A Garage-sized Layout

[Lacathedrale]

Too Long, Don't Want to Read: Reining my expectations back even further, leveraging RTR 00 to actually get traction.

 

I read a section of one of the 1950's RM's and it really stuck out to me, paraphrased: "Don't bite off more than you can chew, arrange things so that you can start off with at least three working locomotives for a layout" - and while I really like Victorian LCDR, on frank assessment I'm just not sure I'm up to scratchbuilding all of the locomotives and kit-building almost all of the stock in either time commitment or ability, to get a critical mass. I am reminded of Jas Milham's proliferation of S-scale layouts, where he is able to make progress quickly by re-using stock and buildings, but only after he's built them all at least once. Victorian LCDR would be an ideal life project maybe, and something I'm happy to peck away at - but not the way to START a layout.

 

Anyway, after musing on that and considering how I might be able to leverage 00 RTR, moving the time period forward a little to the Grouping makes the most sense to me.  Taking @Harlequin's advice about making the layout stationary, rather than exhibitable permits me to ignore 3.1 and thus find ways to make everything fit more easily. In this case, the leeway to include 4'6" platform roads and traversers which means I can accomodate a Maunsell ten-wheeler and four 63' coaches.

 

Additionally, I then spent a large amount of time looking at Bigbury-On-Sea on Youtube and enjoyed it massively. At first I thought initially it was 0 Fine, then realised it was 4mm, and then I finally realised it was 00. The fact I couldn't tell suggests maybe I do need to compromise on my finescale-or-die attitude for this layout in order to just get something bloody done.  Certainly, I was enthused to spend a little time on YT and found a few SR Malachite or SR Olive locos which would be just perfect, and for quite reasonable prices indeed.

 

Though I think the faux-HV scheme has mileage, it is one which is very specific to a victorian city terminus and doesn't really work as well in the Grouping period or out in the provinces. So, I have dusted off the riff on Minories from the last page and I think it would work a treat as a large market town around somewhere in Sussex:

 

"Lindfield" in 2' x 12'

 

The main addition to the base Minories formula is a goods loop, highlighted in red, I think in a much more sympathetic manner than in the previous plan, and a carriage siding. Both are fairly notional but are oriented 'correctly' I think, the pilot being able to push carriages into and pull from the siding without running around, and an arriving goods train able to set back into the goods yard. There is enough room to shunt four 63' coaches beyond the throat without running into the traverser.

 

Taking hints from Caterham with a high-level station building, a (now demolished, in the grouping-era) platform-end Engine shed, a loading bank adjacent the platform runaround, and a retaining wall beyond which is heavily wooded.

 

Though it's not the perfect layout - it is a variation of a theme that has been developing for a couple of years, and it really does feel like this is achievable within my natural lifetime in a way though I was enthusiastic about, the Victorian LCDR Holborn Viaduct layout does not. Maybe a smarter choice?

Edited June 6, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Regularity]

The thing about Minories is that it’s a urban terminus, where the freight facilities are dealt with separately, apart maybe from “express” goods, for example traffic carried in “Grand Vitesse” vans. So, if you are modelling the inner-city part, the only freight you might see would be passing through (and not at peak hours). The outer suburban part is a different matter, of course.

 

What you could do is build an EM layout based around the RTR C, D and H class models as a starting point, and then gradually replace them with pure Chatham locos and stock. I say EM, as done to Pendon/Manchester/Ultrascale/EM-fine standards, it does look better than 00 and almost as good as P4, for a lot less hassle.

[Nearholmer]

For an inner-urban scheme, you don’t necessarily need to get far beyond the terminus to get to large goods facilities, and some wonderful multi-level coal yards.
 

Most of the London termini, and various places on the city widened, circle, and associated lines had “twin” goods depots, giant in reality, but easily condensed to “rail frontages” for modelling purposes. Most of the coal yards were a tad further out, but Kensington High Street was pretty central, and they do offer the opportunity to bring Midland or GNR tank engines into an SECR context, with very compact coal trains, and very cramped unloading facilities.

[Nearholmer]

On 30/05/2022 at 12:32, Lacathedrale said:

I'm not sure if I want to mess around with the challenges of raising the trackbed above the baseboard

So, build a long thin layout, trackbed width only, then fit lightweight “outriggers” to carry lightweight street level surfaces. Effectively, think upside down.

