Help with Near Slough

[Tallpaul69]

I am planning a layout that depicts in 00 the Windsor branch junction on the WR main line out of Paddington

 

Attached are my sketches for the scenic areas and the plan of the area on which it is based.

 

Data and design criteria:-

 

00 gauge in a 12ft x 8ft room, door opening outward.

 

Set in 1961/2 but also able to operate with some compromises in more modern eras.

 

Baseboards to be at 5ft height to avoid crawling, but for single handed operation control/observation point is just inside the door, outside the main baseboards.

 

Train lengths : Express engine + 5 coaches except Cornish Rivera which to be 6 coaches.

Freight up to 20 wagons =brake.

Steam Local passenger:- 3 and 4 coaches

DMU Locals:- 3 car plus a couple of 3+2 car

y main interest is in operation, I intend to have the baseboards, track and electrics professionally constructed.

 

For modern eras the loco shed area will be covered by a representation of the current car park with the loco shed and coaling stage removable.

 

I want to be able to watch the trains go by while I shunt(or not) as the mood takes me.

 

I have carriage diagrams, WTTs, Locomotive diagrams, so that I can when I want, to run a reasonable representation of the period timetable

 

I have moved the triangle sides round leaving out the west side which was little used, and bent the Windsor branch round to be parallel to the main line!

 

I would welcome experienced layout planners and builders comments and suggestions.

 

Apologies that my sketches are reverse to the attached plans, my file manipulation skills are limited!

 

Many thanks in advance

Paul

[Nick Holliday]

Is there any particular reason why you have started another duplicate thread? Multiple posts tend to be counter-productive.

 

To be honest I am struggling to make any sense of your proposals, and the disjointed sketches are completely confusing, at least for me. May I suggest you prepare an overall plan, perhaps with a simplified track layout, so that anyone who can contribute won't have to untangle everything first. I'd also make sure that an accurate scale drawing is provided; at the moment I can't see that you have any chance of fitting all the track you've shown on the various bits of design into the space you have, and still have room for your five/six coach passenger trains and your twenty wagon freight trains, even if you can get the stock round the curves, if you are working in OO.

[Nick Holliday]

Just a bit of advice.  When drawing plans out by hand it is very easy to shorten the length required for pointwork.  In reality, for example, you will need at least 18 inches, if not two feet, for a decent crossover, unless you are using first radius Set-track points. 

It also seems that you have got up to twenty parallel tracks, if I have interpreted your sketch correctly.  Even at the closest spacings between tracks, that will require 2 feet of baseboard, and you've included buildings and other things as well.

The actual Slough triangle measured something like 500m between bridges on the main line, and 340m to the apex of the triangle, so, to scale, it would be 6m x 4m, or 20' x 13', without consideration of where trains run to after that, so you will need to find some way of compressing things, and only you will know what compromises you can put up with, and those factors that are absolutely essential.

[Tallpaul69]

Just a bit of advice.  When drawing plans out by hand it is very easy to shorten the length required for pointwork.  In reality, for example, you will need at least 18 inches, if not two feet, for a decent crossover, unless you are using first radius Set-track points. 

It also seems that you have got up to twenty parallel tracks, if I have interpreted your sketch correctly.  Even at the closest spacings between tracks, that will require 2 feet of baseboard, and you've included buildings and other things as well.

The actual Slough triangle measured something like 500m between bridges on the main line, and 340m to the apex of the triangle, so, to scale, it would be 6m x 4m, or 20' x 13', without consideration of where trains run to after that, so you will need to find some way of compressing things, and only you will know what compromises you can put up with, and those factors that are absolutely essential.

Thanks for your input Nick.

 

I have raised a similar thread to an earlier one, because as a newcomer to this site I concluded from the lack of response that the original thread was in the wrong section!

 

I already had doubts about space, particularly width, so I needed some input from those of greater experience. I had hoped that turning the Windsor branch to run parallel to the main line would give sufficient space.

The only other way I can see to reduce the width is to reduce the number of sidings between the mainline and the Windsor branch.  However this will mean reducing the number of real life activities I can portray.

