Single Track Suburban London End to End

[iamwill]

I plan on building this small layout set in modern era suburban London. It's current plan is 4ft x 0.75ft (1.2m x 0.225m) and will be N gauge so should fit easily in a rented apartment. I have acquired some modern era London scenic items over the past couple of months incidentally so set on that for the setting and have now ordered a Class 313 from Revolution for the project. The station is set on a fictitious town high street (zone 3/4 North London perhaps) next to shops and has a high level terminating and through platform (both terminating in the first section). The idea is to be small and relatively inexpensive for a first layout before eventually moving onto bigger things. 

 

 

I have allowed scope of an extension to double the length as below but this would be years away and I may decide to go for a bigger second layout rather than extend this one. This extension is very much a rough plan and absolutely not set on this.

 

I would like to hear some thoughts on this, I am aware it doesn't make for the most enjoyable running sessions for most but I am easily entertained by trains going back and forth. 

[Foulounoux]

Maybe model it as a double track line that has been singled...trackbed showing remnants of the second line 

[iamwill]

38 minutes ago, Foulounoux said:

Maybe model it as a double track line that has been singled...trackbed showing remnants of the second line 

I like this, can definitely implement bridge supports for a bridge that no longer exists or even a double track bridge.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

There's a prototype for the terminus. Chesham on the Metropolitan Line had a bay platform for a while. Here's a picture from 1969. It looks like the old run round loop was still in place. The bay was only built in 1960, at the time of electrification.

As far as I am aware, the Chesham branch was built as single track.

 

I can't think of a prototype for your through station, but don't let that put you off. It seems plausible enough.

[MyRule1]

Firstly it's your layout so build it and enjoy both the building and running, If what you are aiming for is a Suburban London scene diorama with a small length of running railway then leave it as it is. My only query is that the station looks a little short. I cannot find online how long the 313 is but I would guess around 15 - 17 inches.

 

However there has to be a but..

 

In N gauge I would go with a double track line as there are plenty of prototypes of high level lines like this - most of the line from Seven Sisters to Edmonton Green fits this description, although there are no island platforms.

 

There are two other things you might like to consider.

 

Changing the layout from a high level line to one in a cutting. if you do extend the line it will allow for scenic breaks.

As this will be a freelance layout  I would consider  looking at Chesington South. This is a terminus as you require but the line extends beyond the station as a freight only line serving an aggregates terminal. This would allow you to additionally run a Class 59, Class 66 through the station light engine.  You either do this  with a singe line of add a trailing crossover to a double line from left to right. If your line is low level then Chessington has a scenic break via a bridge at one end and lots of trees at the other.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.356436,-0.3084423,244m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu

 

 

[Harlequin]

How will you make the trains look as if they are coming from and going to somewhere? Do you intend to have some off-scene storage for trains?

 

Re. double track: Be a bit careful because it will probably require more complex pointwork for the station, and that means longer pointwork that will affect the positions of the scenic elements.

 

[Harlequin]

Since the station and rails are going to be high level they will obscure the scenery behind and below. So it might be better if the plan was flipped top to bottom so that the station is at the back and roads and shops in front/below - at least in the central focal area of the scene.

 

[iamwill]

10 hours ago, MyRule1 said:

Firstly it's your layout so build it and enjoy both the building and running, If what you are aiming for is a Suburban London scene diorama with a small length of running railway then leave it as it is. My only query is that the station looks a little short. I cannot find online how long the 313 is but I would guess around 15 - 17 inches.

 

However there has to be a but..

 

In N gauge I would go with a double track line as there are plenty of prototypes of high level lines like this - most of the line from Seven Sisters to Edmonton Green fits this description, although there are no island platforms.

 

There are two other things you might like to consider.

 

Changing the layout from a high level line to one in a cutting. if you do extend the line it will allow for scenic breaks.

As this will be a freelance layout  I would consider  looking at Chesington South. This is a terminus as you require but the line extends beyond the station as a freight only line serving an aggregates terminal. This would allow you to additionally run a Class 59, Class 66 through the station light engine.  You either do this  with a singe line of add a trailing crossover to a double line from left to right. If your line is low level then Chessington has a scenic break via a bridge at one end and lots of trees at the other.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.356436,-0.3084423,244m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu

 

 

Assuming the model is perfectly to scale it will be 15.8 inches + space for couplings. The platforms are 17.5 inches long so should just be long enough.