[kitpw]

10 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

a large market town around somewhere in Sussex:

Have you looked at Littlehampton?  Dual track terminus with minimal loco facilities (somewhere in Sussex), goods yard accessed on kick back (so can be developed later as needed/as time allows), possible quayside. The triangular junction (need not be modelled) also provides traffic from two directions with possible reversals in the terminus to provide "through" stopping services. It can be helpful to base a layout on a real location as the rest of the infrastructure - buildings in particular - don't need to be designed from scratch....just a thought.

Kit PW

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/blog/2502-swan-hill/

[Lacathedrale]

Layout Plan

Well, the "Lindfield" layout plan above does clearly trace its lineage from Minories but with the additional runaround and goods sidings, it has become a more general mid-sized terminus layout (with the possible exception of the goods yard being atypical) and I do not think is constrained to an urban setting in the same way a pure Minories is...

 

As a happy coincidence, it looks like the runaround by P3 is long enough for my 4x 63' coach minimum.

 

@kitpw I had not checked out Littlehampton, (ps. love Swan Hill!) - and looking at it, it seems a fine station indeed. I'm not sure I'd change it, but LH would suggest the loco pilot road should be in the foreground with a turntable, and the engine shed road running behind the platform. This would allow tender locomotives to be turned on-layout, and a huge benefit.

 

Finescale vs RTR

I have fully embraced EM-SF for finescale, I need no convincing there - but in the interest of bringing down barriers, maybe finescale is a better idea on paper for me? Re: SECR - have you looked at the prices of those locomotives recently?  Just the three of them would set me back the large part of £800, plus the cost and time of re-wheeling required for EM-SF. That's a no-no - by comparison, for the SR era and the same money I can get a nice core working set of layout stock in 00:

• SR Lord Nelson 4-6-0
• ex-LBSCR H2 4-4-2
• ex-LSWR T9 4-4-0
• ex-LBSCR E4 0-6-2T
• 4 Main-line Maunsell corridor coaches
• 3 Main-line Maunsell corridor coaches + Bogie Van
• 3 ex-LSWR 48' Suburban bogie coaches

I wouldn't use this as a sole justification, but it's a compelling argument...

 

I would apologise to anyone following this thread and seeing my apparent indecision, but I would reiterate:

 

I've always wanted a steam-era system layout with interesting operations, so I started from a baseline of RTR and a multi-station layout scope, investigating different scale and gauge combinations to achieve it. I reined this back when I realised that it would be too big of an undertaking. With a more limited layout size, finescale became an option - but has become clear is no less an undertaking but this time in the challenges of constructing all the required stock, rather than in layout scope. Maybe there is a goldilocks point of scope like the finescale layout, but leveraging RTR that I can find a balance between my desires for operational authenticity, low barrier of entry and visual accuracy. I guess any 00 Layout would have to be nice and high up!

Edited June 6, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Titanius Anglesmith]

11 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

So, I have dusted off the riff on Minories from the last page and I think it would work a treat as a large market town around somewhere in Sussex:

 

"Lindfield" in 2' x 12'

I like that a lot 👍

Edited June 6, 2022 by Titanius Anglesmith

[Harlequin]

I'm sure that one of the 4mm finescale variants is where your sweetspot is, William. You've made it pretty clear that you don't really like OO!

 

EM or EM-SF seem to be good compromises to get you going relatively quickly because you have all the support of the 4mm eco-system within which you can bring things up to a more acceptable level of fidelity where the RTR stuff is lacking. (Edit: Or maybe, OO-SF?)

 

I wouldn't worry about stock costs at this stage because that can be spread out over time. You only need one loco at first!

 

To paraphrase Kevin Costner, "Build it finescale and the stock will come".

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Harlequin

[Pacific231G]

16 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Too Long, Don't Want to Read: Reining my expectations back even further, leveraging RTR 00 to actually get traction.

