A Garage-sized Layout

[KingEdwardII]

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

If I modelled it I'd have to include all those anachronisms

Indeed so. That is one of the challenges of modelling a preserved line. The mix of old and new. e.g. period trains and stations but ultra modern sheds and workshops (see Severn Valley Railway and their carriage shed @ Kidderminster).

 

Similarly, it is common for a preserved line to have different stations representing different eras - e.g 1900s on one station, 1930s on another.

 

One of the other challenges that I have not yet attempted is the representation of the "wrecks" that are usually present somewhere on a preserved line. The stuff that has not (yet) been restored, which can include major components lying around on their own, like loco boilers.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Lacathedrale]

8 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I see this as an ideal application for the "generic" carriages from Hornby and/or Hattons. They give a "quick fix" for reasonable 4 and 6 wheelers and allow a gradual replacement as and when the kit and scratchbuilt versions come off the assembly line.

 

LCDR coaches are completely different with birdcages instead of duckets and square mouldings, but I might be able to fudge the Hornby NBR lined maroon with the NBR decals removed and replaced, as SER coaches? I'm not sure anyone could pinpoint the coat of arms being wrong! They're not quite purple lake, but look to be closer to it than the crimson used on the Hattons SE&CR samples!

 

That said, I already have six four-wheeled Ratio coaches with the rounded SER-type molding to hand, so it may be simpler to just spray them purple lake (and have another shot at lining 😢 ) and call it good, at least initially. I have also seen some fairly compelling renderings of the Ratio Midland Arc roofed bogie coaches painted up in LBSCR colours, so maybe that would also do as a stop-gap solution for some bogie stock while a few rakes are being built.

 

 

[t-b-g]

4 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

LCDR coaches are completely different with birdcages instead of duckets and square mouldings, but I might be able to fudge the Hornby NBR lined maroon with the NBR decals removed and replaced, as SER coaches? I'm not sure anyone could pinpoint the coat of arms being wrong! They're not quite purple lake, but look to be closer to it than the crimson used on the Hattons SE&CR samples!

 

That said, I already have six four-wheeled Ratio coaches with the rounded SER-type molding to hand, so it may be simpler to just spray them purple lake (and have another shot at lining 😢 ) and call it good, at least initially. I have also seen some fairly compelling renderings of the Ratio Midland Arc roofed bogie coaches painted up in LBSCR colours, so maybe that would also do as a stop-gap solution for some bogie stock while a few rakes are being built.

 

 

 

You just have to decide whether time spent on building "quicky" stand in carriages is time that would have been better spent either on the layout or on "proper" rolling stock. That is why I think the "generic" carriages are a good idea. The time input needed to get them running on the layout would be tiny. Once you have the correct stock built to replace them, they should be fairly easy to sell on and recoup most, of not all, of the financial outlay.

 

Once you start having to build kits, then paint and line them, I would rather do that once, properly, rather than twice. Once as a bodge then a second load done properly. I don't see that as time well spent.

[Lacathedrale]

 Conceptually the same issue that @Regularity described at the SR vs LCDR proposition- wasted time accumulating.

 

I could do with a GNR teak set and an SECR or NBR dark set !

[DCB]

16 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

One of the other challenges that I have not yet attempted is the representation of the "wrecks" that are usually present somewhere on a preserved line. The stuff that has not (yet) been restored, which can include major components lying around on their own, like loco boilers.

Yours, Mike.

Those of us modelling in the 1980s have copious amounts of dead Mainline locos to represent the preserved railway scrap lines of locos.  GWSR has an unimpressive line of blue diesels, NYMR a collection of WD and BR standards.  Generally about three locos which run and a dozen in bits will be about right, and don't forget the half mile of dead rusted to the tracks never to move again carriages.  Dapol make some nice cheap donor locos if you need spare boilers etc.

 

5 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

 Conceptually the same issue that @Regularity described at the SR vs LCDR proposition- wasted time accumulating.

I could do with a GNR teak set and an SECR or NBR dark set !

The generic 4 wheelers are ideal for cutting up to make 1890s bogie coaches, bit like Annie and Clarabel back in the 1990s but at 10 times the price.  I still have a few Hornby 4 wheel bodies to cut and shut.

