A Garage-sized Layout

[Harlequin]

 

On 07/06/2022 at 11:35, Lacathedrale said:

 

@t-b-g you make a good case for a single goods siding; after all we're not making an inglenook. I still think I'd like a coal siding adjacent the goods shed though, it "Feels" right to me. I have included it but at an angle to make the terminal end of the layout wedge shaped rather than bulbous and I think that's had a huge effect in creating a skewed parallelogram rather than a solid block. Unfortunately I DEFINITELY do not have room to have 2 locos + 4 coaches on my traverser though I'm afraid, so the turntable will have to stay and similarly having an arrival and departure road makes enough sense to me to retain.

 

 

"Lindfield 1.2"

 

To match with the low retaining wall at the rear of the layout, I imagine a gradient rising up to the right side, of the layout beyond the signalbox. A low hillside will be evident rising infront of the running lines, and into which the turntable will be cut, eventually ending in a road or occupation bridge as a view break to the FY. I had thought about shuffling the carriage siding up the throat, but that results in a very long, flat retaining wall along the back. I do need to figure out where that brick pier will end up, though!

 

You need at least two goods sidings really, one for covered trans-shipment and one for open trans-shipment (mileage traffic).

 

Is the passenger side unbalancing the goods side?

 

What about slightly adjusting the balance and gaining some space:

• Carriage siding
• Up platform road (Leading to Up line)
• Peninsula platform (crossovers across end)
• Down platform road (leading to Down line)
• Engine release loop (leading to kickback engine shed/TT area)
• Goods shed siding
• <Splay>
• Mileage siding (coal wagons)

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Harlequin

[t-b-g]

My example of operating the fiddle yard isn't the only way of dealing with tender locos. All you need is a loco cassette or a means of turning a loco (even lifting it manually) in the fiddle yard and the light engine can still go off scene light engine to the "nearby loco shed" for turning.

 

On Narrow Road, we have modelled our fiddle yard as a scenic station, with loco cassettes the other side of a road overbridge. It is still under development but I am hopefully visiting tomorrow and will take a photo to illustrate.

 

There is no doubt that a turntable makes an attractive feature and I am not saying that you shouldn't have one. I am just saying that you could manage without one of you wanted. They are a "nice to have" not a necessity.

 

I could see your carriage siding doubling up as a nice little bay platform, ideal for a local train or a push/pull unit, which arrives on another platform then shunts there to depart. You could use it for both purposes with careful timetabling/sequencing. 

[Regularity]

43 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Yes, finescale (or fine scale? I don't think they're necessarily the same thing) is about getting things closer to the prototype. My state of mind is that if I have to trade off realism against authenticity to do that, realism wins (you'll no doubt remember the long correspondence in the RM in the 70s on that very topic).

As I said, I don’t in any way object to what you are doing, merely that I don’t find 00 - no matter what the standards - to be close enough to call itself “finescale”, at least by the term as defined by CJF. If you are going to have standards of fidelity, then they have to be applied all round. I don’t see realism or authenticity in such a narrow gauge, but you do and that’s ok by me.

 

And yes, to those who think that it is difficult to tell the difference, that’s not the case for anyone who has closely studied prototype track.

[St Enodoc]

5 minutes ago, Regularity said:

And yes, to those who think that it is difficult to tell the difference, that’s not the case for anyone who has closely studied prototype track.

One more and then I'll shut up.

 

Is a copperclad EM point (or, dare I say it, a Brooks-Smith P4 point with no chairs) finer scale than a 00 C&L fully-chaired point?

[Lacathedrale]

Ah right, trailing from the perspective of the up line? I was thinking one-dimensionally - i.e. trailing from the up line == facing from the down line.

[RobinofLoxley]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

I know I shouldn't bite, Simon, but I will.

 

Finescale is way, way more than the running quality (and we've all seen plenty of examples of P4 layouts that don't run properly, as alluded to above).

 

Is an RTR loco converted to EM "finer scale" than a DJH kit with 00 wheels?

 

Is an MSE kit-built signal that doesn't operate finer scale than a Dapol one that does?

 

Is a pristine scratchbuilt wagon finer scale than a weathered RTR one?

 

Is an EM layout with 3ft curves finer scale than a 00 layout with 5ft curves?