 

I read a section of one of the 1950's RM's and it really stuck out to me, paraphrased: "Don't bite off more than you can chew, arrange things so that you can start off with at least three working locomotives for a layout" - and while I really like Victorian LCDR, on frank assessment I'm just not sure I'm up to scratchbuilding all of the locomotives and kit-building almost all of the stock in either time commitment or ability, to get a critical mass. I am reminded of Jas Milham's proliferation of S-scale layouts, where he is able to make progress quickly by re-using stock and buildings, but only after he's built them all at least once. Victorian LCDR would be an ideal life project maybe, and something I'm happy to peck away at - but not the way to START a layout.

 

Anyway, after musing on that and considering how I might be able to leverage 00 RTR, moving the time period forward a little to the Grouping makes the most sense to me.  Taking @Harlequin's advice about making the layout stationary, rather than exhibitable permits me to ignore 3.1 and thus find ways to make everything fit more easily. In this case, the leeway to include 4'6" platform roads and traversers which means I can accomodate a Maunsell ten-wheeler and four 63' coaches.

 

Additionally, I then spent a large amount of time looking at Bigbury-On-Sea on Youtube and enjoyed it massively. At first I thought initially it was 0 Fine, then realised it was 4mm, and then I finally realised it was 00. The fact I couldn't tell suggests maybe I do need to compromise on my finescale-or-die attitude for this layout in order to just get something bloody done.  Certainly, I was enthused to spend a little time on YT and found a few SR Malachite or SR Olive locos which would be just perfect, and for quite reasonable prices indeed.

 

Though I think the faux-HV scheme has mileage, it is one which is very specific to a victorian city terminus and doesn't really work as well in the Grouping period or out in the provinces. So, I have dusted off the riff on Minories from the last page and I think it would work a treat as a large market town around somewhere in Sussex:

 

"Lindfield" in 2' x 12'

 

The main addition to the base Minories formula is a goods loop, highlighted in red, I think in a much more sympathetic manner than in the previous plan, and a carriage siding. Both are fairly notional but are oriented 'correctly' I think, the pilot being able to push carriages into and pull from the siding without running around, and an arriving goods train able to set back into the goods yard. There is enough room to shunt four 63' coaches beyond the throat without running into the traverser.

 

Taking hints from Caterham with a high-level station building, a (now demolished, in the grouping-era) platform-end Engine shed, a loading bank adjacent the platform runaround, and a retaining wall beyond which is heavily wooded.

 

Though it's not the perfect layout - it is a variation of a theme that has been developing for a couple of years, and it really does feel like this is achievable within my natural lifetime in a way though I was enthusiastic about, the Victorian LCDR Holborn Viaduct layout does not. Maybe a smarter choice?

Hi William. I like this plan and it definitely looks achievable. The only thing i don't like is that it looks rather similar to the H0 layout I'm hoping to build (though that will be decidedly urban)😁

Littlehampton had/has the virtue of being a reversing terminus for train on the coastal like and that always gives extra bang for the terminus buck. It also had a notably narrow goods yard (with a branch to the port) 

Should your modelling interests move in that direction, the wooded area behind the retaining wall has definite future potential for urban development (as it probably would have in reality)   

Kick back goods yards are a bit unusual but, if the local topography required a narrow site, perfectly  logical. 

There is of course no such thing as the perfect layout and I think the phrase in photographic circles "the best camera is the one you have with you"  could usefully be modified to "The best layout is the one you actually build."  something I really do need to take onboard myself.

I don't have the 00/EM/P4 dilemma so I don't kow how I'd feel about it if I was working in 4mm/ft scale but, at ExpoEM I did find myself having to ask whether layouts were EM or P4. The crossing and checkrail clearances (and, I'm afraid, the number of derailments on some P4 layouts) were the only real giveaway so I think the main satisfaction from P4 must be that of building dead scale trackwork. EM was, after all,  good enough for Pendon. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Pacific231G

[Lacathedrale]

So, I'm a kicking myself a bit - I just lost a post :(

 

@kitpw points out obliquely that a turntable for the terminus is almost required. Thankfully, this is an easy fix: by rotating the loco siding, the goods yard and the carriage siding positions clockwise, we end up with what may well be the perfect double-track terminus layout:

 

 

The max train length of four 63' coaches is accomodated everywhere: all three platforms, the runaround, the headshunt and the carriage siding. There is also capacity for a rake of five 48' pre-group bogie coaches, or a fair few 4w/6w coaches. In addition to the reasonable passenger accomodation, there is are modest but proportional goods facilities. The layout is drawn with all 1:7 turnouts and minimum radius of 36" so would work in EM as well as 00 using hand laid, Peco or British Finescale turnouts.

