Suggestions for developing a small terminus layout in N

[jonhinds]

Hi, newish here (and to modelling in general).

 

After some hemming I’ve finally decided to model a real location in N gauge. In time-honoured tradition, I’m going for Oxenhope Station as currently preserved on the Keighley & Worth Valley. The aim is to fit everything (apart from the fiddle yard) on a 5’ x 15” baseboard. I’ve attached a mockup of the layout as planned.

 

I’ll be using Peco 55 track and running the layout on DCC. The aim is to allow storage of at least two rakes of Mk.1 coaches, along with some shunting operations and the use of a run-round loop. There’ll also be a siding with a static Mk. 1 used as a buffet restaurant (red). The trains entering from the FY will include tender locos (the longest probably being a WD Austerity 2-8-0) hauling up to 4 Mk. 1’s, or a combination of Mk. 1’s and 57’ suburbans. Is this realistic in the space allotted? I could probably sneak in an inch or two either way if that makes it possible to accommodate everything.
 

It also occurs to me that the FY will need to be long enough to accommodate a loco + 4 Mk.1s. It looks like a traverser might be my best option as I want to be able to run several trains in and out at any time. Thoughts?

 

Thanks in advance folks.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm surprised this has raised no comment (if only to suggest that you do something completely different).

 

It looks good to me, but I would consider viewing from the platform side, as the collection of sheds will otherwise tend to hide the trains.  It needs a measured plan of course, whether you do that to scale or full size, to check that your estimated lengths are correct.

[jonhinds]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

I'm surprised this has raised no comment (if only to suggest that you do something completely different).

 

It looks good to me, but I would consider viewing from the platform side, as the collection of sheds will otherwise tend to hide the trains.  It needs a measured plan of course, whether you do that to scale or full size, to check that your estimated lengths are correct.

 

Thanks!

 

I posted this on the N Gauge Forum after not getting any initial response here (these things happen). Based on suggestions there I modified the layout, which includes your suggested rotation along with other alterations including slightly bigger board(s). I also made the run-round loop as long as possible.

I’ll get some Peco turnout templates printed out to check everything is feasible (no access to a PC so I can’t model it using software).

[Flying Pig]

32 minutes ago, jonhinds said:

 I also made the run-round loop as long as possible.

 

I'd noticed that as well, but didn't want to nag too much That said, you may want to experiment with the shed lengths to get a visually pleasing balance between covered and exposed track, which I think would have to be done full size.

 

I presume you've seen TomE's lovely Ropley in N?

[jonhinds]

Wow, I hadn’t seen Ropley! It’s incredible what skilled modellers can do in 2mm. Currently working my way through the layout thread and taking copious notes.

[Harlequin]

I thought the same about viewing side but the problem is it moves the entrance track closer to the back (wall?) and restricts the movement of the traverser,

 

You could maybe remove the centre shed to open up the layout.

 

Remember that when rolling stock or locos are in a shed it's almost as if they don't exist...

 

[jonhinds]

56 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I thought the same about viewing side but the problem is it moves the entrance track closer to the back (wall?) and restricts the movement of the traverser,

 

You could maybe remove the centre shed to open up the layout.

 

Remember that when rolling stock or locos are in a shed it's almost as if they don't exist...

 

Good point about the traverser, and yes there will be a wall behind. I could perhaps change the angle of the layout relative to the board so that the entrance track is tilted much further forward.

 

I’m interested in giving the layout a real flavour of the prototype, but I take your point about the sheds as well. Will have a ponder.

[DCB]

You could re jig it to have the viewing from the front and put the entry nearer the front and then flip it to get the FY the right end.  Loco and carriage sheds are a bit of a waste of space as you can't see what is in them, might as well leave the stock in a box under the layout as put it in a shed.  I have to lift one end of my loco shed to see what is in there, or turn off the room lights and turn on the loco shed lights and squint through the window. I seem to remember the Bodmin and Wenford only having platforms long enough for 5 coach trains, and running 4 coach trains in the off peak season so 4 is not unrealistic for a preservation scenario. .

 

Edited April 26, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[Harlequin]

The model has to work as a model - and if that clashes with reality you have to tweak things a bit. That's partly why so many model railways are of fictional places rather than real places. 

 

I'm sure you can create a scene that has the spirit of Oxenhope but in a parallel universe where things are slightly different.

