Help me Choose my Layout Plan

[Seanem44]

So I think I goofed last week and posted this in the workbench layout topic section, which i realize now really isn't geared towards design contruction but more for layouts already in place.  So I am reposting here for more and better visibility.

 

I have two plans drawn up.  They are for GWR Branch lines.  The time period will be around 1940-1945.

 

The top is based on Minehead.  It is condensed and operates under the story that war weary Britons need to get to the seaside for Holiday.  It will take place in the final months of WWII, or just after ending.  I like this layout as it allows me an excuse to run my Castle and Hall in addition to my GWR tanks.  Train lengths will be no more than four coach lengths.

 

The bottom layout is during the same time period and is (somewhat heavily) based off of the lovely layout Ruxley (which is 50 years old!).  This one is more of the classic GWR branch design.  However, it will be harder to justify running the Castle on it.  To get around that, I am going with the "It's War" mantra, and that troops need to get from point A to B and citizens need evacuating. 

 

For both layouts I want to attempt to add a wartime atmosphere. Maybe a pillbox or bofors near the station or in the countryside.  Gun powder vans will likely be present.  If I can work in some tank/vehicle transports (just to add to the atmosphere whether prototypical or not) I might do so as well.  Who knows.  My current loco stock includes the normal variety of GWR tanks (pannier, 14xx, 5600) and then the Castle and a Hall.  Of course the Hall is to appease my wife as it is dressed in Hogwarts Red and gives her something to be interested in.

 

I'm thinking baseboards will need to be three feet wide so I don't suffocate the layout.  I have 14 feet of wall length.  I have another six on another wall for a fiddle yard to make the layout L-shaped.

 

What do you all think?

 

Constructive Criticism is welcomed, and if you feel tweaks are necessary, let me know.

 

Which should I go with?

 

Thanks!

 

 

[Zomboid]

I suggest drawing them in Anyrail or similar, you'll find out how much space the crossovers will actually take up. You shouldn't run out of space to build a BLT with 11 feet (I've assumed the curve to the FY is included in your 14 feet), but i do know that using the code 83 peco track, a #6 crossover is 18" long. Don't know about regular streamline, but point work is generally bigger than you expected.

[Brian D]

 

So I think I goofed last week and posted this in the workbench layout topic section, which i realize now really isn't geared towards design contruction but more for layouts already in place.  So I am reposting here for more and better visibility.

 

I have two plans drawn up.  They are for GWR Branch lines.  The time period will be around 1940-1945.

 

The top is based on Minehead.  It is condensed and operates under the story that war weary Britons need to get to the seaside for Holiday.  It will take place in the final months of WWII, or just after ending.  I like this layout as it allows me an excuse to run my Castle and Hall in addition to my GWR tanks.  Train lengths will be no more than four coach lengths.

 

The bottom layout is during the same time period and is (somewhat heavily) based off of the lovely layout Ruxley (which is 50 years old!).  This one is more of the classic GWR branch design.  However, it will be harder to justify running the Castle on it.  To get around that, I am going with the "It's War" mantra, and that troops need to get from point A to B and citizens need evacuating. 

 

For both layouts I want to attempt to add a wartime atmosphere. Maybe a pillbox or bofors near the station or in the countryside.  Gun powder vans will likely be present.  If I can work in some tank/vehicle transports (just to add to the atmosphere whether prototypical or not) I might do so as well.  Who knows.  My current loco stock includes the normal variety of GWR tanks (pannier, 14xx, 5600) and then the Castle and a Hall.  Of course the Hall is to appease my wife as it is dressed in Hogwarts Red and gives her something to be interested in.

 

I'm thinking baseboards will need to be three feet wide so I don't suffocate the layout.  I have 14 feet of wall length.  I have another six on another wall for a fiddle yard to make the layout L-shaped.

 

What do you all think?

 

Constructive Criticism is welcomed, and if you feel tweaks are necessary, let me know.

 

Which should I go with?

 

Thanks!

 

Layouts.jpg

 

 

There seem to be more goods facilities scattered about on the lower/second plan so that one has got my vote but it depends on what you want in the way of operational content I suppose.

 

Regards,

Brian.