[KingEdwardII]

7 hours ago, DCB said:

the half mile of dead rusted to the tracks never to move again carriages

Yes, reproducing the sheer decrepitude of those sidings full of hopeless wrecks is very tough, even if you do possess some suitable basket-case models as a starting point! Some of the line-ups at the Swanage Railway come to mind for these...

 

Yours,  Mike.

[Lacathedrale]

Returning somewhat to the original topic, there is definitely strong competition for the "bedroom branch line" in these 1950's RMs. I'm coming towards the end of the decade and have had a steady diet of Buckingham, Charford, Berrow and Tyling. The fairly strong argument for one of these (Buckingham maybe excepted in its later guises) is that one sets up an positive feedback loop at the earliest possible moment:

 

A small, limited scope layout is faster to build, and with a modicum of stock can be operated and enojyed, and the need and desire to expand the stud of locomotives, wagons and coaches is a natural progression. This is in comparison to an open loop of building large amounts of stock before a bigger layout is ready, or building a bigger layout that cannot be used without a large, uninterrupted block of stock building.

 

As it pertains to stock building, sod is cut on my locomotive chassis so rest assured it's not all 🐦 cheep-cheep 🐦 but the below may be a little fluffy:

 

Exploring that premise a little more, I thought it would be helpful to summarise the four layout plans under meaningful consideration. All of them have the following characteristics:

• 14' x 8'6" L-shape or less
• At least 2 platforms, a carriage siding and dock for NPCS working.
• Engine shed and/or facilities
• Limited train lengths mean the initial traverser-type FY can host loco + coaches + loco, for bidirectional working.
• A requirement for a couple of passenger trains, and a goods train

 

Belle Sauvage, Urban Terminus

Belle Sauvage is my view of a pseudo-Holborn Viaduct at its zenith, with top link expresses, boat trains and continental traffic working between shabby locals and transfers.

 

 

🟢 Few points (6 sets) on one board with space for a lever frame

🟢 Easily exhibitable and could be built initially with the traverser end-on, and extended later around the curve of the garage.

🔴 Challenge of viaduct setting

🔴 Few goods facilities

🔴 Cannot operate with limited stock

 

Notes: The layover siding could easily accomodate a 60' turntable a-la Cannon Street or Ewer Street if this were deemed appropriate at a later date. @t-b-g has a plan similar to this, with a single central carriage road instead of the two platform faces, which could be used to limit the scope of the layout more, but would lose some of the essential flavour of the terminus I'm looking for. Overall, represents the apex (to me) of the urban terminus layout plans we've discussed.

 

Wickham, Suburban Terminus

Wickham is an idealised provincial terminus supporting both mainline and branch line traffic, with the facilities for both NPCS and goods.

 

 

🟢 Excellent goods and facilities

🟢 Most appealing as a rounded layout

🟢 Can operate with limited stock, but has high potential for growth

🟡 Most points, but only marginally

🔴 Home layout only, requires L-shape

 

Notes: Essentially a double track passenger station in the vein of minories, but with an additional goods siding and runaround. Could be sited in London's armpit, or as a provincial terminus of a secondary main line.

 

OK, so which layout to build?

Wickham can operate authentically with a winter timetable of one or two rakes of coaches and a dozen goods wagons, Belle Sauvage will require significantly more vehicles upfront to form a reasonable reserve of stock for basic operations.

 

Between Wickham and Belle Sauvage, the former is obviously more complex- both in size and permanent way, and fulfill different desires. There is absolutely nothing to say that one layout cannot follow the other - much like Jas Milham's various S-scale GER adventures, stock for one layout could run on another and (generally) vice-versa and provide an easy leg up. So, maybe the question is 'what should come first?'

 

The only meaningful difference between the layouts is that Belle Sauvage has no requirement for goods stock, but instead has a demand on additional passenger stock. Given that I already have (and enjoy building) goods stock, maybe Wickham is a sensible first stab? When skills are proven and a critical mass of stock is obtained, then building Belle Sauvage, even as an exhibition-only layout, could be a satisfying diversion. It could even in due course be installed in the garage 'opposite' Wickham.

