Layout design case study

[colin penfold]

Chapter 9 is the track planning chapter and contains advice on the use of full size mock-ups, compression, prototypical track layouts baseboard joints and drawing techniques.

 

This is very personal and no doubt you will all have your own preferred method. I tend to get as far as I can using AnyRail before trying it out full size. Unlike the previous sections I have posted, this chapter will no doubt run to numerous posts. I am going to start with a basic AnyRail plan for each station - I welcome feedback on each one.

 

I shall start with Southampton Bargate - the fictional bit of the layout.

 

The first image shows how I imagine the layout fitting into the streets of Southampton, the second is a close up of the AnyRail plan

 

 

 

Just to reiterate a couple of things from the earlier thinking. The "branch" is self contained and I intend to automate it. It will run in via a diamond crossing into a dedicated platform to allow some push pull trains and units to shuffle back and forth. My rationale for the branch is going to be that it was built to connect to Southampton Central to enable local services to run on and terminate at Bargate to avoid blocking platform space at the (very overcrowded) Central. Freight for the docks will be dealt with at the back of the station, coming in from the DNS and running out via the parallel line to West Quay or past the station onto Western Esplanade to head for Town Quay. Depending how the space plays out I may well put a large goods warehouse along the back of the layout. The play value shunting will happen in the sidings at the front of the layout which share their headshunt with the road to the loco shed. I'm tempted to put the latter on the scenic section but feel it will be too crowded if I do.

 

The large black lump to the left of the trackplan is the internal wall I need to burrow through to get to the area where the loops and spiral will be

 

I will revisit this plan in a later post with some more detail about scenics etc when I have fIrmed up the track plan and confirmed the space available for buildings

 

Next time I will share my initial thoughts on Burghclere with you. I look forward to comments and suggestions.

Edited October 19, 2013 by colin penfold

[Mikkel]

Great stuff Colin, I especially like the first shot showing how the station would have fitted into the town plan. It's like watching the DNSR coming alive - and all those failed hopes finally coming true!

 

It' also good to know that the GWR finally relented and gave the DNSR a chance. They really did not treat that railway very nicely, using it as a pawn in the politics with the LSWR if I remember the history correctly.

[colin penfold]

Hi Mikkel, and thanks for the positive comments,

 

It's surprising how well my ideas can be shoe-horned into reality. Feels like fate to me! The orientation I have picked lines up nicely with  "an embankment that would have taken the line to a viaduct across Commercial Road and the LSWR" that Pete the Mole refers to in a post on page 2. The only two issues would be the railway being so close to the Bargate Tower and my line to the Town Quay which as drawn would require the demolition of part of the City Wall. There is a prototype for this in York where the original station was accessed by that exact method!

 

I will work on the assumption that the land was levelled and lowered to allow the line to pass under East Street to avoid a level crossing and to preserve the monument itself.

 

Visiting the area certainly brought it to life for me even though it has changed massively. In a way, seeing the changes that did take place in the area showed me how radically an area can change and stopped me assuming that it would be hard to find room for a station in amongst existing buildings.

[clecklewyke]

I wouldn't worry about knocking holes through town walls or demolishing historic buildings. These were the Victorians and they had very different sensibilities (except perhaps for Ruskin and his mates.) 

 

Examples - 

 

Berwick, where they knocked down the castle to build the station.

 

Yarm, where a bloody great viaduct crosses the lovely medieval market town, with piers in back gardens.

 

I'm sure there are lots more.

 

Your scheme looks fascinating. I'm building an imaginary station in Bradford but I have not thought at all how it would fit into the town, or even how it fitted in with the L&Y and GNR which ere there first.

 

Ian

Edited October 20, 2013 by clecklewyke

[Cheshire001]

Add Conway to the list.   The main line comes out of the tubular bridge portal adjacent to the castle, runs along the base of the castle wall and then passes through the town walls under an archway.  Imagine obtaining planning permission for that now!

 

The arch has weathered and is covered with weeds/ivy on the side nearest the station and looks as if it has always been there.   I am modelling this section of track using old polystyrene packing sheets for the town walls and arch.   In fact there is another smaller arch alongside with a siding running to an S&T depot on an old map.   This arch is still there although I know nothing of the depot.

 

I'm not familiar with Southampton, but assume Bargate is some sort of tower in the town wall??   If so it would make a recognisable model to 'fix' the location of your model and may make a scenic break to split the scene into two.   The town wall at right would be an ideal backscene.   I used Conway town wall as such on my layout as I'm not much into scenic work.   After painting 16' of town wall I started thinking I'd have been better doing scenery!