 

I have been thinking hard about the 00 conundrum and there's definitely a desire for flangeways-smaller-than-railhead that EMSF and P4 provide, but I look at Mikkel's layouts or something like Everard Junction and that fact is just lost in the mix of good modelling. Maybe I am using my desire for objective FS track standards as a bit of a crutch for other areas of my subjective artistic modelling not being quite up to par!

Edited June 6, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Pacific231G]

I'm not sure why but I don't actually like this plan as much as your previous one. I think it may be the goods yard alongside the passenger station making the whole thing look shorter and fatter. I take the point about needing a turntable ( The downside of tender locos though looking at a 1932 image from Britain from Above the one at Littlehampton was actually rather small) but might the dead corner behind the curve be a better place for it and a small stabling point (a la Kingswear?) BTW, the goods yard at Littlehampton wasn't a kick back though the harbour line was a kickback off the goods yard.

OT but there was in the 1860s a ferry service from Littlehampton to Honfleur. At least Littlehampton still has a railway station!

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

I think the main satisfaction from P4 must be that of building dead scale trackwork

Not wishing to stir anything, but P4 isn’t dead scale: for that, you need Ray Hammond’s S4 standards.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

So, I'm a kicking myself a bit - I just lost a post :(

 

@kitpw points out obliquely that a turntable for the terminus is almost required. Thankfully, this is an easy fix: by rotating the loco siding, the goods yard and the carriage siding positions clockwise, we end up with what may well be the perfect double-track terminus layout:

 

 

The max train length of four 63' coaches is accomodated everywhere: all three platforms, the runaround, the headshunt and the carriage siding. There is also capacity for a rake of five 48' pre-group bogie coaches, or a fair few 4w/6w coaches. In addition to the reasonable passenger accomodation, there is are modest but proportional goods facilities. The layout is drawn with all 1:7 turnouts and minimum radius of 36" so would work in EM as well as 00 using hand laid, Peco or British Finescale turnouts.

 

I have been thinking hard about the 00 conundrum and there's definitely a desire for flangeways-smaller-than-railhead that EMSF and P4 provide, but I look at Mikkel's layouts or something like Everard Junction and that fact is just lost in the mix of good modelling. Maybe I am using my desire for objective FS track standards as a bit of a crutch for other areas of my subjective artistic modelling not being quite up to par!

 

30 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I'm not sure why but I don't actually like this plan as much as your previous one. I think it may be the goods yard alongside the passenger station making the whole thing look shorter and fatter. I take the point about needing a turntable ( The downside of tender locos though looking at a 1932 image from Britain from Above the one at Littlehampton was actually rather small) but might the dead corner behind the curve be a better place for it and a small stabling point (a la Kingswear?) BTW, the goods yard at Littlehampton wasn't a kick back though the harbour line was a kickback off the goods yard.

OT but there was in the 1860s a ferry service from Littlehampton to Honfleur. At least Littlehampton still has a railway station!

 

I like the idea of the goods yard being that way around as with it the other way, it is quite restrictive when making a goods up to depart.

 

I also agree with the comment about it looking shorter and fatter.

 

If one of the goods siding was omitted (which leaves the loading dock plus one siding) and the track to the turntable was reduced to a single track, it makes it a bit less cluttered, narrower and I think it improves the balance and flow. 

[Lacathedrale]

I've looked at those changes here:

 

 

My first impressions are that it certainly it looks longer and the more simple track layout offends the eye less, but now we have nowhere to lay over locomotives between turns, and shunting goods will only ever be a shuffle between the runaround and the single siding. Those feel like big sacrifices to make - but there's nothing to stop me starting with the core plan above and then adding those extra tracks if/when they become evidently required?

 

EDIT: I'm afraid the turntable can't be behind the running tracks - there's a hot water boiler in that corner!

Edited June 6, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Pacific231G]

6 hours ago, Regularity said:

Not wishing to stir anything, but P4 isn’t dead scale: for that, you need Ray Hammond’s S4 standards.