[ejstubbs]

I suggest drawing them in Anyrail or similar, you'll find out how much space the crossovers will actually take up. You shouldn't run out of space to build a BLT with 11 feet (I've assumed the curve to the FY is included in your 14 feet), but i do know that using the code 83 peco track, a #6 crossover is 18" long. Don't know about regular streamline, but point work is generally bigger than you expected.

 

Streamline Code 100 short radius turnouts are 185mm long, medium radius are 219mm (this information is on the Peco web site).  It's also necessary to allow extra space for clearance between stock on the normal and reversed routes.  For example, you can't uncouple the loco from an incoming train right at the joint between normal track and the heel of the turnout, and then expect the loco to be able to get through the crossover in to the run-round loop.  In my experience you need an extra 50mm or so clearance at a bare minimum (which requires pretty precise control of the loco, so a bit more is better).  The same goes at the other end of the run-round.  So you need to allow at least 10cm more than the length of the longest train you want to run round between the crossovers on the arrival platform (barring a station pilot being available to help shunt the stock clear of each crossover during the run-round maneuver).

 

I agree with Zomboid that AnyRail or one of the other planning tools can be incredibly useful in working out what you can get in to a given space.  I would just add the caveat, per the above, that such tools don't know about how much room train operations, clearance required for lineside buildings, minimum platform widths etc need, so you have to provide that additional knowledge yourself while using them.

[JST]

I like the Minehead idea as I am doing something similar for a branch line off my main layout. The current Minehead station has a loco run around on the "bay" platform. If you have room for this I think it greatly would increase the operational value of the layout. To put the platform lengths in perspective, the main platform at Minehead will take 15 coaches to accommodate the through summer holiday specials that used to run. This means Castles or Halls would have been seen there :-)

[ejstubbs]

The current Minehead station has a loco run around on the "bay" platform. If you have room for this I think it greatly would increase the operational value of the layout.

 

The utility of a run-round on the bay depends to a degree on how intensive the passenger service is planned to be.  You can operate by having trains arriving in the main platform, running round there and then being shunted in to the bay preparatory to departure.  That's what I am planning to do on my soon-to-be-resurrected layout which in its new incarnation is going to be partly inspired by Minehead.  Obviously it means that the main platform and the main line will be busy for longer than would be required just arriving and running round in the bay, but so long as that doesn't conflict too much with other movements then it's fine.  (It's often observed that, at many of the kinds of station that get modelled, or used as inspiration for layouts, not a lot happened quite a lot of the time anyway.)

 

I note that the the run-round on the bay platform at Minehead isn't shown on the 1928 25-inch OS map, but is on the 1936 one.  I'm not sure how closely the OP is planning to model Minehead but if they do want to include the bay run round in their plan then they may find it reassuring to know that it would be correct for the period they intend to represent.

[Zomboid]

The utility of a run-round on the bay depends to a degree on how intensive the passenger service is planned to be. You can operate by having trains arriving in the main platform, running round there and then being shunted in to the bay preparatory to departure.

Exactly what they used to do at Hayling Island, and that had a very intensive service for the time. I think it was 2 trains an hour in each direction - for a single track branch with loco haulage I think it's pretty much on the limit.

But I digress. Hayling didn't need a run round on the bay.

[DCB]

The upper plan looks do able,  By applying a quick rule of thumb I make it capable of taking 5 coach BR Mk1 trains in the main platform with 4ft beyond the pointwork allowing for a 3ft radius curve swinging around make a FY.   The FY is going to be challenging if you want 5 coach trains. You might need a weird Traverser to make use of the 6ft wall.   Bay needs lengthening and Sognal box moved

 

Real Minehead had double track approach for the last couple of miles so trains could "Stack" awaiting platforms.  Platforms were / are also very long 10 coach plus main one and the "Bay" must have been 8 at least

 

Lower plan looks fiddly and not much like anything prototypical that I have come across. The coal sidings would have to curve around inside the approach curve.

