An N gauge Southern vignette

[RobinofLoxley]

Just a quick item on the theme is baseboards and joints and track over them. I designed my current layout - and succeeded - avoiding turnouts across the joins but later found that the key is as much to do with point motors and their orientation. If some aspect of fixing or adjustment needs attention it's helpful if the item concerned doesn't face the baseboard frame. 

[AndyB]

Thanks @RobinofLoxley I'd not yet factored in (actually I'd forgotten to) account for the thickness of framing at the ends of the baseboard, and how that would interfere with point motors!

I'll correct that in my next version! 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

I use MTB and they can be installed facing 2 ways. That's great as long as you remember to install them the right way round. 😂

[Harlequin]

17 hours ago, AndyB said:

OK.

So I've brought the turnarounds in an inch at each end.

 

I've put the central section on a slight curve and moved the bay departure turnout back to where Simon had it in his original schematic.

 

The crossover spanned a baseboard join. I could either bring all the pointwork over to the RHSand shorten the "loop". Or accept that the baseboards didn't all need to be the same length. I went with the latter, figuring that the number of times the layout would be transported - and equal length baseboards might be helpful - is minimal.

 

Crossover on the bridge as proposed by Phil. I couldn't get this to work as the headshunt on the "loop" conflicted with it. 

 

I've started to include some visual elements, accepting that Anyrail isn't really the right package for this.

 

Iain Rice talks about getting balance in the composition so I'm going to try and spread the visual elements along the length of the layout. 

 

Clearly the station and goods yard are towards the RHS. Perhaps a few buildings to hint at the edge of a small town/village on the shaded area beyond.

 

Rhese are balanced by a watermill, mill pond, small road bridge, railway bridge in the middle of the layout. 

 

At the LHS I'd like to have a chalk cutting and tunnel mouth to allow the track to leave the scenic section. I could also include some farmland / oast house? to further balance the visual elements? 

 

 

 

Anyway that's all I've got for now...

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

Did you notice at Bosham that the railway actually bridged the millpond? That's a really interesting detail because it puts a wider mirror of water reflecting the trains running just above.

 

And, of course, the millpond needs to be upstream of the mill. So the way you've currently drawn it, the stream is flowing towards the backscene. That could work but probably more natural to flow away from the back towards the viewer.

 

Can you make the layout a bit wider (or tighten the radii of the end curves)? If so, then you could ease the end curves out a bit as they emerge and have more track visible before you feel the need to hide the curves. In fact, if the platforms were not playing the Bitsa game, the end curve at the village end could be obscured, rather than completely hidden, just by a few carefully placed buildings. Thus, the overbridge could then be very close to the backscene and that end would be much more open.

 

Spreading features out evenly might not look visually interesting. Balance can also be achieved by one very "heavy" element being countered by multiple smaller ones. You need to think about the visual "impact" of the various features. I love to see a watermill in a railway scene but such a "big" feature near the centre of the scene might create a balance problem. Probably better offset slightly more.

 

You could still put the crossover on the bridge if the headshunt was shorter. Do you need a headshunt at all? Wouldn't a simple trap be enough?

 

I'm a big fan of refuge sidings because they allow you to spread interesting operational trackwork into the countryside without overpowering it with railway infrastructure. The way you've shown one here is just right, scenically speaking, because the setting back movement takes place fully on scene, where you really want to see it.

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by Harlequin

[AndyB]

Hi Phil @Harlequin lots of ideas to take on board. Thank you.

 

I'd not picked up on the mill pond at Bosham because I was focusing on the eastern side of the station ( with my bitsa blinkers on). Looking at it on Google maps the reflection today may be somewhat modified by overhanging trees!

 

There's a wide river on my current layout but because of the height of the bridge and the viewing angle you don't really get a reflection of the trains. The bridge on this layout will be lower so it may work. Of all the scenic elements I model those with water are my favourite to make.