 

Yes, finescale (or fine scale? I don't think they're necessarily the same thing) is about getting things closer to the prototype. My state of mind is that if I have to trade off realism against authenticity to do that, realism wins (you'll no doubt remember the long correspondence in the RM in the 70s on that very topic).

Everyone who embarks on building a model has to deal with this. But for clarity I would say that you have to be careful with two, possibly three, quite separate meanings for realism that cloud the argument. One side of realism is literally correspondence with a real world actual example; the other refers to the possibility of achieving a goal under constrained circumstances. Which would lead me to substitite pragmatism for realism, in other words not taking disproportionate steps in pursuit of an ideal. Most modellers seem to be pragmatists, being selective and accepting compromise. Finescale, knowing nothing of the specifics, I would take as a product or brand name with no further significance. 'Fine' as a comparator is fundamentally unsound, so none of the above questions can be answered, even though the sentiment behind them is entirely valid. Use of 'fine' is dodgy, as in 'Fine' dining, which involves snobbery.

[DCB]

On 04/06/2022 at 15:54, Lacathedrale said:

@Harlequin, a wonderful plan as always.  I really don't think I can get away with three sides of the garage; I'm certain for one wall, pretty sure for an L-shape, but the U-shape at least initially won't be psosible until I can get further along with the plans and at least demonstrate some of my ideas in reality.

 

Speaking of plans, while I'm waiting for the varnish on my ballast wagon to dry, I feel like I should re-state my initial aims:

1. I want to model a [part of a] railway system, not a moving diorama. It should consist of at least one block section so that I can have working signals and 'rules' to operate the 'game board' of the layout. The more I conceptualise the layout like this, the more I like it.
2. I want the layout to be a double track terminus:
   1. Supporting interesting passenger operation
   2. ideally some NPCS/goods working of the steam era.
   3. With the appearance of normal  train length
3. I want the layout to be at least nominally finescale in track appearance, in an L-shaped space no longer than 13'6" x 8'.
   1. The baseboards should each be no larger than 4'6" x 21"
   2. Train length can be no longer than 4'
   3. If there is a corner piece, it should be at least notionally be able to be removed and the layout operated with the FY connected to the linear scenic sections

Note that as per my original statement, scale and specific time period (barring steam-era operation) are still pointedly absent.

 

Sounds like you're asking for an awful lot from a conventional L  layout.   The Hockey Stick traverser concept can provide all your requirements except the ability to run in and out trains simultaneously

Otherwise combining up and down lines at the FY throat should just about allow 4ft trains with 3rd/4th radius approach in the 8ft leg of the L. 2ft for the curve, 2ft for the points 4ft for the train The Hockey stick (HS) is about 2ft for the curve and 5ft 6"  for the train the stick moves 18mm to 1" per road.    The Stick is a sliding fiddle yard. It should run on double flanged wheels on ball bearings on dexion angle iron supports vertical element up.  I don't envisage any Table top structure below the deck except 6" at the ends to protect the drop  it is a baseboard or in this application two baseboards joined end on. It moves lengthways very freely,  Normally it would move about 1"   lengthways per extra road,    A normal traverser moves 2" sideways per extra road so it's 10" wider than the 6 road Hockey stick.   Stock is much less troubled by moving the track lengthways than by moving it sideways twice as much.   Stick one is under construction but its slow going!

Any way   Voila.  Concept sketch  What I would do with that space.  Parcels and even milk trains use platforms off peak.  Feel free to abandon modelling and take up fly fishing or even fish fishing.

 

[Titanius Anglesmith]

27 minutes ago, Regularity said:

And yes, to those who think that it is difficult to tell the difference, that’s not the case for anyone who has closely studied prototype track.

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I've walked more miles of track than I care to think about, but I'm not offended by OO gauge.

[Regularity]

36 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

One more and then I'll shut up.

 

Is a copperclad EM point (or, dare I say it, a Brooks-Smith P4 point with no chairs) finer scale than a 00 C&L fully-chaired point?

They are both short of the mark. The comparison is (pardon the pun) pointless.

 

If two things are wrong, then they are both wrong. Asking which is more wrong is about as logical as saying you work to finer standards, but ignoring the fact that one of your dimensions is very wrong.