You're right (I think) but I had a look at the comparison and now my brain hurts.

https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4559

The Scalefour Society (and the EMGS) actually recommend P4 rather than S4 standards and is only called the Scalefour Society because the name Protofour and P4 were trademarks of the MRSG/Studiolith Ltd.  It all seemed to be part of what looked from the outside like a religious war even more heated than the 3.5mm v 4mm scale arguments (for 00 gauge) of the 1920s and 1930s.   

[Pacific231G]

6 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

 

I like the idea of the goods yard being that way around as with it the other way, it is quite restrictive when making a goods up to depart.

 

I also agree with the comment about it looking shorter and fatter.

 

 

I've been wondering about that Tony. Is the goods yard beside the platforms not equally restrictive when shunting an arriving goods train? The reality perhaps is that a real terminus would have had a goods relief line and reception sidings and wouldn't need to come down to just an up and down line  quite so close to the platforms. 

[RJS1977]

7 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

So, I'm a kicking myself a bit - I just lost a post :(

 

@kitpw points out obliquely that a turntable for the terminus is almost required. Thankfully, this is an easy fix: by rotating the loco siding, the goods yard and the carriage siding positions clockwise, we end up with what may well be the perfect double-track terminus layout:

 

 

 

Being controversial here, but instead of a double track terminus, how about a terminus at the end of two separate single track lines? No major changes needed to the plan, except starting the curve to the inner line a couple of inches earlier to give some separation between the two lines.

 

This would add to the operational complexity of the layout, as trains would be arriving and departing on each line, and there would be some scope for trains to arrive on one line, run round or change loco and depart on the other. This happened regularly at Cromer, and also happened for some years at Aberystwyth, where a Summer Saturdays Swansea - Penychain (for Butlin's) service reversed in the Carmarthen platforms.

 

Alternatively, if it's assumed that the two lines are two legs of a triangular junction, locos could be turned on the triangle (i.e. in the fiddle yard), making the turntable superfluous.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

I've been wondering about that Tony. Is the goods yard beside the platforms not equally restrictive when shunting an arriving goods train? The reality perhaps is that a real terminus would have had a goods relief line and reception sidings and wouldn't need to come down to just an up and down line  quite so close to the platforms. 

 

I have a single goods siding on Sheffield. The idea is that the train arrives into a platform road and the pilot couples on and draws the stock onto the main line, releasing the trapped loco to go to the loco spur. The single siding is then shunted, not for the complete disposal of the train but simply to detach a few wagons and maybe add a few. The wagons that are not detached have either been picked up from sidings with only a trailing connection coming towards the terminus or are to be shunted at trailing sidings on the way back. The train is made up in a platform road again with the brake van now at the rear and the loco comes back from the spur to couple on and take it away.

 

The single siding will also have a loading dock for horses, carriage wagons and other tail loads that come in on passenger trains.

 

I cannot say whether such operations ever happened at a real place but they will at Sheffield Attercliffe. It is one of the joys of building a fictional layout rather than a prototype one. Nobody can say "That never happened there!".

 

 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Being controversial here, but instead of a double track terminus, how about a terminus at the end of two separate single track lines? No major changes needed to the plan, except starting the curve to the inner line a couple of inches earlier to give some separation between the two lines.

 

This would add to the operational complexity of the layout, as trains would be arriving and departing on each line, and there would be some scope for trains to arrive on one line, run round or change loco and depart on the other. This happened regularly at Cromer, and also happened for some years at Aberystwyth, where a Summer Saturdays Swansea - Penychain (for Butlin's) service reversed in the Carmarthen platforms.

 

Alternatively, if it's assumed that the two lines are two legs of a triangular junction, locos could be turned on the triangle (i.e. in the fiddle yard), making the turntable superfluous.

 

Tender locos on mine just go light engine to the off scene loco shed (fiddle yard). In reality, they back onto a train that has arrived in the fiddle yard. They don't need handling at all. Once the train goes back into the station, the loco that took it to the fiddle yard is ready to "back on" from the "shed" back into the station. I have operated a layout like that at several shows and it works really well.

 

All you need is a fiddle yard long enough for a train plus two locos, one at each end.

 

So you are right, a turntable is not a necessity, although they do make attractive models. 

