Edwardian Great Eastern in 10' * 18" (7mm/ft)

[Lacathedrale]

As something of a palate cleanser from some rather rough trials and tribulations in 2mm finescale, I find myself staring at some old 7mm wagons and a Connoisseur Models Y6 tram loco kit. I've always been a big fan of @mog 's Elston Rd (seen here on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHe7IfXHkOs ) which is why I ended up getting the Y6 a few years ago. Though I've met with varying levels of success I'm no stranger to etched kit building, hand laying track or giving up halfway on things - so with that positive view in mind, I thought it might be fun to design a layout that could potentially fit in my study (ironically while one of the smallest rooms in the house, it does have the longest uninterrupted wall space) and my workshop.  Thus,

 

Dimensions:

• Scenic length of 7' x 18"
• Fiddle yard of 3' - Sector-plate, cassette or traverser somewhat mandatory
  • FY length calculated on inglenook headshunt of Y6 plus three 17'6" headstock wagons plus a brake van, i.e. roughly 110' or approx 2'6"
  • If it goes well, would like to be able to support a GER Y14 / LNER J15 in the FY with the wagons, which gets it to the approx 3' max length

 

Scene:

• Twig-off-a-branch off the Wisbech and Upwell, or secondary termini in one of those locations
• Freight-focused, but I'll sneak in a 'Henrietta' tramway carriage

• Operationally while I would like to be able to operate prototypically, I'd be happy with a dolled up inglenook
• Secnically important to have verticality - road/rail/river, buildings of different heights/etc.

 

My initial idea was to follow Elston Rd pretty slavishly - initially with the visible sector plate - but I realised that extending the run off stage would not have much of a material impact and allow a larger scenic area. In the original, the running lines terminate approximately where the blue brake van is in the following diagram, with an overhanging sector plate:

 

In this particular idea, as you can see however - things are fairly congested, with very little room for the railway. Maybe a wharf front left and a road approximately at the brake van's location (wich an accompanying building to mask the exit scene right), but industries will be very close to being flat.  The plan operated prototypically would only have two destinations - front left and rear right - and as an inglenook would operate dropping the requisite number of wagons at the three points illustrated, using the traverser as a headshunt.

 

Something based on the Ricean ideal of using complicated track (which I really enjoy building!) implausibly, a layout built from a single slip and a three-way! This would be more interesting to build, but seems to be complicated just for the sake of it:

 

So I ask you, dear RMwebbers - how would you put together an East Anglian tramway branch stub in 7' of visible area? Answers on a postcard!

[mdvle]

On the perhaps (wrong) assumption that this isn't meant to be prototypically accurate, rather something "fun" for use when a more serious layout is causing too much stress, I would go with the second plan.

 

It gives you the trackwork to build that you enjoy, as well as being simple to operate to allow a quick session with no stress just to have fun.  Save the plausible stuff for the more serious layout.

[Lacathedrale]

Another muse, this time supplanting the single slip from the Ricean plan into the same schematic as Mog's Elston Rd, only the visible section shown:

 

 

It seems there's a bit of a quandary - my headshunt needs to be large enough to hold a Y14 (45') plus at least a couple of wagons (45') which means that realistically it can be no shorter than around two feet, and seeing as basically any pointwork sits between 18-24" - my left hand board can at most only contain the closure of the loop.

 

The solution appears to be to split that left siding from within the loop, like so (please excuse the hilarious pig's ear of a three-way - and the fact the diamond neatly straddles the board join - minor details!)

 

I imagine the middle of the backscene to be the rear of some houses or factories. This is definitely my favourite at the moment!

Edited September 29, 2019 by Lacathedrale

[Lacathedrale]

29 minutes ago, mdvle said:

On the perhaps (wrong) assumption that this isn't meant to be prototypically accurate, rather something "fun" for use when a more serious layout is causing too much stress, I would go with the second plan.

 

It gives you the trackwork to build that you enjoy, as well as being simple to operate to allow a quick session with no stress just to have fun.  Save the plausible stuff for the more serious layout.

 

If you can give me a prototypically accurate layout that'd fit in 7' x 18" I'd honestly love to hear it - given the choice I'd prefer to go prototypical, but I'm very much thinking of layouts like Chris Nevard, Iain Rice, etc. where it is a bit of implausible fun but taken seriously - if that makes sense?!

 

Quick sketch revision of the previous with a proper three-way and shifted so the board join is between the threeway and the diamond. The extra length on the left I think will help to disguise the end of the track - the track passing between a pair of buildings or something.

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Lacathedrale

[mdvle]

On 29/09/2019 at 13:37, Lacathedrale said:

 

If you can give me a prototypically accurate layout that'd fit in 7' x 18" I'd honestly love to hear it - given the choice I'd prefer to go prototypical, but I'm very much thinking of layouts like Chris Nevard, Iain Rice, etc. where it is a bit of implausible fun but taken seriously - if that makes sense?!

 

Make sense, yes.  Once one moves around to the concept of being protypically accurate it can be very difficult to accept that either space doesn't allow it, or that it gets in the way of having a layout that is "just for fun".

 

I think you have come up with a design that gets you your trackwork, fits your space, offers some operation possibilities, and while maybe implausible should just be a fun alternative to your more serious layout as you run trains in a "real" manner to service industries.

 

 

 

[Armchair Modeller]

Wantage would fit your 7ft length and only just be overwide - and it was a tramway terminus.

[mdvle]

27 minutes ago, Armchair Modeller said:

Wantage would fit your 7ft length and only just be overwide - and it was a tramway terminus.

 

Very interesting, something else to add to the list of ideas...

[Lacathedrale]

oh, very interesting - is this an accurate track plan?

 

 

Seems also to have been identified as Giles Barnabe as an interesting 'micro' :

 

Certainly it would have a very light railway feel - could potentially meet my requirements for interesting trackwork by having a three way tandem on the far left and a slip at bottom-middle.

[Armchair Modeller]

Yes that's it.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Armchair Modeller
added a bit

[F-UnitMad]

My 2p-worth... O Scale requires a slightly different mindset when it comes to planning compared to the smaller scales. "Less is More" is an oft-used phrase that people can be very sceptical of, but viewing O Scale at eye level is much more like being next to a real railway than OO or N, & using scale couplings will slow down shunting operations to a more realistic pace too. What can look like a 'boring' (or 'too simple') plan on paper might well be more rewarding to operate in O than the smaller scales. 

I wouldn't dismiss the Inglenook out of hand - if there are specific 'destinations*' for each wagon type, a few long sidings with several of these on each will create more shunting (a.k.a. Operating Potential) than a complicated track plan with room only for short, 1- or 2 -wagon capacity sidings. On shunting layouts the operating potential is dictated by the amount of different car spots* there are, not by how complex the pointwork is. There is no need for 'artificial' switching puzzles to maintain operating potential on a well designed, yet simple, shunting layout.

 

*destinations, or 'car spots' in USA terms - each type of wagon has a specific place to be shunted to in the yard - coal wagons to the coal staithes, vans to the shed, opens to the crane & so forth. Might be stating the obvious, but watching some layouts at Shows it seems to me that often this idea has been missed, & a goods train will just be dumped in the goods yard without further thought - if the goods yard is even used at all.!!