 

But, enough of that - soldering iron is warm and it's time to get on with some actual modelling...

Edited June 16, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[xveitch]

@Lacathedrale With the addition of a crossover on platforms 3 and 4 and extending the layover siding to the baseboard's edge on Belle Sauvage, would it not be possible (with the later addition of extra baseboards) to extend the layout into a Wickham-esque scheme? That way you could get the best of both worlds - a quicker start on a smaller layout and the ability to slot it into a larger layout later (Wickham) with goods-handling facilities. You'd also retain the ability to exhibit the core section (Belle) if you wish. 

 

Of course, this would require careful planning of the urban space/scenery around both sections of the layout, such that Belle alone gives the impression of a busy city terminus, yet when coupled with the Wickham section, something distinctly suburban. 

 

Xander

[Lacathedrale]

@xveitch that's not a bad shout, layouts which have the potential for extension seem to have a higher level of retention.

 

I have been playing about a bit with both designs and attempted a kind of hybrid - but what makes Belle interesting are the operational idiosyncrasies - the extensive use of a station pilot and the distinct arrival and departure platforms - and those aren't really all that compatible with the larger country terminus that Wickham tries to ape. The addition of the runaround and goods yard just makes the throat a good deal larger and more complex.

 

I thought it would be prudent to show Belle Sauvage in linear form, seeing as that's how it would likely be setup initially:

 

Belle Sauvage "Linear"

 

I made a few tweaks along the way, but I think this is the final version of the plan (at least schematically-speaking!)

• Shortened the dead space at the platform end - the left hand side of the layout is bracketed by the station and hotel facade.
• I added the miniature carriage siding at the front of the island platform (as per Holborn Viaduct shown earlier) with capacity for one bogie coach or two six wheelers. I think this is a good shout for a couple of reasons:
  • All my coaching stock is going to need to pull double or triple duty for each operating session, so lots of capacity is unlikely to be required
  • Access to this pocket is on the bidirectional platform lines, so is an ideal place for the pilot to hang out if the station is not too crowded.
• The layover siding remains in-place, but no development is to occur in this area other than some basic ground work. The wedge is large enough to accomodate a Victorian-sized turntable on the current board, or could be extended infront of the traverser with some proper carriage sidings, a high level goods warehouse, etc.

 

If I can be totally honest, I'm still feeling a bit adrift with regard to Victorian EM-SF and Edwardian 00. The progress on my locomotive build and stock in general is steady, but very, very slow. I am acutely aware that at this rate it could be a few years before I have enough stock to run the layout that's being planned, and the attendant risks of attention and focus wandering.

 

I wonder if I should reduce the scope of the Victorian EMSF idea to an office shunting plank, rather than a whole layout initially? In the meantime, I could quite easily pick up a kernel of RTR pre-group locomotives and stock to get me going on Belle for either the SE&CR or LBSCR. I do know we've had this chat about wanting more of less, or less of more - but I don't know that it can be considered in a vacuum as there needs to be a minimum-viable stock collection for a layout to work - and this entire thrust is to create a working layout!

Edited June 23, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[St Enodoc]

 

 

9 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

I'm still feeling a bit adrift with regard to Victorian EM-SF and Edwardian 00

9 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

The progress on my locomotive build and stock in general is steady, but very, very slow.

9 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

this entire thrust is to create a working layout

William, I think you've answered your own question.

[Lacathedrale]

I think on the face of it you're right. Any layout requires consistent and dedicated effort over a period, but for either of these plans there's a significant period upfront before the layout can work at all - and that may end up being an achilles heel.

 

Without resorting to RTR I feel like there is one 'out' that could potentially mitigate it. We spoke about the contrast between Belle (simpler track plan, more demanding stock requirements) and Wickham (the reverse), but that little dotted line in front of the fiddle yard in the Belle Linear plan has given me pause for thought.

 

Maybe as per @xveitch's thoughts - I could build the  "extension" BEFORE the main layout?