 

I have therefore started to develop one of my other preliminary thoughts about modelling the station itself plus the carriage sidings and private sidings to the east of the station which will reduce the width.

However this does mean the engine shed has to go, which is a shame, but on the positive, the carriage shed and goods shed that I am struggling to find sufficient details about, are no longer a worry! Fortunately the station is still largely the same, so I can go look at that.

Also there is less change when considering running more modern trains.

 

When I have sketched out this latest idea I will post an update to this thread.

 

Best regards

Paul

[The Stationmaster]

Probably no bad idea to model the east end instead as by the early 1960s it was already partially simplified and didn't change much at all when MAS came along although it changed quite a bit, several times, in later years.

[Tallpaul69]

Thanks for your input Nick.

 

I have raised a similar thread to an earlier one, because as a newcomer to this site I concluded from the lack of response that the original thread was in the wrong section!

 

I already had doubts about space, particularly width, so I needed some input from those of greater experience. I had hoped that turning the Windsor branch to run parallel to the main line would give sufficient space.

The only other way I can see to reduce the width is to reduce the number of sidings between the mainline and the Windsor branch.  However this will mean reducing the number of real life activities I can portray.

 

I have therefore started to develop one of my other preliminary thoughts about modelling the station itself plus the carriage sidings and private sidings to the east of the station which will reduce the width.

However this does mean the engine shed has to go, which is a shame, but on the positive, the carriage shed and goods shed that I am struggling to find sufficient details about, are no longer a worry! Fortunately the station is still largely the same, so I can go look at that.

Also there is less change when considering running more modern trains.

 

When I have sketched out this latest idea I will post an update to this thread.

 

Best regards

Paul

 

 

As promised above attached is my first sketch for a model of the eastern end of Slough station and the carriage sidings etc.

 

The western end of the station is shortened and hidden behind buildings with the footbridge and the main north side building as a scenic break.

 

I have reversed Railway Terrace to improve the scenic break and allow display of road vehicles rather than hiding them behind the houses.

 

Comments please?

 

Many thanks

Paul

 

 

 

 

[imt]

You mean other than it won't fit?  If you cannot, or do not want to use a computer to do this you MUST get a pair of compasses and do this to scale.  If you are not intending to make your own points, crossovers on curves using ready made items with dictate much larger curve radii.  If you intend the visible curves on the left to be a minimum of 3 feet at the inside then as far as I can see you are likely to have platforms at best 5ft long in 00 gauge.  The curves under the non scenic area can be tighter, but if you want any speed of travel of through trains you cannot make them too tight.  The platforms being part hidden is a good trick and has been used to advantage many times - and gives you a chance to fool the eye.  Loco + 5 coaches might be feasible in those circumstances.  Regardless of what you say you DO need a fiddle yard or staging area.  There is nothing to shunt in this new layout plan???

[Nick Holliday]

You started off saying you were mainly interested in operation, yet as far as I can see, this latest design will have no more operational interest than a four track oval. It doesn't help that the room plan looks square, and not the 12' x 8' you have, making it hard for people to comment meaningfully.

Since you are proposing to have the layout built professionally you need to be happy that your design gives you what you really want. If you were building it yourself, you could play around with track, stock and buildings as you go along, to see what works, but once you commission it, it will be cast in stone, warts and all.

[The Stationmaster]

You mean other than it won't fit?  If you cannot, or do not want to use a computer to do this you MUST get a pair of compasses and do this to scale.  If you are not intending to make your own points, crossovers on curves using ready made items with dictate much larger curve radii.  If you intend the visible curves on the left to be a minimum of 3 feet at the inside then as far as I can see you are likely to have platforms at best 5ft long in 00 gauge.  The curves under the non scenic area can be tighter, but if you want any speed of travel of through trains you cannot make them too tight.  The platforms being part hidden is a good trick and has been used to advantage many times - and gives you a chance to fool the eye.  Loco + 5 coaches might be feasible in those circumstances.  Regardless of what you say you DO need a fiddle yard or staging area.  There is nothing to shunt in this new layout plan???

