I’ll be onboard

[Ian Holmes]

As a addicted Micro layout builder it will not be a surprise to you who know me to find out that I shall certainly plan something. Something small. Something Micro.

Initial ideas point me in the direction of shrinking down one of the classics by the appropriate percentage to fit on a window sill. Perhaps Roy C Links “The Art of Compromise” or Rodney Hall’s Llanastr. Both of course need stock that hasn’t been released (or even announced) yet. 
But these are all the issues that we’re all going through right now. 
You would have thunk Hornby might have announced a DMU…

Ah well…

[Ian Holmes]

What do you know? I have even started blogging some thoughts the way I do https://tttalkabout.blogspot.com

 

Ian

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 26/10/2022 at 21:57, Ian Holmes said:

As a addicted Micro layout builder it will not be a surprise to you who know me to find out that I shall certainly plan something. Something small. Something Micro.

Initial ideas point me in the direction of shrinking down one of the classics by the appropriate percentage to fit on a window sill. Perhaps Roy C Links “The Art of Compromise” or Rodney Hall’s Llanastr. Both of course need stock that hasn’t been released (or even announced) yet. 
But these are all the issues that we’re all going through right now. 
You would have thunk Hornby might have announced a DMU…

Ah well…

Hi Ian, I’ve also wondered about “The Art of Compromise” though I’d want to try it in the original 6’ x 1’ space, using TT:120 to give it more room to breathe (so not a micro-layout).  In terms of rolling stock, Hornby have included a GW 57xx Pannier Tank in their proposed Phase IV range, along with some Collett coaches.  These aren’t expected for another year.

 

As I understand it, the prototype inspiration for the design (RM Plan of the Month Oct ‘78 for anyone unfamiliar with it) was the arrangement at Fairford.  The line was some 20 miles long, and used Panniers and loco hauled coaches rather than a 14xx and Autocoach, so it should become possible.  I don’t think Hornby have announced a Toad Brake Van though, but I have suggested it on their Forum, Keith.

[Lacathedrale]

Thank you for the RM reference - I've got the app on my tablet and being able to flip to it to get some context is wonderful, thank you.

 

Has the Art of Compromise been built? I ask because with such a short loop it seems a tough prospect to operate! Maybe a good candidate for Heathcote Electronics automatic train shuttles? 

 

I've put it into 5' x 1' below which allows two coaches in the loop:

 

 

I guess the issue is that for a runaround to occur on-layout it's going to eat up almost all of the linear space, so one needs to either be at peace with that, or accept the need for a 'hidden' runaround at one end or another.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Moxy]

36 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Thank you for the RM reference - I've got the app on my tablet and being able to flip to it to get some context is wonderful, thank you.

 

Has the Art of Compromise been built? I ask because with such a short loop it seems a tough prospect to operate! Maybe a good candidate for Heathcote Electronics automatic train shuttles? 

 

I've put it into 5' x 1' below which allows two coaches in the loop:

 

 

I guess the issue is that for a runaround to occur on-layout it's going to eat up almost all of the linear space, so one needs to either be at peace with that, or accept the need for a 'hidden' runaround at one end or another.

 

I'm not sure Art of Compromise has been built as drawn.  There is an interesting article by Chris Ford in October 2018 RM where he argues the original plan can't be built, but he has made a 21st century version of it.  One of the things he did was make the loop longer, as you have in your design.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

Thank you for the RM reference - I've got the app on my tablet and being able to flip to it to get some context is wonderful, thank you.

 

Has the Art of Compromise been built? I ask because with such a short loop it seems a tough prospect to operate! Maybe a good candidate for Heathcote Electronics automatic train shuttles? 

 

I've put it into 5' x 1' below which allows two coaches in the loop:

 

 

I guess the issue is that for a runaround to occur on-layout it's going to eat up almost all of the linear space, so one needs to either be at peace with that, or accept the need for a 'hidden' runaround at one end or another.

 

Without using any more space or length, the platform could be rotated 180 degrees from top right to bottom left. That means that the two goods sidings can be shunted even with a passenger train in the platform and the platform could be made longer. To me, that would look a bit more prototypical and realistic. I am sure the arrangements as drawn must have existed but that plan never really worked for me. It looked a bit too contrived.

[woodenhead]

53 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Without using any more space or length, the platform could be rotated 180 degrees from top right to bottom left. That means that the two goods sidings can be shunted even with a passenger train in the platform and the platform could be made longer. To me, that would look a bit more prototypical and realistic. I am sure the arrangements as drawn must have existed but that plan never really worked for me. It looked a bit too contrived.

It's a stripped back Fairford, but losing the flexibility of the additional loop and blocking the sidings when a passenger train in stabled or being run around which Fairford did not suffer from.  The GWR had a few stations with the freight facilities on what looked like a loop, but they were in fact double ended sidings and typically on a through station of a single line branch not a terminus.

[Lacathedrale]

Danger of veering into 'Layout Planning & Design' general discussion so I'm going to refrain from expounding further! Looking forward to seeing this in TT:120

[Hroth]

On 26/10/2022 at 21:57, Ian Holmes said:

You would have thunk Hornby might have announced a DMU…

 

Or even a TT version of a GWR Diesel Railcar...

[Lacathedrale]

Isn't it a fallacy that the GWR Diesel Railcars were for sleepy branch lines? I mean, I know a single carriage train is visually fitting but I understood they were primarily for fast secondary mainline travel for some reason?

[Hroth]

2 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Isn't it a fallacy that the GWR Diesel Railcars were for sleepy branch lines? I mean, I know a single carriage train is visually fitting but I understood they were primarily for fast secondary mainline travel for some reason?