 

It would by neccesity be limited to the length of the traverser that it would screen (4'6") and probably around a foot wide. Any staging would be 'tactical' rather than permanent, since the layout would be designed to ultimately plug into Wickham or Belle. Belle Goods could be as simple as a tandem turnout and a headshunt, on a viaduct leading into warehouse doors, with wagon hoists, etc. at the front. Alternatively, Wickham's twig, "Lindfield" - could be something as simple as East Brent or the first Leighton Buzzard?

 

While in no way would it be as fully satisfying as the larger garage-sized layout, it would give me experience for the whole gamut of skills required for a Victorian EMSF layout. It also has limited requirements of the same kind of stock the main layout would end up needing, and it could be exhibited alone to test the waters and inform design choices of the larger layout that it would ideally be integrated into eventually. I'm not sure it's exactly where I want to end up - but seems like a pragmatic step towards it, with little/no "waste" ?

 

Certainly, food for thought.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[kitpw]

A real location worth study is East Southsea - https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17&lat=50.78295&lon=-1.07480&layers=168&b=1  - it has a number of features which might be of interest, not least it's a fairly compact and simple double track terminus (in 1892 - 1914).

[scottystitch]

4 minutes ago, kitpw said:

A real location worth study is East Southsea - https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17&lat=50.78295&lon=-1.07480&layers=168&b=1  - it has a number of features which might be of interest, not least it's a fairly compact and simple double track terminus (in 1892 - 1914).

That's very interesting, I hadn't been aware of that station before.

 

Capacity looks low, so I'm guessing services ran between Southsea and Portsmouth Harbour? or maybe only Portsmouth Town?

 

Best

 

Scott.

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

While in no way would it be as fully satisfying as the larger garage-sized layout, it would give me experience for the whole gamut of skills required for a Victorian EMSF layout. It also has limited requirements of the same kind of stock the main layout would end up needing, and it could be exhibited alone to test the waters and inform design choices of the larger layout that it would ideally be integrated into eventually. I'm not sure it's exactly where I want to end up - but seems like a pragmatic step towards it, with little/no "waste" ?

Did you hear that noise?

That’s the sound of a penny hitting the floor… ;)

[kitpw]

13 minutes ago, scottystitch said:

Capacity looks low, so I'm guessing services ran between Southsea and Portsmouth Harbour? or maybe only Portsmouth Town?

I haven't looked at the traffic pattern for that period but it must have been reasonably busy to have required a double track - contrast with Lee-on-Solent which is a very nice sea-side terminus with really minimal facilities!

[scottystitch]

Just now, kitpw said:

I haven't looked at the traffic pattern for that period but it must have been reasonably busy to have required a double track - contrast with Lee-on-Solent which is a very nice sea-side terminus with really minimal facilities!

 

Indeed. I really meant the length of the platforms suggested short "shuttle" type services.

 

Best

Scott.

[Regularity]

20 minutes ago, kitpw said:

I haven't looked at the traffic pattern for that period but it must have been reasonably busy to have required a double track - contrast with Lee-on-Solent which is a very nice sea-side terminus with really minimal facilities!

Probably built that way in anticipation of traffic which never came.

[Lacathedrale]

Decision made, order placed

@Regularity you're not wrong about the penny dropping, but I have realised that as much as I want to build exquisitely detailed jewel-like victorian models and tasteful dioramas, right now I want a model railway. I have never really wanted a single-line branch terminus and and so on those principles, I have placed an order for proprietary (i.e 00) track to the Wickham plan.

 

Time to migrate the layout topic to the other forum, but obviously feel free to continue to use this as a kick off point to discuss garage-sized, operationally focused, retro-inspired, model railway layouts :)

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Regularity]

2 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

you're not wrong about the penny dropping, but I have realised that as much as I want to build exquisitely detailed jewel-like victorian models and tasteful dioramas, right now I want a model railway. I have never really wanted a single-line branch terminus and and so on those principles, I have placed an order for proprietary (i.e 00) track to the Wickham plan.

That’s good: faced with the path to EM-SF, you have realised that it’s a longer journey than you want to take.

It’s all about getting the balance right between your desires and your resources.

