The Spare Bedroom Layout

[Lacathedrale]

Another interesting 'Spare Bedroom'-sized terminus is Bromley North, this (cropped) 1921 photo shows the full extent of the trackwork, less a private stone yard off to the extreme RHS:

 

 

What is at the end of the platforms? This rather fetching 45' turntable in another (cropped) photo from an earlier period, much grander than that at nearby Addiscombe.

 

\

 

The station had only two platforms, and they were distinct arrivals and departures. @t-b-g has highlighted the operational interest this quirk adds on a slightly more complex layout, and I think this station while visually interesting is very streamlined. Maybe because it is both double tracked AND quite simple?

 

Trains always arrive on P2, they are always runaround via the turntable and shunted into P1, and they always depart from there. Non-required carriages are shoved across the single slip behind P2, and horseboxes/trucks are always shoved into the dock behidn P1.  With no dedicated headshunt, freight operations would come to a halt during passenger operations.

 

As inspiration though, it's wonderful!

 

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Another interesting 'Spare Bedroom'-sized terminus is Bromley North, this (cropped) 1921 photo shows the full extent of the trackwork, less a private stone yard off to the extreme RHS:

 

 

What is at the end of the platforms? This rather fetching 45' turntable in another (cropped) photo from an earlier period, much grander than that at nearby Addiscombe.

 

\

 

The station had only two platforms, and they were distinct arrivals and departures. @t-b-g has highlighted the operational interest this quirk adds on a slightly more complex layout, and I think this station while visually interesting is very streamlined. Maybe because it is both double tracked AND quite simple?

 

Trains always arrive on P2, they are always runaround via the turntable and shunted into P1, and they always depart from there. Non-required carriages are shoved across the single slip behind P2, and horseboxes/trucks are always shoved into the dock behidn P1.  With no dedicated headshunt, freight operations would come to a halt during passenger operations.

 

As inspiration though, it's wonderful!

 

 

That is a cracker of a station throat. If you cut the goods yard down a bit, to only two sidings, the whole throat is two points long.

 

It would also work if you took the turntable out and just ended the tracks with buffers, with a pilot shunting the stock. The pilot could wait for duty either in the goods yard or on the centre road and doesn't really need a dedicated loco spur. With the turntable, it really cuts down the length required for run round crossovers and allows a good amount of either scenic space or longer trains for the same operational capacity.

 

It is very similar, maybe identical, to some of my random doodles produced during layout planning. I did several designs like that with a Moor Street style traverser rather than a timetable.

[Lacathedrale]

I managed to re-make the Buckingham II station in Templot and this time, saved it. I have annotated it for clarity.

 

 

Here's the same layout with some tweaks I've considered (forgive the lack of bounding boxes!)

 

 

Changes:

• The headshunts have been shortened more aggressively, the platform length happily still in excess of my 4' minimum train length. This has permitted the routing of Station Approach around the end of the layout to form a visual end-cap with the buildings opposite.
• The Engine Shed has moved to the back of the layout in place of the original warehouse siding, since it will require no fiddling to shunt and couple.
• The other two sidings are general purpose with room for lots of coal staithes (a feature of Caterham, Bromley North and Hawkhurst, all of whom provide constant inspiration to me)
• The foreground mill is replaced with a Gasworks. In theory this could also be further down the line as at Whyteleaf on the Caterham branch, and would preclude the need for the double slip shown. It could be replaced with a sawmill (Hawkhurst), or a stone yard (Bromley North) easily.

If you're wondering why I'm still planning instead of building the SECR Minories - I'm still waiting on baseboards and in the meantime have found a fondness for building wagons!

[Zomboid]

4 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

If you're wondering why I'm still planning instead of building the SECR Minories - I'm still waiting on baseboards and in the meantime have found a fondness for building wagons!

It's because you're an incorrigible layout planner.

 

Like me; I find that the infinite possibilities of what could go into a space are much more exciting than actually filling the space...

[Lacathedrale]

@t-b-g your amendments do result in a very compact station:

 

 

I think the turntable with the converging entries is so 'pre-grouping' though, that it deserves inclusion. It's strange, because this station also has two platforms, a decently sized goods yard, a turntable and a double track throat - but seems 'smaller' than Buckingham Mk. II. Maybe because it is quite obviously of suburban heritage?

[t-b-g]

15 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

@t-b-g your amendments do result in a very compact station:

 

 

I think the turntable with the converging entries is so 'pre-grouping' though, that it deserves inclusion. It's strange, because this station also has two platforms, a decently sized goods yard, a turntable and a double track throat - but seems 'smaller' than Buckingham Mk. II. Maybe because it is quite obviously of suburban heritage?

 

Not quite what I had in mind as you have three points length at the bottom of the plan. I was thinking one siding at the bottom, as a carriage siding and put a point in the top siding to make the goods yard two roads.

 

Don't forget that there were many different versions of Buckingham Mk 2, the main one being that it changed from single to double track. I think Peter kept expanding it to the stage where he thought that that it was better to start afresh rather than tinker any further, so I am not sure he was happy with the larger versions of Mk 2. If he was, Mk 3 may not have happened. I always thought that the first double track version of Mk 2 was about the most pleasing visually and that later alterations detracted from the elegence of the design.