 

And it looks to me like far too much to squeeze into a space which is 12ft x 8ft and with quadruple track some of the curves are going to be very tight which will result in a need for wider track spacing.  Assuming your tightest curves are, say, 2ft 6" radius you're going to be well over 3ft radius for the outermost ones, in fact with half a dox zen lines you'll probably be over 4 ft radius.  So that reduces your available length for the station plus the curves at the other end to no more than 8ft.  Good idea to make the footbridge a scenic break but even then you are looking at a lot of compression and the other end simply won't be able to accommodate the Windsor bay you've sketched in.  Even if your tightest radius, on the Up Relief is 2 ft you are going to need at least 3 feet at that end, probably 3'6" which will leave you no more that 4ft 6" for the station.

 

What you really need to do, echoing IMT's advice above is accurately draw in your curves on a scale plan to see what room you've got left for the station.  And don't forget to allow for end throw of the longest vehicles on the curves when getting to your track spacing.  Most models are designed to go round 2nd radius curve and the radius of those is just over 17inches so if you are looking to squeeze things in you can't really go any tighter than that for your tightest curve. 

[Tallpaul69]

Thanks for the input guys. I had already thought the Winsor branch should go.

 

I need to explain my thinking:-

Operation to me is not just shunting. In fact I'd rather run an interesting (to me!)set of compressed mainline trains and have no shunting than shunt all day in a terminal to fiddle yard that is accurate in length with accurate length short trains but would only ever ran 3 trains each way and got closed by the Beeching cuts!

 

This is a once only build, I need something that will keep my interest going for hopefully 10 years, by which time age will be taking its toll.

I have too much invested in 00 stock bought when I had neither the space, time, or skill to build a layout to change to n gauge, and my eyesight would be against this as well!

 

 

Answering a few of the points:-

 

1) I will put the time into hours of drawing on paper or computer once I have a plan that stands a chance of giving me most of what I want operationally.

That is why I have left the fiddle yard out and not drawn everything to the last millimetre. If I had drawn the fiddle yard etc. on my first plan, that would have been wasted when I accepted what you said about space on that one!

 

2) The intention is that the mainlines will be a dog bone with the London end returns circle above the country end ones. each return will have dead ends in the centre accessible from both directions for the short DMUs.

 

3) The relief lines will be a figure of 8 with the main fiddle yard under Slough.

 

4) I hope to work in an additional loop and yard in front of the descending/ascending relief lines to accurately work the two pilot that ran east from Slough and returned via the UP relief (see GWJ 28 and 31)and two DMUs to represent the London trains in and out of the up bay. I will have to decide between this feature and some loops on the return.

 

In line with the comments above, you may well say that the above just won't fit, so here is a challenge:-

 

Please suggest ideas for a WR main line 00 model based on a real location in the space I have?

 

I would love to see shots of your completed layouts?

 

I have looked at the operation of a lot of locations, and the only two track station that has any appeal at all is Newbury.

 

Many thanks

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

In view of the deafening silence following my last post I am continuing to develop Slough East.

 

So I have made the following changes:-

1) Removed the Windsor branch platform but left in a short siding to hold the occasional tank engine or parcels van. Realigned the Railway Terrace and William Street railway bridge.

2) Shortened the platforms. Reduced the platforms beyond the footbridge.

3) This allows the joint of the bay platform to the up relief line to be moved nearer the station.

4) Included the down to up relief crossover to get terminating DMUs to the bay.

5) Added GD Peters private sidings

6) Added a loop from the up relief short of the platform start right round with some sidings to join the GD Peters sidings. This will allow realistic operation of the Iver Pilot and Gasworks Pilot with empty and full coal wagons being exchanged and making a hidden return!

7) Sketched in the access to and from the lower level sidings for the Relief lines.

 

Those of you who told me I didn't have sufficient space will be pleased that I have yet to solve the problem of the Main line dog bone!

 

But I am really warming to this layout!!

 

Latest sketch below, sorry it is upside down!!

 

Cheers

Paul

[TonyMay]

In the space available, double track is always going to be more space-effective than quadruple track - not only for on-scene design features (e.g. station) but also for a more effective, better organised fiddle yard.

[The Stationmaster]

In the space available, double track is always going to be more space-effective than quadruple track - not only for on-scene design features (e.g. station) but also for a more effective, better organised fiddle yard.