 

Chessington South is a station I had looked at and didn't realise the aggregates terminal was there - google maps need to update the satellite view!

 

Whilst I agree double track is more realistic I couldn't find space for the point work needed whilst keeping the track running corner to corner diagonally and the platforms long enough for the 313. I do like the idea of a freight terminal beyond the station and it would mix up runnings but I'm not too sure how to make it work with the single track - I would need a runaround loop I assume - and how a freight terminal fits into a town centre scene but it's definitely something I'll consider. 

 

I appreciate the benefits of a cutting but I prefer how high-level lines look and become more of the centrepiece of the layout.

[iamwill]

10 hours ago, Harlequin said:

How will you make the trains look as if they are coming from and going to somewhere? Do you intend to have some off-scene storage for trains?

It's something that will be a slight drawback to size constraints but I think I'll use cassettes.

[iamwill]

8 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Since the station and rails are going to be high level they will obscure the scenery behind and below. So it might be better if the plan was flipped top to bottom so that the station is at the back and roads and shops in front/below - at least in the central focal area of the scene.

 

Initially I planned for the layout to be viewable from all sides as it is small and portable enough but this doesn't allow for a backdrop so I may end up flipping it.

[Harlequin]

17 minutes ago, iamwill said:

It's something that will be a slight drawback to size constraints but I think I'll use cassettes.

 

Cassettes are a good compromise given what you've told us.

 

The important thing for us looking at your plan, is that we now understand that the tracks do extend off the ends and that trains will leave the scene.

 

12 minutes ago, iamwill said:

Initially I planned for the layout to be viewable from all sides as it is small and portable enough but this doesn't allow for a backdrop so I may end up flipping it.

Ah, I see. I lazily assumed the usual convention that the bottom is the viewing side and the top was a backscene but of course it doesn't have to be like that.

 

The track plan is almost as simple as it's possible to get but it looks like it will be well integrated into the scenery and so I think it could be a beautiful and engaging little layout. Go for it!

 

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Harlequin

[Nearholmer]

Maybe have a look at North Woolwich and Croxley Green stations and approaches in their terminal decline phases. Both were single line termini operated by 313, or in the case of CG, often a replacement bus.

 

I actually think that CG could yield quite a good dioramic shuttle layout, although it never had a bay. Difficult to capture the atmosphere of  near-completely-forgottenness in N scale though, it really needs a larger scale.

The other place I wonder about is Gospel Oak, the Barking Line side, which wasn’t electrified, but my dim memory tells me might have had some features of interest to you when it was at its seediest.

 

Or, does the St Albans Abbey branch offer anything appealing?

 

PS: personally, I think the bay is an unnecessary elaboration that could mess things up scenically and atmospherically. Lines in and around London that are, were, or degenerated to, single track mostly didn’t neec more than one platform at each terminating point.

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Nearholmer

[DavidB-AU]

The station and bridge arrangement isn't a million miles away from the EH&LR/LNER Edgware station.

 

 

In an alternate universe you could imagine a fictional branch of the Edgware, Highgate and London Railway that wasn't part of the New Works Programme and somehow survived long enough, although with most track removed, to become part of the Great Northern Suburban with 313s to King's Cross and Moorgate.

Edited October 17, 2023 by DavidB-AU

[009 micro modeller]

9 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Maybe have a look at North Woolwich and Croxley Green stations and approaches in their terminal decline phases. Both were single line termini operated by 313, or in the case of CG, often a replacement bus.

 

I actually think that CG could yield quite a good dioramic shuttle layout, although it never had a bay. Difficult to capture the atmosphere of  near-completely-forgottenness in N scale though, it really needs a larger scale.

The other place I wonder about is Gospel Oak, the Barking Line side, which wasn’t electrified, but my dim memory tells me might have had some features of interest to you when it was at its seediest.

 

Or, does the St Albans Abbey branch offer anything appealing?

 

PS: personally, I think the bay is an unnecessary elaboration that could mess things up scenically and atmospherically. Lines in and around London that are, were, or degenerated to, single track mostly didn’t neec more than one platform at each terminating point.