 

As regards the trackplan, just a thought re. the double slip.   I love these, but they seem a bit prone to stalling and derailments when I use them.   Given that you will be pushing rakes of vans from the siding area out into the main platforms it seems a bit hazardous for me.   Check carefully when laying or maybe used two points toe to toe.   All the other turnouts would move to the left and may visually extend the station approach and make it a bit more impressive.   The bit with 4 parallel lines looks a bit bland at the moment.

 

Just wondering on the operation when a main line train arrives.   Are you going to have a pilot move the coaches into the other platform or drag them off-scene to some carriage sidings?   There doesn't look much space to 'park' them on-scene.   Would there be a release crossover near the buffers of the main platforms?

 

Just thoughts, not criticisms as it is a nice terminus plan which is fairly economic on points;  anyone else with less space could keep the same basic plan and just trim off some sidings.

[Talltim]

I fancy the idea of building the separate elements of the layout as separately framed scenes. It's give the opportunity for the trains to go from-to somewhere, without having a severely compromised and compressed section of scenery between them. You can model city centre and countryside without the need to compress the suburbs to a couple of feet.

A layout that captured my imagination that uses this idea is Flemming Örneholm's in the October 2006 issue of Model Railroader

[Pacific231G]

 

I shall start with Southampton Bargate - the fictional bit of the layout.

 

The first image shows how I imagine the layout fitting into the streets of Southampton, the second is a close up of the AnyRail plan

 

orientation.png

 

anyrail for rmweb.png

 

Very interesting plan Colin. I used to park on the former platforms of Terminus when I worked in South Western House in the 1980s and when I was first there the platform canopie were still there so you could imagine it as a station. I think your plan catches the essence of it very well despite the necessary simplification.

One question. If you're modelling 1943-1966 what will you do about the trams that I believe ran until 1949? ISTR that they had a very distinctively rounded roof section to get through the Bargate arch. I don't know when the tracks were tarred over.   

[colin penfold]

Add Conway to the list.   The main line comes out of the tubular bridge portal adjacent to the castle, runs along the base of the castle wall and then passes through the town walls under an archway.  Imagine obtaining planning permission for that now!

 

The arch has weathered and is covered with weeds/ivy on the side nearest the station and looks as if it has always been there.   I am modelling this section of track using old polystyrene packing sheets for the town walls and arch.   In fact there is another smaller arch alongside with a siding running to an S&T depot on an old map.   This arch is still there although I know nothing of the depot.

 

I'm not familiar with Southampton, but assume Bargate is some sort of tower in the town wall??   If so it would make a recognisable model to 'fix' the location of your model and may make a scenic break to split the scene into two.   The town wall at right would be an ideal backscene.   I used Conway town wall as such on my layout as I'm not much into scenic work.   After painting 16' of town wall I started thinking I'd have been better doing scenery!

 

As regards the trackplan, just a thought re. the double slip.   I love these, but they seem a bit prone to stalling and derailments when I use them.   Given that you will be pushing rakes of vans from the siding area out into the main platforms it seems a bit hazardous for me.   Check carefully when laying or maybe used two points toe to toe.   All the other turnouts would move to the left and may visually extend the station approach and make it a bit more impressive.   The bit with 4 parallel lines looks a bit bland at the moment.

 

Just wondering on the operation when a main line train arrives.   Are you going to have a pilot move the coaches into the other platform or drag them off-scene to some carriage sidings?   There doesn't look much space to 'park' them on-scene.   Would there be a release crossover near the buffers of the main platforms?

 

Just thoughts, not criticisms as it is a nice terminus plan which is fairly economic on points;  anyone else with less space could keep the same basic plan and just trim off some sidings.

 

Thanks for your interest Cheshire,

 

I plan to use the Paddington method of a new train engine for each departure, leaving the incoming train engine at the buffer stops to follow out after departure. Train length and platform length allows this and it's an excuse for lots of light engine movements in and out of the shed

 

I hope not to do too much propelling through the slip, as freight will arrive at the area with the run round and use the "docks" line as a headshunt to access the marshalling sidings behind, using a pilot engine. The only freight to cross over will be local stuff to the yard at the front which again will be pulled across loco first. The departures from the little yard are an interesting point, they will need to be propelled back across or perhaps I should put a crossover as far as the main - unless I assume it's off scene - what do people think????

[colin penfold]

Very interesting plan Colin. I used to park on the former platforms of Terminus when I worked in South Western House in the 1980s and when I was first there the platform canopie were still there so you could imagine it as a station. I think your plan catches the essence of it very well despite the necessary simplification.