[DCB]

The upper plan looks do able,  By applying a quick rule of thumb I make it capable of taking 5 coach BR Mk1 trains in the main platform with 4ft beyond the pointwork allowing for a 3ft radius curve swinging around make a FY.   The FY is going to be challenging if you want 5 coach trains. You might need a weird Traverser to make use of the 6ft wall.   Bay needs lengthening and Sognal box moved

 

Real Minehead had double track approach for the last couple of miles so trains could "Stack" awaiting platforms.  Platforms were / are also very long 10 coach plus main one and the "Bay" must have been 8 at least

 

Lower plan looks fiddly and not much like anything prototypical

[davknigh]

Just a word of caution on the width. You can get a lot of railway into a 2' width and it allows you to have the layout higher up for general ease of operation. At 3' width you may find things are a bit hard to reach. FWIW my home layout has similar dimensions to yours and is 2' wide and 53" to the rail top from the floor.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[Seanem44]

I mapped out the bottom layout on anyrail. Thoughts and suggestions welcome!

[DCB]

I mapped out the bottom layout on anyrail. Thoughts and suggestions welcome!

track plan.JPG

Is that 6 feet wide Fiddle yard  6 feet from the wall or 6 feet extra added to the 3ft wide baseboard.   If it is only 6feet you don't have any room for a fiddle yard or traverser to take more than an engine and two coaches.

 

Try the drawing the plan again using Streamline points  Those set track points are for Thomas the Tank engine themed layouts on the kitchen table. I had to use them on my "Bed" layout and the really did look awfully toy like.

[Jeff Smith]

I am old fashioned and use a roll of lining paper and full sized prints from the Peco technical pages on the web site. You can then try your stock in place to check the look and clearances etc.

 

I would echo the width comments, two foot is wide enough unless the third foot at the back is just for scenic depth. Three foot might work for a curved layout where the approach curves out of the FY around near the back of the board and into the station area towards the front left corner. Curved plans are more interesting visually but a bit challenging with RTL points.

[Happy Hippo]

Looking at your latest plan, I'd suggest making the bay line that feeds the creamery siding quite a bit longer.

 

Down as far as the engine release crossover would appear to be about right.

 

Siding and the like are usually a lot longer than the train length they would appear to cater for.

[ejstubbs]

Lower plan looks fiddly and not much like anything prototypical

 

It's basically Ashburton, flipped over and with a couple of sidings added (and no loco shed on the loop spur).

 

Try the drawing the plan again using Streamline points  Those set track points are for Thomas the Tank engine themed layouts on the kitchen table.

 

Agree 100%.  If you're going to use flexi in the plan (which he has) then you're going to be cutting rails.  If you're going to be cutting rails at all then you might as well abandon the idea of plug-and-play geometry track (ie setrack).  There is more logic in using streamline points with setrak (which can be, and would need to be, cut) for straights and tight curves, than there is the other way round IMO.

 

Looking at your latest plan, I'd suggest making the bay line that feeds the creamery siding quite a bit longer.

 

This is the perennial issue that people bring up with Ashburton, and which was a problem even on the prototype - though exacerbated there because the road that fed the kick-back siding had the goods shed on it, which seriously reduced the effective length available for the loco to draw back in to.  I would also question why the creamery road is quite so long.  Is the creamery really massive (which would make the kick-back access even more of an issue), or just a fair distance from the station?  The latter would be less problematic, provided there is a valid scenic reason why it couldn't have been closer.  Even then, it would arguably be better to have it accessed from the goods loop via a diamond crossing, or even a single slip on the crossover at that end of the loop.

 

I'd agree with those saying that 3ft wide might be too much of a reach for stock at the rear of the layout.  By all means use it for scenery, but keep the moving stuff within easier reach in case of derailments etc.

 

To me it looks rather as if the track plan has expanded to occupy the baseboard real estate available - there seems to be a lot of empty space around in some parts eg around and between the two sidings lower left.  The UK wasn't like the USA: land wasn't cheap and plentiful, somebody owns and values most of it, especially around centres of habitation, hence why railway companies usually had to get an act of parliament passed to be able to buy the land they needed for the railway.  Yes, you need room to manoeuvre people and road vehicles in a goods yard but at the same time the railway company wouldn't expend capital purchasing empty space it didn't need.  Bottom line: I think in 14x3 you could rationalise and tighten up that track plan a bit, and allow more room for some creative and attractive scenic features.

 

I'd agree with David about the fiddle yard: it has to be long enough to take the longest train that you want to run in to the station.  And if you're going to have a fan of turnouts into the fiddle roads then that'll take up more length.  Even the Peco three-way point, which could be used to save space, takes up as much length as a coach.  Or you could use a traverser, provided you are happy to deal with the additional complexity that would introduce in baseboard construction (and don't forget that traversers trade length for width to a certain extent, so your exit to the fiddle yard would need to be that bit further from the end wall to allow all the fiddle roads to be accessed).