 

Here's Oxenhope in 1934 (very wiggly!):

 

The large sheds seem to be a recent addition - to protect visitors and exhibits from the rain, I guess. If there was less rain in your universe there would be less need for sheds...

 

BTW: Notice the trap where the non-passenger lines join the main line. That's still present today on Google Maps aerial imagery and it's important for a correct representation of the station.

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Harlequin

[TonyMay]

The sheds are modern carriage sheds that were erected in the old goods yard.

 

Typically the K&WVR operates 6 coach trains.  But it only really needs to run two rakes; the crossing point at Damems is nearer to Keighley than it is to Oxenhope; the loop at Haworth cannot be used for crossing trains, and Oxenhope  itself is not fully signalled.  The ground frame at Oxenhope is unlocked by the Damems-Oxenhope token.  Though locos can be locked into the carriage sidings.  That means there can only be 1 train south of Damems at one time; that train must travel all the way from Damems to Oxenhope, run round at Oxenhope before running all the way back to Damems again to pass the one coming the other way.  Keighley is signalled, and has the capacity to hold 2 passenger trains, so they can also run with 3 if they want to, but only 2 can be moving at any one time.

 

Anyway, in terms of operating potential, a fully working goods yard is going to be much better than carriage sidings.  So an LMS or BR era station would be have more operating potential, I think.

Edited April 26, 2020 by TonyMay

[jonhinds]

Thanks folks! It seems I need to be a bit more flexible in my approach. That said, having the ‘heritage railway’ aspect to the layout is a must-have, as it gives me a good pretext to run the diverse range of steam and diesel stock from different eras represented on the present-day K&WVR (with the occasional ‘visiting’ loco), as well as making it more straightforward to gather reference for detailed scratch building. Plus I just like the idea of modelling a place as it appears now. I’m not too fussed about operations; a bit of shunting here and there will suffice.

 

I’ll have a think about modifying the layout to either reduce or eliminate most of the sheds, and adding in the trap point.

[jonhinds]

Here’s the second layout revision based on @DavidCBroad and @Harlequin‘s suggestions. I’ve kept the modern sheds but the large storage shed at the back of the layout has been halved in length, so that it leads directly into two open sidings at back. The ‘exhibition shed’ at top right has been shifted to a dummy entrance in the far corner. I think this is a decent compromise between my desire to model the prototype and a bit of visual / operational interest. 

 

Pretty certain the longer run-around now has enough clearance for four Mk.1’s. Nothing’s measured out yet but I’ve done a few guesstimates.

 

I’m relatively new to the concept of trap points, but my understanding is that they’re designed to derail runaway rolling stock from the sidings before they reach the main line? I’ve put the trap location in red, as I wasn’t 100% sure of its ‘prototypical’ positioning.

[Flying Pig]

You've got a couple of three-way points that you won't exactly match with the code 55 tandem.  I really think you need to mock this layout up fulk size with point templates, rolling stock and mockup buildings constructed quickly from card or paper, to get a feel of how things will look before you set your ideas in stone.

 

You've got about the right location for the trap.  Unfortunately the most common type, illustrated in micknich2003's post below, isn't available in any rtr track system I know of.  

 

 

[Harlequin]

5 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

You've got a couple of three-way points that you won't exactly match with the code 55 tandem.  I really think you need to mock this layout up fulk size with point templates, rolling stock and mockup buildings constructed quickly from card or paper, to get a feel of how things will look before you set your ideas in stone.

 

You've got about the right location for the trap.  Unfortunately the most common type, illustrated in micknich2003's post below, isn't available in any rtr track system I know of.  

 

 

The trap at Oxenhope is actually a normal turnout leading to a stub siding so should be easy to model.

If it was OO I’d be thinking about a double slip at that location to save space but I don’t know about N.

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Harlequin

[Joseph_Pestell]

A trap point with two blades is easily modelled by taking a secondhand turnout (or new if you are feeling extravagant) and cutting it in half.

[TonyMay]

I'm pretty sure the sheds were a fairly recent addition, probably lottery-funded, before which the coaches were left overnight in the same sidings open.

[jonhinds]

Right, I’ve done the sensible thing and mocked up the layout with Peco turnout templates and bits of copier paper. I’ve scaled back the sheds to one modern shed (much less than half actual size) and the original trackside goods shed. Looks like I can comfortably fit the four Mk. 1’s in the run-round loop too. This isn’t the signed-off version, but it’s getting close.