 

I have no problem with what you are doing, I just don’t see how you can call it finescale, that’s all: there is an illogic. If you have to build all your track and rewheel your stock or building from kits, then it’s not as if you are saving time except for a few RTR locos, so why? Better looking track? Better running? Same goes for EM-fine.
 

We can go back over 100 years, before 00 and H0, to Charles Wynne. He didn’t call it finescale, but his “half-one” models to what we now call S gauge were built to within a scale inch of the prototype. I have seen his Midland 4-4-0 from that year, and it stands up well against most models today.

 

That’s my definition, although I admit there are somethings I cannot get exactly right as I don’t own a barn. As I said, we all draw the line somewhere, and in my case, it tends to be with respect to station length. But the rest, as close as I can. It works for me, it may not work for someone else, but I at least work on consistent definitions and tolerances for everything but station length and using electric propulsion.

 

I am not criticising anyone’s modelling, as I have been at pains to state, merely saying that calling “finer 00” “finescale” is illogical by any definition I can see of the word “finescale”.

 

To Robin of Loxley, I agree: it’s a question of defining one’s terms consistently.

 

24 minutes ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I've walked more miles of track than I care to think about, but I'm not offended by OO gauge.

 

I am not “offended” by 00 gauge at all. I can just see the difference in certain aspects of its portrayal of real track: the basics are there, but the fine details less so. But that reflects how I want to do my modelling, doesn’t dictate to anyone else.

[Lacathedrale]

30 minutes ago, DCB said:

 Feel free to abandon modelling and take up fly fishing or even fish fishing.

 

I'm building a 1"/ft Loco and a 5/8"/ft traction engine, maybe I've overdone it with the thinking in the last few days - but right now I quite fancy spending some time in the workshop, rather than the drafting table...

Edited June 7, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[RobinofLoxley]

30 minutes ago, DCB said:

Sounds like you're asking for an awful lot from a conventional L  layout.   The Hockey Stick traverser concept can provide all your requirements except the ability to run in and out trains simultaneously

Otherwise combining up and down lines at the FY throat should just about allow 4ft trains with 3rd/4th radius approach in the 8ft leg of the L. 2ft for the curve, 2ft for the points 4ft for the train The Hockey stick (HS) is about 2ft for the curve and 5ft 6"  for the train the stick moves 18mm to 1" per road.    The Stick is a sliding fiddle yard. It should run on double flanged wheels on ball bearings on dexion angle iron supports vertical element up.  I don't envisage any Table top structure below the deck except 6" at the ends to protect the drop  it is a baseboard or in this application two baseboards joined end on. It moves lengthways very freely,  Normally it would move about 1"   lengthways per extra road,    A normal traverser moves 2" sideways per extra road so it's 10" wider than the 6 road Hockey stick.   Stock is much less troubled by moving the track lengthways than by moving it sideways twice as much.   Stick one is under construction but its slow going!

Any way   Voila.  Concept sketch  What I would do with that space.  Parcels and even milk trains use platforms off peak.  Feel free to abandon modelling and take up fly fishing or even fish fishing.

 

Just one or two things, David, since you edited my effort, as I was following the conditions set by William in the post previous, I decided against going 2 into one at any point as it damages the concept of a 2 track approach. However, 2 into one is the easiest way to organise the approach to the fiddle yard/storage sidings, via a slip. So to maintian fidelity to the 'spec' I made it look like a junction (def been done before) with the track nearest the wall more of a dummy. Then I realised the 'dummy' could be incorporated into the yard after all. Yes if you go 2 very quickly into 1 you can set up the space for a train length traverser or similar, I was trying to illustrate in my ham fisted way how the length of the item intrudes into the terminus. It would be OK looking at the terminus, but as soon as a departure started to move round the curves - oh whats this?

[Regularity]

23 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I'm building a 1"/ft Loco and a 5/8"/ft traction engine,

Must admit I wondered about that when you complained about the cost of 3 new RTR locos… ;)

 

You just need to decide what you want now, and if you are prepared (or not) to change tack later on. If you are going to be happy with 00, get on with it. If you wish to build your own track, consider how little/more work would be required to change to EM now. Some modellers do move “up” through the various standards, witness Ian Futers who went from 00 to EM to P4 and the 7mm scale, but he built a series of small layouts, some of the stock of which could be re-wheeled (although he may have built new ones).