[Zomboid]

Also I'd consider putting the station on the curve, St Ives style, and having the straight space for the FY. Might not work, but playing Anyrail is almost as good as playing trains, and requires a lot less timber

[Seanem44]

Guys, thanks for the help so far.  I'm glad I threw these on here as a layout is not simply putting track on board. 

 

A few things:

 

I only used set track for ease of design.  I fully intend on using flextrack for the whole layout.  I also didn't realize I picked the wrong track library.  I just went with 100 peco for the most part and ran with it.  Really, this was to see at a 5000 foot level how things would look and if I was headed in the right direction.

 

The fiddle yeard will be on the right wall and I probably have more than 6 feet.  Probably closer to ten, but I guess I can always try to build a traverser instead.  That might be easier.

 

The creamery was made to be further away just to get some distance.  No other reason.  I can make it closer if need be.

 

I think it appears that the layout will obviously fit on a two foot wide board.  I only went with three to see if it was possible.  I like the idea of the line running through scenery, rather that scenery fit around the line.  This, on a layout this size is likely not possible.  I can shoehorn Vale into the constraints I have, so I think two feet wide, maybe 30" tops is more realistic for the space I have.  That being said, I will definitely condense the track plan, or at least tighten it.

 

Lastly...  is this even the better option of the two layouts?  Should I got for the one based on Minehead?  I just don't know.  Again, I think the Ashburtonesque style layout has been don't to death.  However, the scenery around it is much more "country" and Minehead would be a different feel altogether.  I'd be losing the creamery, but do I really need it? 

 

Anyhow, thanks again.

[Zomboid]

Who said a variant of Minehead couldn't have a creamery?

As for trains in the scenery, you have the space for a bit of that if you sacrifice train length. A limit of 3 coach trains would need less FY and less station, so you'd have room for a bit of running line. Shame you've gone GWR though (always a pity when someone makes that mistake), a 7P on a branch line train (tender first one brake composite) would be absolutely authentic if you were adding a twig to the Southern out west.

Personally I'm of the view that a 5 coach passenger train is no more fun to run than a 3 coach train, but not everyone will agree with that. More wagons means more shunting fun, but with British 4 wheel stock you'd still get a decent number into a train of that length.

[ejstubbs]

Guys, thanks for the help so far.  I'm glad I threw these on here as a layout is not simply putting track on board. 

 

Lastly...  is this even the better option of the two layouts?  Should I got for the one based on Minehead?  I just don't know.  Again, I think the Ashburtonesque style layout has been don't to death.  However, the scenery around it is much more "country" and Minehead would be a different feel altogether.  I'd be losing the creamery, but do I really need it?

 

I'd agree that Ashburton-eque end-to-ends might be something of a cliche.  A bit like Minories, but at least Minories offers a fair bit of operational interest whereas the archetypal West of England BLT offers little more than a sleeping cat a lot of the time <ducks for cover>.

 

Looking again at the "legend" you have created for each layout, I'm dubious about the reference to evacuation for the Ashburton-style layout.  Evacuation in the UK was mainly about moving vulnerable civilians - almost entirely children - from large cities which provided a combined target of industry, transport and administration, and thus were regarded as being obviously at risk of indiscriminate area bombing (what the British rather erroneously called "the Blitz").  Evacuation was also organised and carried out as a one-off process, albeit spread over a number of days - and repatriation (or whatever the term is when populations are returned to their homes in the same country) tended to happen in dribs and drabs.  A town of the size that would be served by a single track branch line and one-and-a-half platforms probably wouldn't have been evacuated in any organised way, nor would it have taken a great many evacuees - I doubt it would have warranted as much as a whole trainload.  Even "the boys" coming home would have arrived on normal service trains, albeit with military travel warrants, rather than the special trains that would have been laid on to take shiploads of men from ports to onward travel centres at the main transport hubs.