 

 

 

I also thought Croxley Green and North Woolwich might be suitable for something like this, although I wasn’t sure how you’d best arrange a suitable scenic break for Croxley Green. Agree about the bay, it seems a bit of an unlikely place to have two platforms, unless @iamwill particularly wants the increased operational interest it could provide. If I was building this I’d be tempted to use automatic shuttle operation; with two trains alternately working out of the two platforms you could still do this but it would need some form of switching for the point, perhaps using a reed switch or similar. Croxley Green is potentially interesting because by bending timelines slightly you could plausibly introduce both diesel and tube stock as well, alongside the 313.

 

On the other hand, although implausible I did see a discussion about the St Albans Abbey line once, in relation to campaigns to reinstate the passing loop, where it was pointed out that a more frequent service could be provided with two platforms at each end and three trains, with a train arriving at St Albans Abbey and another one immediately leaving (presumably from a new track in the old GNR bay). Alternatively, the bay could have been retained for use as a storage siding; there are a few places on London Underground where trains lay over in such sidings at the end of the line, far away from their main depot, but I can’t really think of anywhere involving 313s (or where they could have been involved) that does this (not counting Letchworth/WGC/Hertford which are all on through lines with multiple tracks, even though they do have storage sidings). I also like the Edgware-area suggestions.

To include the second (bay) platform, you could say that the station is the terminus for two separate lines/services, with the physical junction between them located just off the scenic section. One of the services is fairly frequent, operated by the 313 - perhaps it’s an offshoot of the North London Line or similar. The other one is less frequent and possibly not electric (thinking vaguely of the West London Line during the period of DMU operation before it was re-electrified). The less frequent one needs the train to lay over for longer before the return journey, justifying two platforms. If you build the extension you could then have an electric service operated by the 313 terminating in the bay and the less frequent one continuing on the through line to a more distant terminus off-scene.

[Nearholmer]

29 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

although I wasn’t sure how you’d best arrange a suitable scenic break for Croxley Green

Wild, untamed shrubbery might do; it had a lot of that!

[MyRule1]

Most of the suggestions have been for a terminus but @iamwill mentioned in his first post that the layout was being designed so that the station could become a through station in the future. Therefore I feel the original plan as presented is actually the optimum for his initial requirements. The EMU can run into the bay leaving the other platform for imaginary through services.

 

It's a pity that you are restricted to a four foot board as this does not allow the unit (at around 16ins) to arrive and depart from the station at both ends it yo could add another foot then I would suggest using your lengthen plan with the station in the centre.

 

Having taken another look at your plans, have you worked out the design of where the buildings etc are going. I only ask that because the micro layout I am working on at the moment has given me a problem. I designed the track plan and laid the track I then found I had too little space in some areas and too much in others. Your road layout could lead to similar issues. You are planning a diorama of suburban London with a railway the street scenes need as much, if not more, attention and planning as the railway.

[Harlequin]

A cassette connection on both sides will allow through services to be run.

 

[Nearholmer]

If it is definitely “through”, I can’t resist nominating my favourite London(ish) single line station: Emerson Park.

 

It is probably the station least changed over the years, and always seems to be in either good or fair condition.

 

In a cutting though!

 

Electrify the Marlow branch?

 

 

[Nearholmer]

I think this sort of thing, a very simple junction station, fits with 3-car sets in N, and it might be possible to make it both plausible and interesting.

 

 

Clearly, it needs to be ‘liquidised’ by curving things, but my next step would probably involve a couple of Peco medium radius point print-outs, and some suitable-width masking tape, laid out on a kitchen worktop of something. Personally, I find that planning something this bijou has to be done in full size, so that things like end-sweep of cars, space consumed by embankment slopes etc become immediately obvious to the eye. By slicing-up a few old cardboard boxes, you could tack together a full-size, 3D mock-up in an hour.

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, MyRule1 said:

Most of the suggestions have been for a terminus but @iamwill mentioned in his first post that the layout was being designed so that the station could become a through station in the future. Therefore I feel the original plan as presented is actually the optimum for his initial requirements. The EMU can run into the bay leaving the other platform for imaginary through services.