That’s an advantage of the pre-grouping era: no outside cylinders or valve gear for the most part, so relatively easy to change later on. (Even if you model the 50s in a backwater setting!)

Edited June 7, 2022 by Regularity

[Titanius Anglesmith]

31 minutes ago, Regularity said:

I am not “offended” by 00 gauge at all.

I wasn’t suggesting that you was, sorry if I gave that impression. 

[DCB]

35 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Just one or two things, David, since you edited my effort, as I was following the conditions set by William in the post previous, I decided against going 2 into one at any point as it damages the concept of a 2 track approach. However, 2 into one is the easiest way to organise the approach to the fiddle yard/storage sidings, via a slip. So to maintian fidelity to the 'spec' I made it look like a junction (def been done before) with the track nearest the wall more of a dummy. Then I realised the 'dummy' could be incorporated into the yard after all. Yes if you go 2 very quickly into 1 you can set up the space for a train length traverser or similar, I was trying to illustrate in my ham fisted way how the length of the item intrudes into the terminus. It would be OK looking at the terminus, but as soon as a departure started to move round the curves - oh whats this?

 

 

Hi, yes it's a good plan, Running wrong road ruins the illusion.   it's the probably un necessary constraints the OP imposed I was not happy with. I only nick good plans to amend,  I'm too lazy to draw the whole thing out. 

Edited June 7, 2022 by DCB

[Lacathedrale]

lol

 

 

[Regularity]

Nit-picking about terminology aside, William, there are serious points in amongst this.

 

Firstly, what do you want, and over what time horizons?

Secondly, how much does 00 bug you?

Thirdly, what are you prepared to spend?

 

If you want something in a short turnaround with scope for complicated operation, then RTR is your solution, because anything else will take longer. You have indicated a collection of stock around which you could do this.

If 00 bugs you, then starting with 00 RTR will nag at you, so are you prepared to scrap and rebuild/upgrade in the future, effectively throwing away what went before, or does it bug you enough to commit to EM/P4 now?

Finally, not just money but time. You can always earn more money, but you cannot get extra time - it is finite in terms of our lifetimes, and usually we don’t even know when that will end. Earning extra money may eat up the time.

 

Forget about which railway company, which era, what detailed layout plan, use the above three points to decide how much time, how much money you want to spend and to what standards of fidelity you are going to work. That may, in turn, shape your direction.

 

If you wanted to model, for example, the LCDR circa 1880 to the best level of detail and dimensional accuracy possible, then the scale is largely irrelevant: it will have to be handbuilt. Upside is, it won’t cost so much money as you will be mostly using raw materials. Downside is, it will take time. You won’t have much train set to play with, but how many locos can you run at a time? Will you be running on your own? Do you want a “busy” scene? 
If you want something complicated, and want it as soon as possible, then accept the lack of fidelity in RTR 00, and just build a layout. Otherwise, decide what you want.

 

I have two small layouts, and each runs with basically two locos, one set of coaches, and enough wagons for more than one train. (In fact, one of them has two such sets of stock!) They are both capable of keeping me occupied, with a few brakes, over a two-day exhibition, but whilst operating, the other person gets bored. They both run on a one engine in steam basis.

 

Works for me: may not for you.

 

So, what do you want? Lots of more, or more of less?

 

 

[Pacific231G]

12 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

 

@Pacific231G - I understand that goods yards are typically set-back into using a trailing connection on a through station, but at a terminus they're always facing, either directly or through a separate goods lead, right?

 

No.. I wasn't saying that they're always that way, just that it's vastly more common for the goods yard to be beside the terminus than a kickback from it and a goods depot alongside the approach to the passenger station would most likely have been double ended or approached from the "country" end as at Windsor Riverside (ex Windsor LSWR)  

The only possible example of a kickback goods yard I've found so far after looking through possible candidates on 25inch OS maps is Blackpool South (ex Blackpool Waterloo Road) a terminus on which two lines convereged with a possible goods yard alongside carriage siding in the fork between the two lines.

 

At a medium sized station,  the railway company would normally want to keep the passenger and goods operation fairly close together for administrative reasons but, where that wasn't possible, they'd do whatever made most sense. The largest stations  would be more likely to have separate goods yards as did some medium size stations. Before he became a stationmaster one of my grandfathers was the chief goods clerk at Brecon and there the goods yard as well as the engine shed were about 400 yards to the east of the station.