 

Of course if a large, new military barracks had been established adjacent to the town then that could justify running trains that stretch the capacity of the infrastructure.  Even then, though, if it was a regular requirement then that capacity probably would have been expanded somehow, if only by a wooden extension to the existing platform and an associated but minimal-cost adjustment of the track layout.  But then you could that same same excuse for Minehead - in fact, there is something akin to an army camp there even today   (It wasn't there during the war, BTW - I'm not sure that people got much in the way of holidays away during WWII: "Is your journey really necessary?" and all that jazz.)  Minehead is also by the sea, so you could perhaps fabricate a scenario including traffic relating to marine transport.  That rather depends on whether you want to model Minehead itself, or just use a track plan inspired by it.  If the former then be aware Minehead had fallen in to severe decline as a port by the 20th century - and in WWII part of the pier was actually demolished to clear the line of fire for the local coastal defence gun battery (according to Wiki).  However, you could always "bend" history a bit.  You might also need to "bend" geography a bit, since the station is basically at the other end of the town's seafront to the harbour...

 

(I've just noticed that Wiki also states that evacuees were billeted in Minehead during WWII.  So it definitely has the evacuation link, if you wanted to pursue that - though likely no more than a couple of trains I'd have thought, and again just a one-off exercise early on in the war.)

[Seanem44]

Who said a variant of Minehead couldn't have a creamery?

As for trains in the scenery, you have the space for a bit of that if you sacrifice train length. A limit of 3 coach trains would need less FY and less station, so you'd have room for a bit of running line. Shame you've gone GWR though (always a pity when someone makes that mistake), a 7P on a branch line train (tender first one brake composite) would be absolutely authentic if you were adding a twig to the Southern out west.

Personally I'm of the view that a 5 coach passenger train is no more fun to run than a 3 coach train, but not everyone will agree with that. More wagons means more shunting fun, but with British 4 wheel stock you'd still get a decent number into a train of that length.

So here is the interesting thing...  I have extensive stock of N Gauge ex LNER and ex LMS.  Really, all my engines sat in a display case and I never had the room for the layout I wanted.

 

It was just in October when we learned we were going to buy a new build with a basement.  At that point, for some reason, I got on a GWR kick (really it started with the Bachmann 64xx).  Having lived in England for three years as a kid in the 80s, my earliest memories are of Didcot, so there's that.

 

Then I said, why not do a GWR layout for my first "true" layout, and do it in OO.  Get the skills down, and then make a nice tail chasing N Gauge layout.  So that's where I am now, and why I'm there.  Odd how things work.

[Seanem44]

I'd agree that Ashburton-eque end-to-ends might be something of a cliche.  A bit like Minories, but at least Minories offers a fair bit of operational interest whereas the archetypal West of England BLT offers little more than a sleeping cat a lot of the time <ducks for cover>.

 

Looking again at the "legend" you have created for each layout, I'm dubious about the reference to evacuation for the Ashburton-style layout.  Evacuation in the UK was mainly about moving vulnerable civilians - almost entirely children - from large cities which provided a combined target of industry, transport and administration, and thus were regarded as being obviously at risk of indiscriminate area bombing (what the British rather erroneously called "the Blitz").  Evacuation was also organised and carried out as a one-off process, albeit spread over a number of days - and repatriation (or whatever the term is when populations are returned to their homes in the same country) tended to happen in dribs and drabs.  A town of the size that would be served by a single track branch line and one-and-a-half platforms probably wouldn't have been evacuated in any organised way, nor would it have taken a great many evacuees - I doubt it would have warranted as much as a whole trainload.  Even "the boys" coming home would have arrived on normal service trains, albeit with military travel warrants, rather than the special trains that would have been laid on to take shiploads of men from ports to onward travel centres at the main transport hubs.

 

Of course if a large, new military barracks had been established adjacent to the town then that could justify running trains that stretch the capacity of the infrastructure.  Even then, though, if it was a regular requirement then that capacity probably would have been expanded somehow, if only by a wooden extension to the existing platform and an associated but minimal-cost adjustment of the track layout.  But then you could that same same excuse for Minehead - in fact, there is something akin to an army camp there even today   (It wasn't there during the war, BTW - I'm not sure that people got much in the way of holidays away during WWII: "Is your journey really necessary?" and all that jazz.)  Minehead is also by the sea, so you could perhaps fabricate a scenario including traffic relating to marine transport.  That rather depends on whether you want to model Minehead itself, or just use a track plan inspired by it.  If the former then be aware Minehead had fallen in to severe decline as a port by the 20th century - and in WWII part of the pier was actually demolished to clear the line of fire for the local coastal defence gun battery (according to Wiki).  However, you could always "bend" history a bit.  You might also need to "bend" geography a bit, since the station is basically at the other end of the town's seafront to the harbour...