 

Thats the point.The GWR diesel railcars came in 3 variants, a single vehicle Express Parcels unit, the familiar single unit passenger vehicle and an actual DMU version that ran services from Cardiff to London.  The single units were also more offpeak mainline than dozy branchlines, the GWR had enough 14xx/autocoaches for those!

[Ian Holmes]

4 hours ago, Moxy said:

 

I'm not sure Art of Compromise has been built as drawn.  There is an interesting article by Chris Ford in October 2018 RM where he argues the original plan can't be built, but he has made a 21st century version of it.  One of the things he did was make the loop longer, as you have in your design.

I remember that article, it certainly destroyed a few childhood dreams of mine finding that out. 😂

[Ian Holmes]

5 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Thank you for the RM reference - I've got the app on my tablet and being able to flip to it to get some context is wonderful, thank you.

 

Has the Art of Compromise been built? I ask because with such a short loop it seems a tough prospect to operate! Maybe a good candidate for Heathcote Electronics automatic train shuttles? 

 

I've put it into 5' x 1' below which allows two coaches in the loop:

 

 

I guess the issue is that for a runaround to occur on-layout it's going to eat up almost all of the linear space, so one needs to either be at peace with that, or accept the need for a 'hidden' runaround at one end or another.

Thanks for drawing this out. Food for thought.

 

ian

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

It's a stripped back Fairford, but losing the flexibility of the additional loop and blocking the sidings when a passenger train in stabled or being run around which Fairford did not suffer from.  The GWR had a few stations with the freight facilities on what looked like a loop, but they were in fact double ended sidings and typically on a through station of a single line branch not a terminus.

 

I have been looking at some of those as layout inspiration, from the Highworth Branch thread. In real life most of these places would rarely have had two trains at the terminus at the same time, so blocking the platform is not really an issue but for modelling purposes, bringing in a passenger train and having it run round and maybe add or detach a horsebox, then leaving in the platform until the pick up goods arrives in the loop adds a bit more interesting operation.

[D9020 Nimbus]

I can't remember the exact issue—I've been working my through the RM digital archive recently — but back in the 1980s somebody did build The Art of Compromise largely as drawn (why is this particular track plan always called that? There have been many articles with the same title and different track plans). The original track plan didn't allow you to run round a B-set; the advantage is that you don't need to shunt into the fiddle yard.

[Ian Holmes]

@D9020 Nimbus I’ve been looking through my Railway Modellers too, to see if I could find what you were referring to. The nearest I’ve found is Lindale by David Spooner from December 1981. As to why that trackplan is referred to as so, is testament to Roy C Link’s original scheme. It really tapped into a need amongst modellers for something small and interesting to operate. The visuals were what clinched it, I think. Certainly speaking personally. It really did show that there was potential in a small space. As for the name, well the hobby of railway modelling is all about compromise. Roys article and plan was the first to pull it all together under a snappy title and a whole concept. Much like Iain Rice’s “cameo layouts” perhaps.

Edited November 1, 2022 by Ian Holmes

[NCB]

You could easily add a siding front left which could stable a couple of coaches, to add flexibility. Also replace the platform turnout by a crossover, giving a loco servicing spur. There's room for a signal box, which would create a more Fairford like atmosphere.

 

Peco's inclusion of a Collett Goods drawing with the original announcement may not be accidental; if one appears it would be fine for this layout.

Edited November 1, 2022 by NCB

[D9020 Nimbus]

For something similar, there's Iain Rice's Broadwell Green, also inspired by Fairford, which appeared in Modelling Railways Illustrated back in the 1990s.

[Ian Holmes]

Some more blog ramblings about my proposed layout. Looking to the future https://tttalkabout.blogspot.com/2022/11/looking-to-past-planning-for-future.html

[Ian Holmes]

Further to this post. I’m thinking that it’s going to be a while before any locomotives I’m interested in will be released. So I might just set to and build myself a G15/Y6 tram loco, that way, wheels could be hidden under skirts hiding a multitude of sins. I’d probably finish that first. What would be a good motor unit to sit under that? Something from Halling perhaps? Or is there an RTR loco out there?

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 minute ago, Ian Holmes said:

Further to this post. I’m thinking that it’s going to be a while before any locomotives I’m interested in will be released. So I might just set to and build myself a G15/Y6 tram loco, that way, wheels could be hidden under skirts hiding a multitude of sins. I’d probably finish that first. What would be a good motor unit to sit under that? Something from Halling perhaps? Or is there an RTR loco out there?

 

Hi Ian, how about a Bemo H0m RhB (or FO) Te 2/2 ? (I’m assuming money / availability are no object, and I don’t know how easy they are to dissassemble).  Just a thought, Keith.

[Ian Holmes]

4 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

Hi Ian, how about a Bemo H0m RhB (or FO) Te 2/2 ? (I’m assuming money / availability are no object, and I don’t know how easy they are to dissassemble).  Just a thought, Keith.

That kind of money might be an object 😄

 

Ian

[Ian Holmes]

A blog post in which I dig up the old East Lincolnshire light railway. For consideration as a subject for my TT:120 layout https://tttalkabout.blogspot.com/2022/11/east-lincolnshire-light-railway.html

[Ian Holmes]

Searching around for a suitable chassis to put under a Wisbech and Upwell tram loco, I found this. Would it make a good donor unit or is there anything better. As a tram loco with skirts it will make little difference to me if the donor chassis has 4 or 6 wheels. https://www.reynaulds.com/products/Arnold/HN9054.aspx

Edited November 4, 2022 by Ian Holmes
Spelling

[Moxy]

Never used the Arnold chassis, but I have used one of these Halling drives

 

https://shop.ferro-train.com/HallingShop/Article/ANT-VAR-H0M

 

I know they run smoothly.

 

Hope this helps