 

At Oxford the GW goods yards were south of the station on the other side of the Botley Road, close to the cattle market,  and completely separate from the marshalling yards to the north of the station (and also separate from the larger marsalling yards at Hinksey built during the war and well to the south.

Rather oddly, there was a large goods shed close to the GW station but it was actually part of the LNWR/LMS Rewley Road terminus that fanned out in the space between the GW station and the Oxford canal with the general goods yard to the west of the passenger terminus and a fairly extensive coal yard to the east of it.

Unfortunately for us, who generally need our termini to be fairly narrow, this arrangement where the goods sidings fanned out alongside the passenger terminus was very common (though nowadays normally gone without trace under redevelopment)

 

[Regularity]

9 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Brecon and there the goods yard as well as the engine shed were about 400 yards to the east of the station.

That’s because the goods yard was originally a terminal station for the B&M, and passenger services were relocated to a new station jointly owned with the N&B, creating a through route.

[Pacific231G]

5 hours ago, Regularity said:

That’s because the goods yard was originally a terminal station for the B&M, and passenger services were relocated to a new station jointly owned with the N&B, creating a through route.

Indeed. The point being that local circumstances mean that goods yards can be set apart from passenger facilities, sometimes at quite modest stations, even though the norm is for them to be close together.

I'd like to use a kickback goods yard with a Minories type terminus so am rather keen to find some real examples of this but am finding them to be far rarer than I'd expected.  

Edited June 8, 2022 by Pacific231G

[Titanius Anglesmith]

6 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I'd like to use a kickback goods yard with a Minories type terminus so am rather keen to find some real examples of this but am finding them to be far rarer than I'd expected.  

Southend had a kickback goods yard

 

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17&lat=51.53752&lon=0.71039&layers=170&b=1

 

Although after 1884 it became a through station, many services still terminated there. The signalling allowed for arrivals and reversals at all platforms except for the up-through. So a Minories with kickback yard seems perfectly justifiable to me. 

[Pacific231G]

51 minutes ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

Southend had a kickback goods yard

 

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17&lat=51.53752&lon=0.71039&layers=170&b=1

 

Although after 1884 it became a through station, many services still terminated there. The signalling allowed for arrivals and reversals at all platforms except for the up-through. So a Minories with kickback yard seems perfectly justifiable to me. 

Well sort of. The goods shed itself wasn't but the fan of sidings behind was. It's an interesting case because the 1895 station, which I assume was based on the original terminus had fairly conventional goods yards, though on both sides facing the main line. Presumably everything was moved to the north side to allow for more platforms. 

 

There was a somewhat similar arrangement at Lyon St. Paul with a goods shed alongside the platforms but kickback mileage sidings. 

 

 

The first time I saw it in the early 2000s the goods shed was still there though OOU. (It's now a turning circle for trolleybuses)  

It was an example of a terminus crammed into a very short site - the final scissors crossover in the throat was actually inside the tunnel which was a cople of miles long. 

 

The problem we have is that we almost always need to cram everything into a very short length. That is not usually a problem for the big railway which, even if the station site itself is cramped between city streets, can usually let the approach tracks continue for quite some length before going down to the plain up and down lines. 

[t-b-g]

I mentioned our loco cassettes on our sceniced fiddle yard and having had a running session on the layout today, I took a few photos.

 

The track plan isn't very prototypical but the two main lines go down to one approaching the station, to simplify the pointwork. The road nearest the camera is a loco release road but could hold a fourth train if necessary.

 

Tender locos are turned on the cassette and either go on shed to be replaced by another, or go back on their train. Tank locos have the same options but are not turned. A goods train has the brake van shunted to the other end using a cassette. The three roads facing the other way at the front are modelled as a small loco shed, where up to 7 locks can be stored awaiting their duty.

 

The two lines round the back are an optional continuous run used when we just want to send trains round and are not used in normal sequence running.

 

Obviously much scenic work remains to be done and the cassettes will eventually be hidden behind an overbridge with a station building on it.

 

It is actually quite fun to operate but a bit repetitive as all trains just arrive, reverse and leave.