 

(I've just noticed that Wiki also states that evacuees were billeted in Minehead during WWII.  So it definitely has the evacuation link, if you wanted to pursue that - though likely no more than a couple of trains I'd have thought, and again just a one-off exercise early on in the war.)

Yeah, I think I would definitely take a fictional approach and a "based on" approach as well.  Minehead was fairly lengthy. 

 

I keep wavering back between the two layouts, but for some reason, I think the Minehead based one might be the more intriguing and might help avoid the "cliché".

 

Thank you for the history.  I have had a hard time finding any practices from WWII.  I know here in the U.S., most large military bases were rail served, and when the time came, troops jumped on board and were taken to ports.

 

All my WWII knowledge of railways in Britain comes from David Tomlinson waiting to catch a train in Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Nazis trying to cut telegraph lines, lol.

 

Interesting.... just found this.....

 

Along the coast, tanks arrived at Minehead Station and were driven along the seafront to the Armoured Fighting Vehicle ranges on North Hill. Local residents, Peter Batchelor and Dudley Parsons, recall the tank’s caterpillar tracks tearing up the roads and damaging iron railings as they passed (SRO A/BJS 3/13, SRO A/BJS 3/29). The remains of military roads still cross North Hill. The tanks simulated battle conditions by driving around three triangular firing ranges at Bossington Hill, Selworthy Beacon and North Hill, visible on aerial photographs, firing at targets which moved along target railways on their seaward side (Bossington Hill, Selworthy Beacon and East Myne). Any missed shots fell harmlessly out to sea or on dead ground, which had been specially prepared. Peter Batchelor described living near the range as like living in a war zone, but the noise of the tanks firing became part of everyday life (SRO A/BJS 3/13). The triangular tracks and targets still survive on North Hill, surrounded by the remains of small observation posts and machine gun emplacements.

 

http://www.exmoorher.co.uk/war-on-the-moor-military-training-on-exmoor

 

I think Ill do "minehead" to better fit the war theme and fit in some tanks!

[ejstubbs]

Good find!  Modelling a road torn up by tank tracks could be an interesting challenge - maybe even a first for RMWeb?

[Seanem44]

Good find!  Modelling a road torn up by tank tracks could be an interesting challenge - maybe even a first for RMWeb?

 

Or at the very least, it could make for a very cool cameo scene.  Perhaps a tanks crew that has stopped and is out looking at the damage they have just caused, or stopped by the local police, lol.

 

I think it definitely adds possibilities. 

[Jeff Smith]

I believe I am right in saying that wartime operational necessity sometimes had 'foreign' locos and rolling stock used, also for accuracy most locos should be black and dirty...... Loco weight restrictions would still have applied for wartime operation.

 

Going back to layout width, here is the end of my BLT with 18" board width. A long narrow layout can actually seem more spacious than a wider one!

 

[Seanem44]

I believe I am right in saying that wartime operational necessity sometimes had 'foreign' locos and rolling stock used, also for accuracy most locos should be black and dirty...... Loco weight restrictions would still have applied for wartime operation.

 

Going back to layout width, here is the end of my BLT with 18" board width. A long narrow layout can actually seem more spacious than a wider one!

 

 

I think the only locos left untouched by black were the express passenger trains on the GWR.  I believe I read that somewhere.  Also, I want to say I have seen plenty of photos from WWII of Southern rail engines on GWR lines.

 

Also, nice layout

 

Actually, GWR most definitely had S15s.

 

Locomotives loaned during World War II were given GWR power class letters, in order to avoid confusion with different systems used by the lending railway. For example, the Southern Railway (SR) also used letters, but with A representing the highest power; so when the SR loaned some S15 class 4-6-0s to the GWR, which were power class A on the SR, they were placed in power class D by the GWR;^[8][3] similarly, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway loaned some 2-8-0 locomotives of their power class 8F, which were given GWR power class E.^[3]