 

The kind of bridge I've got in mind at tge moment isn't a low-girder bridge but more like one as seen on the West Tilgate layout. TBD.

 

I'd be reluctant to make the turnarounds tighter. On a previous layout I found occassional sticking of EMUs so for me reliability is key. So I've added 3" to the width; it's now 30" deep.

 

Thanks for your idea about the village. I wasn't happy with the way I'd covered it up. I'll re-work that part and see if I can show what you're getting at. By widening the baseboard it will also allow me to add a lane going up to the overbridge, which I'd originally wanted but didn't have space for.

 

Headshunt. I dont think this one needs to be anything but a sand trap.

 

Refuge siding. I saw this on the Chee Dale layout (7 mins in) and think it will really add to the overall interest.

 

@RobinofLoxley I'd not come across that type of point motor before. For cost effectiveness I was thinking of a simple servo. Previously I've just used manual wire in tube so this is an area I've got to learn about. 

[Harlequin]

34 minutes ago, AndyB said:

 

@RobinofLoxley I'd not come across that type of point motor before. For cost effectiveness I was thinking of a simple servo. Previously I've just used manual wire in tube so this is an area I've got to learn about. 

MTB point motors are the bees knees. Much simpler to use than servos.

 

[AndyB]

Latest update.

Headshunt reduced to a sand trap.

Bridge extended and now has the crossover. 

RHS scenic treatment, hopefully implementing @Harlequin's thoughts.

Mill pond and mill race added with weeping willows.

Wondering if upwards of 6 - 7' of pasture front and centre is too much? 

 

 

Any comments on the latest iteration very welcome.

Andy

 

[The Stationmaster]

I like that Andy - really puts the railway much more firmly within the scenery rather than just being a railway with some scenery added.  

 

But I do wonder if anybody would have bothered to widen a chalk cutting in order to create a longer refuge siding?  Plenty pf older refuge sidings were never extended if it involved a lot of cost - like widening a cutting to take them.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi Andy, looking good.  The development of the millpond as discussed by @Harlequin is a nice feature.

 

Just an idea, but if you’re concerned about the expanse of pasture, you could curve in the front of the baseboard (shown here in blue):

 

 

Advantages: easier to reach the fiddle yard, and good view of trains coming towards you then past you (for home use).

 

Disadvantages: Mill feature needs rearranging (perhaps for river to run right to left?).  Also perhaps less suited for exhibition use, as a straight edge board keeps people flowing past at a ‘safe’ distance from the trains.

 

My suggestion now would be to perhaps try a mock-up, either a smaller scale model of the model, or using full size templates, or with some actual track and trains to see how it actually looks in N-Scale.  It may show something we’ve missed - or confirm it’s all good.  Just a thought, Keith.

 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

1 hour ago, AndyB said:

Wondering if upwards of 6 - 7' of pasture front and centre is too much? 

 

Dont you mean 6-7 inches? I thought the whole thing was only about 2 feet deep??

 

 

[AndyB]

11 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Dont you mean 6-7 inches? I thought the whole thing was only about 2 feet deep??

 

 

I was thinking width? 

[AndyB]

14 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I like that Andy - really puts the railway much more firmly within the scenery rather than just being a railway with some scenery added.  

 

But I do wonder if anybody would have bothered to widen a chalk cutting in order to create a longer refuge siding?  Plenty pf older refuge sidings were never extended if it involved a lot of cost - like widening a cutting to take them.

 

Thanks Mike 

That's one of the advantages of N gauge. 

 

As for the refuge siding cost, railways do sometimes make odd business decisions. 

For example Christs Hospital was built large with 7 platforms on the understanding that there would be significant day school traffic. Shortly after opening the school decided to be a boarding school only! Oops.

Edited June 3, 2022 by AndyB

[AndyB]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Hi Andy, looking good.  The development of the millpond as discussed by @Harlequin is a nice feature.