One question. If you're modelling 1943-1966 what will you do about the trams that I believe ran until 1949? ISTR that they had a very distinctively rounded roof section to get through the Bargate arch. I don't know when the tracks were tarred over.   

 

Thanks for the kind words. It was something that came strongly from Iain's book - if you are going to do a fictional/what might have been or even freelance layout its still best to look at similar real locations in the area you are trying to represent and base your work on that.

 

I have a book on Southampton Tramways and certainly hope to incorporate some evidence of the tramway. I bought a corgi model of a single deck tram but I'm not sure whether it's the right era/livery/ran on that route. More research needed 

Edited October 22, 2013 by colin penfold

[colin penfold]

I fancy the idea of building the separate elements of the layout as separately framed scenes. It's give the opportunity for the trains to go from-to somewhere, without having a severely compromised and compressed section of scenery between them. You can model city centre and countryside without the need to compress the suburbs to a couple of feet.

A layout that captured my imagination that uses this idea is Flemming Örneholm's in the October 2006 issue of Model Railroader

 

Cheers Tim, I will look that reference up

[Cheshire001]

Thanks for your interest Cheshire,

 

I plan to use the Paddington method of a new train engine for each departure, leaving the incoming train engine at the buffer stops to follow out after departure. Train length and platform length allows this and it's an excuse for lots of light engine movements in and out of the shed

 

I hope not to do too much propelling through the slip, as freight will arrive at the area with the run round and use the "docks" line as a headshunt to access the marshalling sidings behind, using a pilot engine. The only freight to cross over will be local stuff to the yard at the front which again will be pulled across loco first. The departures from the little yard are an interesting point, they will need to be propelled back across or perhaps I should put a crossover as far as the main - unless I assume it's off scene - what do people think????

I appreciate your thoughts re. train engines.   Leaving them in the station will allow them to be "shown off" for a while, give lots of LE moves and free up a bit of parking space in the FY!

 

The docks yard looks fine, but not sure about what you call the little yard.   I would suggest it depends on usage.   If it's going to handle a few parcel vans that are added individually to the head end of passenger trains, that's fine.   Equally you could trip wagons over to the docks yard to be added to trains for despatch.   If the little yard is going to handle a lot of traffic and despatch complete trains directly, you'll either have to reverse them over the double slip (holding your breath?) or have a visible crossover if you have room or a virtual crossover further up the line.   Selecting between the last two options really depends on if you have room for a crossover as against how you feel sending trains off up the "wrong" line.   There again the 4 parallel tracks just look like a 4-track main line to the uninitiated - the casual observer wouldn't really appreciate their function.

 

What about a quick mock-up with some track and a few wagons (or a plan and some bits of paper if you prefer) and run through some shunting moves.   Sometimes I do this and it quickly highlights undesirable operations.   Also lets one play trains for an hour :-)

[colin penfold]

If the little yard is going to handle a lot of traffic and despatch complete trains directly, you'll either have to reverse them over the double slip (holding your breath?) or have a visible crossover if you have room or a virtual crossover further up the line.   Selecting between the last two options really depends on if you have room for a crossover as against how you feel sending trains off up the "wrong" line.  

 

I have added a crossover for a departing pick up goods to access the main from the small yard, how's that look?  It would also allow an incoming light engine to reverse into the shed without finding an unoccupied platform or using the loop at the back

 

 

The one downside is that the point on the main is in the "real tunnel" through the dividing wall in the cellar.

Edited October 23, 2013 by colin penfold

[Cheshire001]

Yes, this is the sort of thing I had in mind.   An incoming train into the small yard would have to have a pilot loco release the train engine, but this should just provide an excuse to more light engine moves!   BUT it infers that you keep one siding empty and have the other two only partly unoccupied to accept the arriving stock.   Bit unsatisfactory.   AND it's a pity that the crossover has to run through the diamond resulting in the point in the "tunnel".   Would you have enough access to install/maintain a point motor and e which route is set?

 

Only other alternative I can come up with would be to swap the branch and main lines.   Crossover from the yard shortened by the length of the diamond.   BUT you would then be involved with swapping the positions of the branch bay and the two main platforms, possibly shortening the latter and displacing the station building.   

 

Going back to the question I intimated in post 88, what sort of traffic do you anticipate the small yard handling?   Either (1) it's just a few parcel vans and spare coaches to be attached to passenger trains.    You probably won't need the new crossover for this.   (2)A small number of goods wagons could logically be tripped to the docks yard area and added to a main line freight there, also without the new crossover.   Both 1 and 2 would involve some interesting shunting.   (3)If you're going to deal with fairly heavy flows like direct parcel trains, block fish trains or a lot of goods wagons, the crossover looks almost essential to avoid backing over the double slip into the platforms.   