 

Very much so.  It really depends on the extent to which you are prepared, or not prepared, to accept the visual and operational impact of tight track curvature.  And it is always best to try to remember just how much space curves will consume when trying to fit a layout plan into a given space - just look at the space curves at each end take in the Upton Hanbury plan in another current layout thread.

 

What I'm planning (double track, basically North & West Line, has to fit into 16feet length so if I use 3ft radius curves the centre bit of space for the station area and any sidings is immediately reduced to 10feet - and 3 ft radius can still look a bit tight with full length coaching stock.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Just happened upon this rather lovely photo of the junction at Slough. 1883 so rather before your timeframe  but interesting as it shows mixed-gauge on the fast lines but only narrow gauge on the relief. https://historicengland.org.uk/services-skills/education/educational-images/great-western-railway-slough-berkshire-4272

[Joseph_Pestell]

Back to the layout plan....

 

Return loops (dogbone) would be a great idea but also take up massive amounts of space even with R2 curves. May just be possible within your 12' x 8' but I rather doubt it. And to fit them in around the "figure of eight" relief lines is:

- making for some massively complicated baseboards;

- tough gradients;

- an awful lot of hidden trackwork by comparison with the scenic bit.

 

None of us here want to seem negative but 12' x 8' is a very limited space in 4mm scale to model any mail line, let alone 4 track.

[Tallpaul69]

Just happened upon this rather lovely photo of the junction at Slough. 1883 so rather before your timeframe  but interesting as it shows mixed-gauge on the fast lines but only narrow gauge on the relief. https://historicengland.org.uk/services-skills/education/educational-images/great-western-railway-slough-berkshire-4272

A nice photo!

This looks like the Slough West junction and I guess the lack of Broad Gauge on the relief lines is that by the time they were put in broad gauge was not seen as the future of the line!

 

Cheers

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

Back to the layout plan....

 

Return loops (dogbone) would be a great idea but also take up massive amounts of space even with R2 curves. May just be possible within your 12' x 8' but I rather doubt it. And to fit them in around the "figure of eight" relief lines is:

- making for some massively complicated baseboards;

- tough gradients;

- an awful lot of hidden trackwork by comparison with the scenic bit.

 

None of us here want to seem negative but 12' x 8' is a very limited space in 4mm scale to model any mail line, let alone 4 track.

Thanks for the input.

 

Have already concluded that the dog bone will have to go! Unfortunately 12ftx8ft is all I have, and yes there are a number of compromises but branch lines are not for me without running an unrealistic "tube train" density of traffic, and the same short train whizzing backwards and forwards!

 

Currently toying with 4 track through the station reducing to two track at both ends in hidden areas to then go down to the hidden sidings under the station. I might expand the "pilot" sidings at the front for the DMUs and local passenger/parcels workings and move the up/down gradients to the hidden sidings back near the window. This would compensate for the named expresses having to be duplicated for up/down unlike on a dog bone and might ease the curve radiuses that everyone is worrying about.

 

I am not intending to make the baseboards myself, I know my limitations in any woodwork, so someone with skills and experience should be able to cope, granted that the cost may increase.

 

Gradients are a concern for the figure of 8, but with modern motors and 5 modern coaches I think they should work. Again I intend to contract out the track laying.

 

My long term interest is in the operation (but not endless shunting!), not the construction. Thus I have to have something that will retain my interest long term. I know many modellers build a new layout every couple of years and if construction is their interest then fair enough! . That path is not for me!

For instance I expect it to take me a couple of years to get the timetable right, starting from actual WTTs, Locomotive diagrams and Coach diagrams. I have had to do some work in this direction to design the layout.

This included deciding to work separate morning and afternoon/evening timetables to reduce the number of named trains needing to be on the layout at any time.

 

I hope this explains my thinking?

 

Best regards

Paul

[Harlequin]

Gradients are very difficult in the sort of area you are talking about. I won't say impossible but they need very clever design to ensure they are not too steep and yet still give the clearance needed. (Mr Crewlisle will certainly have some thoughts about this layout.)