Me? I enjoy the journey as much as the destination, but then again I have had the pleasure of several hundred hours of operating East Lynn, so have sated that hunger somewhat. I don’t mind following an erratic and wandering journey…

[Lacathedrale]

I should be clear that I am going to continue to tinker with models in EMSF on and off, in the way I have done so already; a few hours here and there building up some detailed kits and models - the result may be at some point in the future, enough to start a layout with - but not yet, and the pressure to produce for a layout is not compatible with how I want to deal with it!

[Keith Addenbrooke]

8 hours ago, Regularity said:

That’s good: faced with the path to EM-SF, you have realised that it’s a longer journey than you want to take.

It’s all about getting the balance right between your desires and your resources.

Me? I enjoy the journey as much as the destination, but then again I have had the pleasure of several hundred hours of operating East Lynn, so have sated that hunger somewhat. I don’t mind following an erratic and wandering journey…

 

Agree 100% - and we are modelling trains after all: a mode of transport for making journeys.
 

8 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

I should be clear that I am going to continue to tinker with models in EMSF on and off, in the way I have done so already; a few hours here and there building up some detailed kits and models - the result may be at some point in the future, enough to start a layout with - but not yet, and the pressure to produce for a layout is not compatible with how I want to deal with it!

Also agree 100% - after my multiple failed attempts at getting a layout started in 2020 / early 2021, I finally built a simple test track layout last Summer and am still happily running it while kit building and planning for forward projects, with no pressure.

 

Have fun, Keith.

[Andy_C]

On 24/04/2022 at 08:58, RobinofLoxley said:

Im sorry to say I think you need to acquire a bit of pragmatism from somewhere. You have a long wish list prefaced by the following :- A wish-list of all the things, with no order of importance:

 

This is where you are going wrong. You cannot avoid compromises and you will have to choose. This is the road from prototype, which can never be reproduced due to scaling, to plausibility.

 

 

I’m lurking on this thread, with interest. I do like this response tho. Having gone from a plan to commencing laying track on my lay out, the plan did not actually survive the 1st curved point. 
 

I want sidings/fiddle yard on one side, representing coal trains etc(Kirkby in Ashfield), and a railway station on the other(Mansfield Town Stn). I’m modelling in Code 55 - N gauge, as it gives me the room. I don’t have the room to accurately portray both, but I’ll get as close as I can. The viaduct north of the station will have to bend the wrong way, unless my wife will let me knock some walls out :-)
 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

7 hours ago, Andy_C said:

I’m lurking on this thread, with interest. I do like this response tho. Having gone from a plan to commencing laying track on my lay out, the plan did not actually survive the 1st curved point. 
 

I want sidings/fiddle yard on one side, representing coal trains etc(Kirkby in Ashfield), and a railway station on the other(Mansfield Town Stn). I’m modelling in Code 55 - N gauge, as it gives me the room. I don’t have the room to accurately portray both, but I’ll get as close as I can. The viaduct north of the station will have to bend the wrong way, unless my wife will let me knock some walls out :-)
 

 

It was along thread too, with more material on the long running Minories thread. So long in fact that material was posted more than once.

 

If you are laying any more than a BLT I think planning is fundamental. With a BLT you might miss out a trap point or something but anything with seperate elements needs a lot of work. I bet I made 100 small changes to my original plan and there were still oversights, especially relating to locating point motors near to baseboard joins. I had a map with all the joints which were no go areas for PMs but I didnt allow enough distance to adjust the PM's when they were in position. This of course is practical stuff, no agonising over prototype issues.

 

You have to be brave but you can always post a track plan for inspection....

[Andy_C]

On 08/08/2022 at 16:47, RobinofLoxley said:

You have to be brave but you can always post a track plan for inspection....

I posted mine a while ago on a different thread,  and got some really constructive responses. Of particular note was laying main line points the correct way - it caused me to go back to the original plans for the 1917 OS maps to seek clarification.
 

The station side of my plan remains largely as was. The fiddle yard and TMS less so, but I’ll not thread crap here further in that regard.

 

Regards,

 

Andy.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Andy_C

[Lacathedrale]

Well, the layout is being built in the following thread if you wish to see the ongoing saga:

 

 

In terms of changes - a couple of small ones - an extra carriage siding in the foreground and another crossover between P1&2 - so it's a bit less Minories and a bit more pre-group friendly.