 

Possibly some combination of (1) and (2) may give interesting shunting without the need for the crossover and the point in the tunnel.

It looks like I'm going to have the new crossover removed now I've talked you into installing it!

 

Sorry if this post a bit messy, I was coming up with different ideas as I typed.  Just take it as a series of suggestions and pull out what you consider the helpful bits.  

[colin penfold]

Yes, this is the sort of thing I had in mind.   An incoming train into the small yard would have to have a pilot loco release the train engine, but this should just provide an excuse to more light engine moves!   BUT it infers that you keep one siding empty and have the other two only partly unoccupied to accept the arriving stock.   Bit unsatisfactory.   AND it's a pity that the crossover has to run through the diamond resulting in the point in the "tunnel".   Would you have enough access to install/maintain a point motor and e which route is set?

 

Only other alternative I can come up with would be to swap the branch and main lines.   Crossover from the yard shortened by the length of the diamond.   BUT you would then be involved with swapping the positions of the branch bay and the two main platforms, possibly shortening the latter and displacing the station building.   

 

Going back to the question I intimated in post 88, what sort of traffic do you anticipate the small yard handling?   Either (1) it's just a few parcel vans and spare coaches to be attached to passenger trains.    You probably won't need the new crossover for this.   (2)A small number of goods wagons could logically be tripped to the docks yard area and added to a main line freight there, also without the new crossover.   Both 1 and 2 would involve some interesting shunting.   (3)If you're going to deal with fairly heavy flows like direct parcel trains, block fish trains or a lot of goods wagons, the crossover looks almost essential to avoid backing over the double slip into the platforms.   

 

Possibly some combination of (1) and (2) may give interesting shunting without the need for the crossover and the point in the tunnel.

It looks like I'm going to have the new crossover removed now I've talked you into installing it!

 

Sorry if this post a bit messy, I was coming up with different ideas as I typed.  Just take it as a series of suggestions and pull out what you consider the helpful bits.  

 

The small yard is for "local" pick up type freight and is a chance for some shunting. I still imagine the pick up being received in the road at the back with the run round, and then shunting across with the loco leading, to the headshunt/shed road and then sorted into the three front sidings. Departures would now be direct from the yard over what will forthwith be known as "Cheshire's crossover."

 

I think I will be OK to fit a point motor to the furthest point (probably go for surface mount) I will wire it as a crossover so observation of the road set will be via the other point.

 

I don't want to swap the branch and main for reasons which will become clear when I reveal the plans for the hidden area the other side of the "tunnel" (I know I'm a tease, sorry!!!!   )

[Chimer]

The remarks about a "real" tunnel and the "tease" imply anything else might not be possible, but do those 4 lines have to be parallel and apparently standard six-foot-way distance apart?  If they were going at slightly different angles, it might be easier to imagine they were going to different places.  If you're rebuilding central Southampton anyway .....

[raymw]

Hi Colin,

 

If you were to dispense with the road bridge by the wall/tunnel, or make it low relief, you would only need to shove everything to the right a bit to get the point out of the tunnel. ( or just move it all to the right and have the bridge removable if necessary for access to the point.)

 

best wishes,

 

Ray

[The Stationmaster]

The small yard is for "local" pick up type freight and is a chance for some shunting. I still imagine the pick up being received in the road at the back with the run round, and then shunting across with the loco leading, to the headshunt/shed road and then sorted into the three front sidings. Departures would now be direct from the yard over what will forthwith be known as "Cheshire's crossover."

 

 

 

That strikes me as the correct way of doing it - you clearly can'yt have an incoming train run head-on into the small yard as it lacks any sort of reception facility.

 

 

The remarks about a "real" tunnel and the "tease" imply anything else might not be possible, but do those 4 lines have to be parallel and apparently standard six-foot-way distance apart?  If they were going at slightly different angles, it might be easier to imagine they were going to different places.  If you're rebuilding central Southampton anyway .....

 

There certainly needs to be at least one 10 foot (between the two pairs of lines) if not a second one between the 'branch' and 'shed' lines.

[colin penfold]

Thanks Mike for the reassurance and the info.

 

Chimer I am going to have to go with rule 1 here and say that I actually like the concept of the lines running parallel as it creates the look of an urban terminus, perhaps bigger than it is

 

If I signal it right (big if) it should be clear what does what.