 

Just an idea, but if you’re concerned about the expanse of pasture, you could curve in the front of the baseboard (shown here in blue):

 

 

Advantages: easier to reach the fiddle yard, and good view of trains coming towards you then past you (for home use).

 

Disadvantages: Mill feature needs rearranging (perhaps for river to run right to left?).  Also perhaps less suited for exhibition use, as a straight edge board keeps people flowing past at a ‘safe’ distance from the trains.

 

My suggestion now would be to perhaps try a mock-up, either a smaller scale model of the model, or using full size templates, or with some actual track and trains to see how it actually looks in N-Scale.  It may show something we’ve missed - or confirm it’s all good.  Just a thought, Keith.

 

 

 

Thanks Keith.

At the moment it was an observation that the central section is not over-crowded and might need a couple more scenic elements. One idea might be to move the pill box to the front ifvtge layout. Not sure it would actually be visible if the bridge was brick, rather than the style on my current layout.

 

Yep, may be time to lay it out and see how it works. I'd like to take a look at the FY design first, though. 

[RobinofLoxley]

5 minutes ago, AndyB said:

I was thinking width? 

Ok that makes more sense!

 

If you are worried about that, I think that all the trackwork to the left of the river, leading up to the cutting etc, can curve more to the front of the layout without introducing special problems. Having the bridge at an angle may improve the whole layout actually.

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

My suggestion now would be to perhaps try a mock-up, either a smaller scale model of the model, or using full size templates, or with some actual track and trains to see how it actually looks in N-Scale.  It may show something we’ve missed - or confirm it’s all good.  Just a thought, Keith.

 

I think this would be a good plan.  With due respect, I don't think your Anyrailing is at the stage yet where you can rely on it to avoid kinks and wobbles when expanded to full size - the area round the station throat in particular is a bit uncertain as drawn.

[AndyB]

12 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I think this would be a good plan.  With due respect, I don't think your Anyrailing is at the stage yet where you can rely on it to avoid kinks and wobbles when expanded to full size - the area round the station throat in particular is a bit uncertain as drawn.

 

Absolutely agree. There are plenty of kinks in my Anyrail schematic; I'd not pretend to be an expert with it. I normally do my designs with pen and paper first on A4 then scale up full size on lining paper. 

Using Anyrail was something of a first for me. 

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by AndyB

[AndyB]

Been doing a bit of reading up of background material over the last week or so. I can definitely recommend both these books, in particular as they both help bust a few myths about freight. The Chris Ford book emphasises modelling the "as it was" rather than what we might assume to have been the case. For example about displacement of goods wagons from other regions.

 

Anyway, I've just ordered vol 2 of the Jeremy English book.

 

More mundanley I've started to tidy the garage ahead of tackling this project...I may be some time at that so there's plenty of time to refine the layout design!

 

 

 

[AndyB]

Another feature I'll need to include in the new layout - a lid. 

 

I gave the river on my current layout a wipe down. And this is the result; yuk.

 

I'm assuming the rest of the scenics are equally grubby. 

 

I'm thinking a plywood lid and acrylic front. It'll need a bit of thinking about as I definitely want to have the backscene removable. Jenga anyone?

 

 

In other news the Vol 2 of Jeremy English's series arrived. Very interesting. There's even a chapter on "Strangers on Southern metals". And as the title suggests there were some unexpected visitors. Perfect for anyone looking for an excuse to Rule 1; the devil is at your elbow! 

[AndyB]

There's currently a hiatus on Nantford Spinney before I can dismantle it.

 

So no reason why I can't progress the planning of its replacement. 

 

 

To recap the layout will be 12' x 2'6" on 4 boards of equal size. At least those are the first draft assumptions.

 

To move things along from Anyrail I'm using lining paper to sketch out track formations and eventually main scenic elements. I'm doing this 1:1 as I can then put actual rolling stock on and get a feel for how it will look and tease out operational problems.

 

The footprint will be 8" wider than shown here. So roughly the bit shown will be the scenic area including turnarounds at each end.