 

If you have a plan like the one above and add a substantial building across the end, all of a sudden it becomes a much more imposing station.

 

This was a mock up of the proposed building for Mansfield Market Place (I must finish the real one some time) which was based on Chesterfield Market Place. There were only three tracks ending at the buffers, rather like your plan. The building turned it from a small station to a decent sized one.

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

Oh, that's just beautiful I think that an end-cap station building definitely makes a difference. As I think @Northroader said once - the more you learn, the less you enjoy sometimes!

 

From a practical sense in my case I feel like I have to juggle whether I want a longer platform road, a perpendicular station building, or a street beyond - I'm sure I can get 2/3 though somehow?

 

 It seems Rev. Denny was not bothered at all about both the use of three links, and putting his goods yards at the back of a 2' deep layout - can you expand on this please since you are The Man In The Know!

 

Regardless, here's Bromley North with the turntable in-situ Maybe as you said, the two feet on the left could better be utilised with a large station building. I imagine without a turntable (or with, during quiet periods), the middle road could be used as a carriage siding as well as place for the pilot loco to hang out, leaving the top siding for use as a dock track?

 

 

One thing I hadn't thought about for this type of layout (which I hold my hand up that you did mention a couple of years ago in one of these threads) is that a separate arrivals and departures platform requires shunting every train anyway, station pilot or not. Of course, you don't have two locomotives on the layout doing things for each train, but you still need to:

• Arrive P2
• Uncouple & pull forward
• turn the locomotive
• run back through the avoiding lines
• couple and shunt any tail stock
• pull onto the up line
• shunt the train back into the P1
• shunt any head stock you left in the P2 into the goods yard or whatever
• couple up to the outbound train oin P1 and be on your way

[Lacathedrale]

Ah, I made a mistake on the turntable, it's only the middle two roads that converge, like so:

 

 

As you can see, this is no longer the space saving device I thought - almost three feet from the clearance point to the end of the turntable.

 

If I omit the turntable and consider @t-b-gs suggestion of a trio of sidings and a perpendicular staiton building, I think it fits well - and into a good deal less space:

 

Plan Mk 1a - SE&CR circa 1899 in 8' x 21"

 

Despite the smaller footprint the platforms retain  a usable length of four feet, and there's even space beyond for a road and some buildings opposite. All turnouts are on one board, which could be scalloped as shown to reduce the impact of the layout in the room. Either way, beyond this there would need to be be a lift-out section before a FY, or a junction for a branch line connection and then the FY.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[t-b-g]

3 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Ah, I made a mistake on the turntable, it's only the middle two roads that converge, like so:

 

 

As you can see, this is no longer the space saving device I thought - almost three feet from the clearance point to the end of the turntable.

 

If I omit the turntable and consider @t-b-gs suggestion of a trio of sidings and a perpendicular staiton building, I think it fits well - and into a good deal less space:

 

Plan Mk 1a - SE&CR circa 1899 in 8' x 21"

 

Despite the smaller footprint the platforms retain  a usable length of four feet, and there's even space beyond for a road and some buildings opposite. All turnouts are on one board, which could be scalloped as shown to reduce the impact of the layout in the room. Either way, beyond this there would need to be be a lift-out section before a FY, or a junction for a branch line connection and then the FY.

 

 

 

 

 

If you are using 3 link couplings I would certainly have the goods yard on the near side. The yard on Buckingham was at the rear on some earlier versions but was moved to the front and has stayed there. There are a few sidings at the back (the boards now being a maximum of 2ft 6ins wide) and with my glasses they are hard work to shunt. If I was designing a layout with 3 links at 2ft range, I would either switch to auto couplings or move the yard as you have done.

 

You should really have protective trap points for the yard, the carriage siding and for the loading dock but other than that, you have a very viable plan there. The thing I like with plans like that is that you have what appears to be a relatively complex design with lots of possible moves with only 4 bits of pointwork.

Edited January 5, 2022 by t-b-g
To add content

[Donw]

Having separate arrival and departure lines means extra moves for each train which adds to the pleasure for an operator to my mind. Looks good.

 

Don

[Lacathedrale]

Reviewing the templot plan after a while I realised I was going under 3' radius in quite a few places, so re-jigging the geometry a bit gives me a minimum 4' radius on all the trackwork except the wye in the yard. An 8'x 2' shown below:

 

 

The rear siding is truncated a little just to see how it looks, rather than a definite change. I like that the sidings are staggered across the length of the layout rather than fanning from a single point in this arrangement. I'm aware I'm still missing trap points, by the way!

 

 

EDIT: I had a bit of a head-slap moment - easing the angle of the platforms means the inner yard turnout can also be eased, so with no meaningful change I can get all turnouts to 4' fairly easily.

 

The less obvious change is that while the station board has much the same dimensions, I have also had to compromise down to 3'6" on my traverser and thus maximum train length. This should still easily allow for four or five carriages behind a tender locomotive, which should hopefully ensure the that despite the relatively compact size of the layout the trains don't dwarf the civil engineering.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Lacathedrale