 

Remember that clearance must take into account the baseboard thickness, rail and underlay depth, rolling stock height, the baseboard support frame depth (usually) and some margin for error. Even small dimensions like the rail and underlay depth play significant parts in grade design because they are multiplied by the gradient to give the extra length you need to clear them.

 

A 100mm descent at 1:35 (steep) needs 3.5 metres of horizontal run... (And that's ignoring transitions between level and grade at either end.)

 

If you can work out a gradient meeting those parameters the next question is, how do you reach the rolling stock and trackwork on the lower level to fix derailments, clean the track, mend broken wires, etc. ?

Edited November 12, 2018 by Harlequin

['CHARD]

Have we had several of these proposed multi-level, GW main line compressed dog-bone tail-chasers and folded figures-of-eight for comment recently, or is it my imagination?  

[mdvle]

1) I will put the time into hours of drawing on paper or computer once I have a plan that stands a chance of giving me most of what I want operationally.

Except that isn't how this hobby works.

 

You cannot "have a plan that stands a chance" without doing the basics, which means generating an accurate measurement of the room, committing it to paper or computer at scale, and drawing to scale.  Unless you are extremely lucky any non-scale drawing is unlikely to be able to translate into a real world workable solution.

 

You claim the room is 8 x 10, but I would be surprised if the room was exactly that and either gaining a couple of extra inches, or losing some can make a big difference in what is possible.

 

That is why I have left the fiddle yard out and not drawn everything to the last millimetre. If I had drawn the fiddle yard etc. on my first plan, that would have been wasted when I accepted what you said about space on that one!

But, if you had been following the advice and drawn everything to the last millimetre you would have realized much sooner (in fact only partially into the drawing) that what you were attempting would not fit.

 

This in turn means that you waste less time as you don't continue wasting time with plans that aren't feasible.

 

2) The intention is that the mainlines will be a dog bone with the London end returns circle above the country end ones. each return will have dead ends in the centre accessible from both directions for the short DMUs.

 

3) The relief lines will be a figure of 8 with the main fiddle yard under Slough.

 

4) I hope to work in an additional loop and yard in front of the descending/ascending relief lines to accurately work the two pilot that ran east from Slough and returned via the UP relief (see GWJ 28 and 31)and two DMUs to represent the London trains in and out of the up bay. I will have to decide between this feature and some loops on the return.

This is very likely far too much track for the space you have available given your desire for through running.  As others have said, the curves kill.

 

In line with the comments above, you may well say that the above just won't fit, so here is a challenge:-

 

Please suggest ideas for a WR main line 00 model based on a real location in the space I have?

 

I would love to see shots of your completed layouts?

 

I have looked at the operation of a lot of locations, and the only two track station that has any appeal at all is Newbury.

 

 

Not my layout, but I would suggest a look at "A nod to Brent" which is in about a 8x14 space apparently - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/69664-a-nod-to-brent-fun-friendly-frivolity-and-happy-days-in-the-south-hams-1947/

 

It gives a 2 track mainline, a branch line, and most importantly acknowledges that it is influenced by the real Brent instead of being accurate, a necessary compromise given the space limitations.

 

If you haven't, I would also suggest a quick glance at another layout design topic, Upton Hanbury - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/139075-upton-hanbury-gwr-mainline-fantasy/, just to see how much space a layout can need in order to do things.  That is a layout that is 33' or so long, and even just cutting it down to the station would still need a space of around 18'.  Now allowing for shorter trains you may be able to get something along this design down to 12' by shortening the trains, platforms, and going for sharper curves.

[The Stationmaster]

Just happened upon this rather lovely photo of the junction at Slough. 1883 so rather before your timeframe  but interesting as it shows mixed-gauge on the fast lines but only narrow gauge on the relief. https://historicengland.org.uk/services-skills/education/educational-images/great-western-railway-slough-berkshire-4272

 

Reasonably dateable too as the Windsor Branch and Slough West Curve (aka Bath Road Curve) was converted to narrow gauge in June 1883, by which date the GWR had nine times more narrow gauge track mileage than it had broad gauge track mileage.  