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

The Scalefour Society (and the EMGS) actually recommend P4 rather than S4 standards

Yes, because once a standard is defined, it becomes the standard.

Fact is that Ian Pusey had already done the true scale calculations for S scale (incidentally, the flangeways and tyre profile are EM Pendon standards, save for the depth of the flange - EM is bigger) and somehow, someone in the MRSG messed up, and added a bit extra for manufacturing tolerances. As people have successfully produced Proto:87, and 2mm dead scale wheels and track (and even Z gauge, I believe!), this increased tolerance wasn’t necessary, but we are stuck with it now.

[St Enodoc]

21 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Maybe there is a goldilocks point of scope like the finescale layout, but leveraging RTR that I can find a balance between my desires for operational authenticity, low barrier of entry and visual accuracy. I guess any 00 Layout would have to be nice and high up!

Finescale 00 used to be a thing. For some of us it still is. It's a state of mind as well as a set of measurements.

[Regularity]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Finescale 00 used to be a thing. For some of us it still is. It's a state of mind as well as a set of measurements.

I always thought that a finescale version of 00 was EM, given that “finescale” is a state of mind about getting things closer to the prototype, and a track gauge that is 96.7% of the prototype measurement is closer than one which is  87.7%.

If you define “finescale” as “improving the running of 00 without changing the gauge, but otherwise working to EM standards, then that works, but how could that definition be applied to, say, military modelling?
 

Just pointing out the contradiction in terms of “finescale 00”, and asking what your “state of mind” might be?

:)

 

* See “Proprietary to Scale”, C J Freezer, Railway Modeller, January 1974, for this - indeed the only to my knowledge - definition of “fine scale”, where he makes the point that “scale model” was first applied to differentiate away from “toy trains” and meant (in his words) “authentic”. I think realistic might have been a better choice: “like the real thing”. His point was that unless you accepted this definition, then “fine scale” was meaningless, but (in précis) actually means “even less like a toy”.

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

@Regularity you know how much I love(d) S and P4, so it pains me to say this - but what is more accurate: a 13% more accurate in track gauge, running a Class 66 with a Quad-Art, no signals, trackmat layout, etc. ? The track is obviously a key player but it can't be the only metric by which one measures a layout/model on a continuum from full-size-prototype to brio-push-along, so as per @St Enodoc I think it must be feasible.

 

@RJS1977 - the main reason for the double track line is so I can implement realistic signalling/etc. and those opportunities are a little less so on a single-track line. I could see adopting the single track terminus as a way to squeeze more into the space, but not sure about a double single-track terminus...

 

@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?

 

@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!

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

I always thought that a finescale version of 00 was EM, given that “finescale” is a state of mind about getting things closer to the prototype, and a track gauge that is 96.7% of the prototype measurement is closer than one which is  87.7%.

If you define “finescale” as “improving the running of 00 without changing the gauge, but otherwise working to EM standards, then that works, but how could that definition be applied to, say, military modelling?
 

Just pointing out the contradiction in terms of “finescale 00”, and asking what your “state of mind” might be?

:)

 

* See “Proprietary to Scale”, C J Freezer, Railway Modeller, January 1974, for this - indeed the only to my knowledge - definition of “fine scale”, where he makes the point that “scale model” was first applied to differentiate away from “toy trains” and meant (in his words) “authentic”. I think realistic might have been a better choice: “like the real thing”. His point was that unless you accepted this definition, then “fine scale” was meaningless, but (in précis) actually means “even less like a toy”.

 

 

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).

[Titanius Anglesmith]

16 minutes 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.  Many (even most?) double track termini had conventionally laid out goods yards accessed by a trailing point.  Bromley North for example, or Windsor & Eton.  

 

The original Southend station had the goods yard on the arrivals side, and shunting was via the departure line blocking both roads (not an unusual arrangement).  When it was remodelled in 1894 there were goods sidings on both sides of the line, again both shunted from the departure line blocking both roads.  When the station was remodelled again in 1915 the goods yard was wholly on the arrivals side, accessed only from a kickback very similar to your recent plan.

 

Uxbridge Vine St had one of the goods connections via a facing point on the arrivals line, but the interlocking would only allow reversing moves across it from the departures line.

Edited June 7, 2022 by Titanius Anglesmith