 

Thanks for everyone’s invaluable help so far, including the information about current operations on the line. Ironically I haven’t actually been to Oxenhope yet, as it was on my bucket list just before you-know-what struck.

[TonyMay]

If you're goign to run 4 coach trains, can the shed hold a full 4 coach rake?

[jonhinds]

2 minutes ago, TonyMay said:

If you're goign to run 4 coach trains, can the shed hold a full 4 coach rake?

It can hold two on each parallel line, or I could extend the shed length (but then it’ll start to dominate the layout again).

 

I’m still in two minds whether to keep it, given that it’s such a recent addition to the real line.

[TonyMay]

yeah because what's going to happen in operation is that in the morning a loco will arrive light engine from Haworth, unlock the frame, collect a rake of four (should be 6) coaches from the shed, withdraw that rake from the shed and propel it into the platform to form the 1st service and retrieve the token from the frame.  45 minutes or so later the 2nd one will do the same.

 

The train will appear a few times during the day, when the loco will run round.

 

At the end of service the opposite will happen

 

The whole point of the carriage sidings is to hold full length rakes that don't need to be remarshalled every day.  Occasionally coaches are swapped in or out due to needing maintenance, say for a wheelflat or other issue.  But generally the rakes are fixed.

[Zomboid]

Will that pattern of operation keep you interested? Personally it would hold my attention for about 2 minutes - but if you're someone who derives enjoyment from building the layout or rolling stock rather then untangling complex shunting conundrums then that's fine.

 

If you're someone who likes to operate above everything else you'll probably find it rather unsatisfactory - oxenhope before preservation would probably be a better bet in that case.

[jonhinds]

58 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Will that pattern of operation keep you interested? Personally it would hold my attention for about 2 minutes - but if you're someone who derives enjoyment from building the layout or rolling stock rather then untangling complex shunting conundrums then that's fine.

 

If you're someone who likes to operate above everything else you'll probably find it rather unsatisfactory - oxenhope before preservation would probably be a better bet in that case.

My primary interest is in modelling a real location with some degree of accuracy. I really like K&WVR in its current form and its wide range of heritage steam, diesel and rolling stock from different eras.

 

That said, I do agree that I’m seeing myself up for some fairly dull and repetitive operations If I keep to the plan as-is.

 

I’ve started looking into shunting puzzles and wonder if there’s something in that? Not an accurate representation of station operations per se, but putting together an X car rake in a particular order, etc. The K&WVR also runs demonstration goods trains I believe.

Something along these lines: http://www.philobiblon.com/eisenbahn/puzzle_article.shtml

 

That way the layout could pull double duty between its prototypical op’s and something a bit more fun / involved.

[Zomboid]

If you want to build a real location to a reasonably accurate degree, then a shunting puzzle isn't going to do the job either - real railways would make things as simple as possible.

 

There probably are better real locations out there for a 5' long layout in N if you want interesting operations. But if what you want to model most is the KWVR then you've not got so many choices.

 

I don't know if I'm really helping much, you've got to build what you want to build, and whatever you choose will have compromises of one sort or another.

[Harlequin]

You can stick with Oxenhope as a heritage scene and operate it any way you like!

 

The heritage aspect surely gives you some leeway not to stick to strict railway procedures if you need some excuse. If you want to run a shunting puzzle in the yard while there are other operations going on elsewhere that's absolutely fine - on your railway every day could be a Gala day...

 

P.S. If it were mine, I would set it in the 30s so that I could have those really serpentine sidings and I'd desperately try to get the water mill and the stream in somehow. But that reflects my preferences. You do whatever makes you happiest!

 

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by Harlequin

[woodenhead]

Lets face it, most branch line services are going to be limited in operational interest - If we went truly to prototype there would likely be a single train trundling back a forth a couple of times a day.

 

That's why people add in extra goods sidings /  businesses / larger engine sheds than needed and then imagine stuff off scene as an excuse for it.

 

At least with a preserved line prototype you have a level of service intensity that the same branch would not have received in BR days and you can chop and change your motive power throughout the running session.

 

I was planning on an Oxenhope style terminus on my current build but for the time being I am developing that area as the fiddleyard until i can extend the railway.

 

Operationally a Grosmont style station offers more variety as the services from Whitby will sometimes change traction at the station during more intensive service running and there can be several trains in play throughout the day plus the open storage beside the Whitby line.  But that requires through running which the OP hasn't got here.