 

[Lacathedrale]

I have really been listening when people have suggested a single-line terminus instead of a double-track terminus. I'm still not convinced, but while I have been perusing the early RM's I've found the articles on Charford starting in RM April '55. I've come across it in passing before, but lovely to see it develop through the issues. John provides a simple track plan and later on, a working timetable. I figured this was a perfect opportunity to test out actual layout operation - please note, I'm not planning on building the layout described below!

 

Charford V1 in EM - 14' x  18" (original 12' x 12")

 

John Charman does make some interesting prototype-led determinations of schedule, but ultimately resorts to a sequence working in the first operational article in RM Feb'56. It consists of just four locos, two coaches and a dozen wagons. This is wonderfully simple to replicate in XtrkCAD and as such I took the liberty of doing so, and following his movement sheet.

 

Clearly, as an armchair warrior I am not qualified to criticise, but having run the timetable I have come to the following comments which may inform my own suburban/branch terminus layout design:

• The kickback goods yard without a nearby runaround is a pain - each of the goods trains must go through exactly the same rigamarole of multiple reversing movements using the platform runaround to sort out the brake van, and then do exactly the same thing in the fiddle yard.
• Though clearly there is a nuance in goods movements which is not yet communicated by John, two goods sidings does not make for interesting shunting. I imagine a wagon routing system with Charford goods yard being used as a transfer between GWR and SR systems as well as local industries might make that more stimulating - but combined with the point above, just seems like alot of work for no reward!
• Due to the sequence (as opposed to time) working, there are a few occasions of identical, sequential branch passenger trains. Where in real life they may be clustered around other movements with periods of calm inbetween - as a sequence they add nothing and could well be elided in my view.
• There is very little interaction between trains, with the exception that at one point the branch passenger tank is on shed while the goods yard is being shunted. Clearly, expecting this from a Devonshire branch line is a little unreasonable but with everything in such plain sequencing and with reference to the first couple of points, it feels a bit rote to me.
• Lastly, though not mechanically neccesary there is definitely a desire for me that there should be enough space between the throat of the station and the FY to permit shunting the longest train without ended up back inside the FY, and enough space in the FY for a train to runaround (if neccesary) without entering the modelled scene.

Anyway, I'm very much enthused by all the positive discussion of the space and possibilities. Clearly John was able to build a satisfying layout despite what I percieve as shortcomings, in his caravan, with hand built locomotives and rolling stock - so there's no excuse really, is there?

 

Meaningful progress?

i've finally recieved back my AG order of EM wheels, and just about to wrap up my current wagon kit before embarking on the loco build. I will of course need some track to test it on, maybe a short length of plain track with a V-crossing and check-rail setup but no actual turnout.

Edited June 10, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Lacathedrale]

On 08/06/2022 at 20:19, t-b-g said:

I mentioned our loco cassettes on our sceniced fiddle yard and having had a running session on the layout today, I took a few photos.

 

It took me a moment to twig what I was looking at, but honestly I like it - evoking that 'system layout' format in a terminus-to-FY concept.

 

I wonder if you're going that far, maybe it would be just as easy to have a terminus-to-terminus layout, assuming between the two of them you share enough space for all stock and locomotives? Maybe you'd need to over-provision in both, I guess - and would probably have to work one as 'live' and the other as 'shadow' for the duration of a given operating session? Could be interesting with a sliding shoji screen to mask one side of the layout as FY while the other is working :)

 

[t-b-g]

13 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

It took me a moment to twig what I was looking at, but honestly I like it - evoking that 'system layout' format in a terminus-to-FY concept.

 

I wonder if you're going that far, maybe it would be just as easy to have a terminus-to-terminus layout, assuming between the two of them you share enough space for all stock and locomotives? Maybe you'd need to over-provision in both, I guess - and would probably have to work one as 'live' and the other as 'shadow' for the duration of a given operating session? Could be interesting with a sliding shoji screen to mask one side of the layout as FY while the other is working :)

 

 

The full Narrow Road layout has 5 stations and no fiddle yard in normal operation. There are some hidden loops on the continuous run but they don't form part of the proper running and are just used when Ken wants to run some trains himself.

 

There are 3 long carriage sidings at Narrow Road itself and that gives us enough carriage capacity for a decent sequence, with each train running several times.