 

To put it in perspective I've put a B set and pannier tank in the shot.

 

 

To start with I'm marking out baseboard joins and 1cm end plates to make sure points and servos don't go anywhere near these snd that track doesn't cross baseboard joins at too acute angles.

Edited October 2, 2022 by AndyB

[Harlequin]

4 hours ago, AndyB said:

There's currently a hiatus on Nantford Spinney before I can dismantle it.

 

So no reason why I can't progress the planning of its replacement. 

 

 

To recap the layout will be 12' x 2'6" on 4 boards of equal size. At least those are the first draft assumptions.

 

To move things along from Anyrail I'm using lining paper to sketch out track formations and eventually main scenic elements. I'm doing this 1:1 as I can then put actual rolling stock on and get a feel for how it will look and tease out operational problems.

 

The footprint will be 8" wider than shown here. So roughly the bit shown will be the scenic area including turnarounds at each end.

 

To put it in perspective I've put a B set and pannier tank in the shot.

 

 

To start with I'm marking out baseboard joins and 1cm end plates to make sure points and servos don't go anywhere near these snd that track doesn't cross baseboard joins at too acute angles.

 

Hmmm... The fact that you feel unable to plan the layout in detail in AnyRail, and have to resort to real-size pencil and paper, is a damning indictment of that program! It ought to be able to do the job for anyone and everyone in every scale.

 

Edited October 2, 2022 by Harlequin

[AndyB]

I'd made the planning assumption that the main consideration for the turnarounds would be the drag vs the power of the motor. 

 

Laying out some 3rd radius setrack showed a more pressing problem. The couplings on my longest carriage stock were prone to uncoupling. Not every time but enough to mean the layout would be unreliable.

 

 

I need to investigate this further. I've not heard of others complaining about this; and lets face it if a rake of carriages couldnt go round a circuit of track without leaving some of them behind then it'd be well known!? Especially as 11.75" radius is a lot more forgiving than the 9" many build to.

 

So it may be this is something about my coaches. But I will need a solution before going any further with the design.

 

EDIT: This decoupling problem doesn't gapped with my dapil B set. Just my Farish coaches. 

Edited October 2, 2022 by AndyB

[AndyB]

23 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Hmmm... The fact that you feel unable to plan the layout in detail in AnyRail, and have to resort to real-size pencil and paper, is a damning indictment of that program! It ought to be able to do the job for anyone and everyone in every scale.

 

 

Phil, gor me this was really the next stage in working up the plan. As Simon@Flying Pig

observed earlier, Anyrail might not capture, or be able to refine the design sufficiently.

 

It may be, of course, that we shouldn't blame the tool but it's operator; I'm no expert with this type of tool! 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Might I offer an observation?  I’ve been playing around with some German retro N-Scale, strictly for fun and nostalgia.  Research tells me a typical 3-loop country station would need the following track centres, which I first of all sketched out (not to scale):

 

 

I then drew up a simple plan using Anyrail (25mm grid):

 

 

It fits the space, but using 4th radius curves and long points the straight sections of the loops look a bit short.  So I laid out the station section using track and rolling stock (forgive the mess, this is obviously a work in progress):

 

At a usual viewing angle (not a plan view), I decided this looked OK - to me it worked better than it did on the plan.

 

For me, the combination of all three techniques is what gave me a solution.  For me the problem is I don’t actually have a 2m space anymore to build it - but I can’t blame that on Anyrail either.  Hope everyone is well, Keith.

 

[AndyB]

Thanks @Keith Addenbrooke I'd tend to agree that a mix of techniques is useful as we move from initial idea through to proof of concept.

 

Just before clearing away tonight I've taken away the track and just tried to see what the minimum tenable radius I could apply to some GF coaches before they decoupled. 

 

I actually got down to about 13" between these coach ends. So that makes me think there's something else going on specific to the track I set up.

Hmm.

 

[RobinofLoxley]

Try superelevating the track 1mm and retest