 

Ray, the dividing wall is only 9" thick as shown so I am happy I will be able to get at that point , but when I mock up full  size I will try to avoid it being in there because it wasn't my intention to have anything other than plain track in there.

 

Thanks all!

[colin penfold]

Hi all,

 

Here is the initial track diagram for Burghclere, which is based as closely as I can on the actual track diagram within the constraints of space and PECO geometry. The sidings at the top if the plan had been removed by my time period, but I want to retain them for extra operational interest. Left is Newbury direction, right is south towards Shawford and Southampton.

 

I might try to learn Templot and see how the plan would work with C&L kit points for comparison, or wait till I get the boards made and lay it out full size using their templates.

 

 

This gives an idea of how the cellar is planned to look, with Burghclere at high level over Southampton at a low level on one side of the room, and Shawford Viaduct built over the fiddleyard

 

 

For those of you still with me from the Southampton post, here's how I anticipate the layout of the hidden area and fiddle yard access

 

 

I offer all these without comment, except to say each square = 3 inches. Happy to answer questions, looking forward to your comments and suggestions.

 

Thanks everybody

[Zero Gravitas]

Hi Colin,

 

Good to see the next instalment of this!

 

Forgive me if this is old ground for you, but I think my concern would be the vertical separation between Burgclere and Southampton.  A far as I can tell, it will be 12" vertical separation between railheads, as it were; and by the time baseboard and framing is taken into account, this will be more like 9" from top of railhead to underside of Burghclere (if you see what I mean).

 

This is probably OK with a baseboard width of 12" - but Southampton is going to be about 36" wide and my fear would be that access to the back of the boards will be a problem.

 

So - would there be any possibility to increase the vertical separation?  Two thoughts came to me - either add more "turns" to the spiral or perhaps (and this is another Rice idea on page 118 of the book) use a "train stacker" to provide the means of both moving trains between levels and for train storage.  Perhaps it could be located at the left-hand end of the cellar?

 

Hope that's of some help - and apologies if you've been through this already and dismissed it.

 

Best Regards,

 

ZG.

[colin penfold]

Hi ZG, I plan to mock this up and have a test before I commit too far. I am trying to balance several aspects - the viewing levels (seated and standing eye level for me) the ability to transfer stock between levels, ceiling height in the cellar and the practicalities you mention. Most people who only have one level seem to set their lighting pelmet around 10" above rail level regardless of whether there's another "layout" on top. Also I have placed the areas where most shunting will take place towards the front of Southampton. Burghclere is about 24" deep and therefore 6" set back from the front edge of Southampton at around 30"  I have done some basic tests with lumps of wood and it was fine - albeit you are very conscious of what you are doing when you try something out. I can guarantee with no hesitation whatsoever that as soon as I build it and start using it I WILL bang my head!!!

 

Thanks very much for your input. I totally agree that I can drop Southampton down another 3 inches if I need to by adding a "lap" to the spiral. I can't raise Burghclere because the lighting pelmet for that will be at ceiling height.

[Zero Gravitas]

The Stationmaster, on 20 Sept 2013 - 12:27, said:

For your information Colin a new book on the DN&S will be appearing from Kevin Robertson in, he hopes, January (should be available for the Southampton show he has said).

'The Dicot, Newbury & SouthamptonRailway - an historic review - 1882 - 1966'  approx 200 pages, ISBN 978-1-906419-83-7, £30.  Kevin told me at Swindon that it is all new material which has come to light since earlier books were published.

 

Colin - hope it's OK to add this to your thread, but it's where the original discussion occurred...

 

Stationmaster - of course you were right and Amazon was wrong.  Bought my copy from Kevin Robertson at the Southampton show yesterday, and asked him about the discrepancy on Amazon. Apparently the intention was originally to document 1946 through to closure, but so much new material from the earlier years came to light during research that the whole life of the line is now covered. The title is officially "The Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway: a new history 1882 - 1966", it now runs to 328 pages, and the price is £38.00. ISBN is the same.

 

Had a flick through last night, and am hoping to start reading properly this evening. Worth every penny, in my opinion (usual "satisfied customer" disclaimer applies).

 

Best Regards,

 

ZG.

[colin penfold]

Thanks ZG, I had an email from Amazon saying it's delayed through them. My next show visit is Doncaster, may look out for a copy if they haven't delivered by then

[Les le Breton]

Thank you Colin for taking the time and trouble to publish your layout design in such clear details, it is a real inspiration.

[colin penfold]

Thanks Les, there will be more to come but I am currently focused on some necessary DIY that I need to get done before I turn my attention to the cellar where the layout will live.