Done it!!! it has taken about 6 weeks but I have now read all 254 pages, and I am totally blown away, far to many individuals to mention about the vast amount of talant, but fair to say that GN has many friends whiling to build his dreams with him

 

Thank you to all who have contributed so far, and good luck with the continued master piece, I only wish I had the time & space for something half as good

 

I will now have two fantastic layouts to follow on the East Coast, and next is the thread for Little Bytham to read (might have a break first as my eyes are going square)

 

Brian

 

aka Mercator II (on other worlds)

Edited October 18, 2014 by bro sewell

[islandbridgejct]

Pondering on whether less is more.

 

I've been struck by Tony Wright's assertion that for him, 30' is the minimum you need for a convincing ECML layout, whereas I find both Little Bytham and Peterborough North totally convincing in photo form. Grantham too is superb, and ticks all the boxes. The tentative conclusion I've come to is that more is more and less is less, but it's your ability to focus on what you have and what you want to show, and to maintain that focus through the planning and execution, that makes a layout convincing. All three layouts give me that sense of anticipation that you get before a train comes in, whether it's sliding under Crescent Bridge, thundering down the fast line, or rattling over the station throat. But I am every bit as amazed and awestruck by Tucking Mill (for instance) as I am by Peterborough.

 

Like the man said, it's not about size. (But more is still more, even though less may well be enough.)

 

And now I'm off to keep pondering whether to convert my attic (6m x 4m, accessed by a nasty loft ladder), my carport (7m x 6m at the bottom of the garden) or just build a portable layout up to 10m x 1.5 down the middle of the sitting room. (Domestic authorities reserve the right to veto all plans.) I think I'll just knock up another wagon prototype - haven't got one right yet.

 

Alan

[richard i]

I agree with Alan's sentiments in the main but have two caveats to consider. Firstly can a layout be too long? I always felt that Charwelton was just too long as the trains became a bit of a dot to the operator for the last bit of the run down the front, where as on stoke Summit the train detail could be picked out by the operator for its entire length. So is 30ft good 40ftish too much in 4mm? Secondly can too short depend on which mainline, where and when it is operated? For my personal layout I do not have this space, but because I am modeling the GC in the pre-grouping era I only need to model 5 coaches to be realistic for expresses and the coaches are not as long as mark 1 coaches either additionally the locos are shorter too. So my layout is 16ft and the trains still travel for 3 times their length making, (in my eyes), it just as convincing as a BR era mainline of greater length. Also this has the "Benefit" that I have to build more of the stock because it is not available r-t-r and this gives me more(?) pleasure in making it.

Richard

[great northern]

Thanks for the input about the bridge chaps. There seems to be no-one who thinks that moving it would be a good idea, which has just reinforced my own feelings. At least I have now got it out of the way once and for all, so the new bridge, when it arrives, will fit in the same footprint as this one. I shall now look at other ways to deal with that corner of the layout.

 

As to layout length, well, Andy Y kindly went on Google Earth and measured the distance between the centre line of the two bridges. Rather to my surprise, it comes to between 26 and 27ft when scaled down, which means my effort is actually laess compressed than I thought. I would still need to find another 4ft 6ins though to get it exactly right, and even then, as TW has pointed out on his thread, the entry under Spital Bridge should be on the straight, and under Crescent Bridge the curvature should be far less severe than I have had to accept.

 

I reckon then that at least another 10ft would be required, and then the necessary curves at each end, so even with 3ft radius curves I'd be looking at over 40ft. There aren't many rooms of that length to be found, so a special build becomes almost inevitable, and the cost of the project soars beyond the reach of the vast majority of people. There's another problem too. The moment I started modelling anything the other side of Spital Bridge, I'd be into New England yards, and that would be impossible to replicate, however well off you are. The other end too would be much more complex. Then there are the Midland lines at the rear. If one was going to build a scale length model, how could they be left out? Putting them in though would result in a baseboard width that was completely unmanageable.

 

The whole thing would need full time maintenance, and an army of trained operators to be able to use anything like the full potential. oh, and a nice fat lottery win to pay for it all. I have the basics of PN, or as David Jenkinson said, the "essence" of the thing, and I'm very lucky to have that. We can all dream, but reality requires common sense and compromise.

[LNER4479]

Firstly can a layout be too long? I always felt that Charwelton was just too long as the trains became a bit of a dot to the operator for the last bit of the run down the front, where as on stoke Summit the train detail could be picked out by the operator for its entire length. So is 30ft good 40ftish too much in 4mm?

 

I reckon then that at least another 10ft would be required, and then the necessary curves at each end, so even with 3ft radius curves I'd be looking at over 40ft.

The other aspect with a layout being over long, is the length of time taken to get back into the fiddle yard. Assuming a roundy-roundy, an extra 10 foot of length is actually an extra 20foot for the train to run to get back to its starting point. Perhaps not so much of an issue for an express travelling at a scale 60-70mph but a coal train at 20-25mph? (even if it could be sped up a bit once 'off scene') And while the 'front of house' operator is driving such a train in/out of the fiddle yard then there's nothing happening out t'front. 

Edited October 18, 2014 by LNER4479

[richard i]

The time taken to park a train in the fiddle yard is why the front operators need to work in concert at exhibitions so that one is bringing their train on scene while the other is taking their last train off. After all exhibiting is showmanship. People leave when nothing is moving on the front.

[coachmann]

I doubt a layout can be too long. My earliest plan was to extend the line from the shed off down the garden so that I could sit outside watching passing trains going somewhere and coming from somewhere else. Since it never reached that stage, it has been a case of compromise upon compromise. Maybe one day.......

[Theakerr]

there's nothing happening out t'front.   ​Thats exactly what I like about my system on New Waltham although it is a stay at home layout so for the most part I don't have to worry about "punters"

[westerner]

there's nothing happening out t'front.   ​Thats exactly what I like about my system on New Waltham although it is a stay at home layout so for the most part I don't have to worry about "punters"

I agree. Oh the joys of not exhibiting.

[Clive Mortimore]

The time taken to park a train in the fiddle yard is why the front operators need to work in concert at exhibitions so that one is bringing their train on scene while the other is taking their last train off. After all exhibiting is showmanship. People leave when nothing is moving on the front.

Hi Richard

 

We sort of discussed this on our way home from EXPO EM while discussing the movement on Calcutta Sidings.

 

I did start this topic http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/86179-continuous-run-discussion/&do=findComment&comment=1461566

 

Since then and with your posting today, I now question is there a maximum size for an exhibition roundy-roundy type layout? It should not be too long so the public cannot see what is happening from any view point, and the dead travelling time from scenic section to storage sidings needs to be at a minimum. As you say the operators do need to work together. There will be variables, train lengths, speeds passing the great unwashed, and number of running lines come to mind. The greater number of running lines the more trains can be run therefore the length could be longer.

 

I just wish I knew the formula for this. Why have you moved to the States, we could have had a good chat about this on Monday night.

 

Gilbert, Alan and Theakerr are lucky no audience.

[Barry O]

So long as you have something else happening for the viewers no layout would be too long. When Mike Edge first exhibited Herculaneum Dock with no overhead the pressure was on the main line and yard/dock operators to keep something moving .. with the Liverpool Overhead now trundling along you can have a less pressured operating experience.

 

For Peterborough North the question seems to be  how to disguise the entry/exit to the rest of the world. Extra space could have given a bit more "straight" track before curving off .. but is there another way using visual "cheats"? Ie use of curved backscenes. covered in "darkness" the other side of Spital Bridge??

 

Baz