 

At the beginning of 1876 the GWR had only one small remaining stretch of purely broad gauge railway - the branch line from Twyford to Henley, and that was converted to narrow gauge in March of that year.  So it's hardly surprising that the new pair of additional lines gradually extending westwards from the London area were built to the narrow gauge.  They had reached Slough in June 1879 and had got to the east end of Maidenhead Bridge by September 1884.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Reasonably dateable too as the Windsor Branch and Slough West Curve (aka Bath Road Curve) was converted to narrow gauge in June 1883, by which date the GWR had nine times more narrow gauge track mileage than it had broad gauge track mileage.  

 

At the beginning of 1876 the GWR had only one small remaining stretch of purely broad gauge railway - the branch line from Twyford to Henley, and that was converted to narrow gauge in March of that year.  So it's hardly surprising that the new pair of additional lines gradually extending westwards from the London area were built to the narrow gauge.  They had reached Slough in June 1879 and had got to the east end of Maidenhead Bridge by September 1884.

 

An interesting comment as it puts into perspective the oft-repeated claim that the GW mainline was all converted over a weekend.

[Joseph_Pestell]

One of the cleverest layouts here on RMWeb is Guide Dog Bridge which, if I remember correctly is 10' x 7' - not a whole lot smaller than your 12' x 8'.

 

Starting from that as an example, one can see that it is just about possible to put a 4-track mainline in 12' x 8' but it is going to be very minimalist - no space for a station, return loops etc.

[The Stationmaster]

An interesting comment as it puts into perspective the oft-repeated claim that the GW mainline was all converted over a weekend.

 

As ever with such things what actually happened is conflated to come over as something else entirely.  The 1892 gauge conversion in the West Country removed the final 171 miles of purely broad gauge track mileage all of which the GWR had acquired through amalgamations in 1876/77.  In fact the largest abolition of broad gauge, although it occurred over various days through the month of May was in 1872 when almost 270 miles of broad gauge were abolished beyond Swindon towards and throughout South Wales (that figure includes the c.25 miles between Didcot and Swindon were converted to mixed gauge as part of that change).

 

Back to this layout and I suggest the OP takes a good look at Crewlisle which really does cram an awful lot into a multi level layout but looks extremely convincing.

[Tallpaul69]

One of the cleverest layouts here on RMWeb is Guide Dog Bridge which, if I remember correctly is 10' x 7' - not a whole lot smaller than your 12' x 8'.

 

Starting from that as an example, one can see that it is just about possible to put a 4-track mainline in 12' x 8' but it is going to be very minimalist - no space for a station, return loops etc.

Thanks, but how do I find the Guide Dog Bridge thread?

 

Thanks for other suggestions on layouts to look at, but despite several trawls of RMWeb I have yet to find anything better that my plan. Remember it is Near Slough, not attempting an exact copy.

 

I was confused by the thread on "a nod to Brent" where there appeared to be no scale plan prior to the build?

You all keep telling me I must draw the room to the last millimetre before I do anything, followed by exact scale of every piece of track otherwise I will have a disaster??

 

Crewlise is good, and going for a terminus solves some problems but just doesn't fit with the sort of timetables I am wanting to use. There are few GW terminuses that run off of main lines (Cheltenham St. James is one). Even ignoring this problem,the Cornish Riveria has to run into Paddington. Even I would not attempt to portray 15 platforms in 5!

 

Also having looked again at Upton Hanbury I just don't think a 33ft layout can be cut down to 12ft!!

 

I like Newbury, but even if I took the 1/2 a station approach there, it is too long. I would only have the west end with the bays, or the east end which would be too wide if a reasonable yard is included, and without the yard the local freights are a difficulty!

 

So I will continue and will try a version of my Near Slough, (perhaps Nearly Slough?) where the relief lines meet the main lines off scene, the descent/ascent to lower level is at the rear and starts earlier, with some sidings for the local trains in front. Thus the only 4 track will be through the station.

 

Then I will measure the incline lengths,calculate the slopes and see what is needed to change.

 

It will be a while before you see this as I will be doing this to exact scale with 3ft minimum curves in the visible area, and 30ins elsewhere except in sidings that will not see bogie stock. (the room has already been measured accurately over a year ago!)

 

Best regards

Paul