That’s sort of what I was getting at with my initial suggestion (313 terminates in the bay, through services use other platform and may not necessarily be electric). But as you’ve described it I’m now reminded of Gospel Oak. Ignoring the NLL platforms for the moment and concentrating on the Barking line, this terminates at a platform on a siding off the through lines, thus keeping the through lines clear for through freight services. If the through line in the original plan was going to be freight only you could potentially either model the station with only one platform (on the siding - where the bay is on the plan but as a side platform rather than island) or model it with all the passenger trains terminating using the bay and a disused platform face on the through line, with freight passing through (though it is possible that they’d have electrified and maintained the other platform face anyway, to give more flexibility).

Edited October 17, 2023 by 009 micro modeller

[The Stationmaster]

This line is going to be in a very small space and the more track you add so the more crowded, and shorter, it is going to look.  If you just have a single line it will look longer - because of the way the human eye perceives the scene. And when we think about a large number of contemporary branch lines, even in busy urban/suburban settings, are only single lines.

[The Johnster]

I'm no expert on the wilder fastnesses of That London's northern hinterlands, but my impression is of suburban branches that hung on by the skin of their teeth in the 70s and 80s served by very grubby Lea Valley 116s fighting their way through the Buddlea, to experience revivals and tidying-up post-privatisation.  Perhaps the area has changed to 'upcoming' from 'downgoing'.  Buildings are either derelict boarded-up originals, or gone altogether to be replaced by bus shelters.  Termini are pretty basic, perhaps one end of a long siding shuttle service. 

 

Your suggested plan would need signals.  I can't help thinking that the station might have been an island platform on what had once been a double track route, now singled.  I'd be tempted to have two services terminating here, both stripped back to the minimal bare essentials worked by unsignalled shuttles, one from each end as an end-on junction, full-sized 313 &c 'overground' from one direction and 'underground/LUL' from the other.  This increases the potential biodiversity of your stock and makes it visually more interesting.  Working information boards would also increase the visual interest, destinations to real stations west and east of this place.  Set to 'Next Train...' and nothing else, you can almost see the overnight tumbleweed blowing through like the ghosts of Victorian cross-London freight trains...

[33C]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Set to 'Next Train...' and nothing else, you can almost see the overnight tumbleweed blowing through like the ghosts of Victorian cross-London freight trains...

Faded Network Southeast red, weeds, litter, the frame of a bus shelter and dereliction. Rusty rails and a 2 a day service, overcast sky and a damp platform. 

A challenge to model convincingly, ....and I haven't mentioned stock...

 

....I would love it! 

[iamwill]

Thank you all for the comments today, a lot of interesting points and suggestions and I'll take a look at all of the stations recommended. I agree with @The Stationmaster and @MyRule1 that there shouldn't be too much track to allow sufficient scenery and create the diorama. 

 

I think to allow the layout to have the most basic level of running variation I do want to keep the bay platform with the backstory that it was once double track and the second platform remains but whether this use is for passenger trains on a different route or freight trains passing through whilst one platform is terminating only I will have to think about more. I prefer the idea of freight but given the space constraints I'm not sure I could have any more than 5 modern length wagons per train though.

 

I'm not sure I want too much of a rundown scene and the idea is to be set in the 2010s rather than earlier.

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, iamwill said:

I think to allow the layout to have the most basic level of running variation I do want to keep the bay platform with the backstory that it was once double track and the second platform remains but whether this use is for passenger trains on a different route or freight trains passing through whilst one platform is terminating only I will have to think about more. I prefer the idea of freight but given the space constraints I'm not sure I could have any more than 5 modern length wagons per train though.

To be honest, when I suggested freight I was slightly worried about the train length aspect, as well as the need to either run round or turn the whole train at each end. But in some ways it does seem more plausible for it to be a terminating passenger service with some through freight, and you could restrict it to trip workings en route to somewhere specific (like a factory or an aggregate terminal) if you wanted to limit the length of freight trains.

 

I also like @The Johnster’s idea of an end-on junction but I’m struggling to think of a precedent in the London area (there are some on Merseyrail though that fit the basic concept), and it may not be what you want if you build the extension as I presume the aim is to allow the trains to run further than they can on the initial section. I understand Amersham nearly became an end-on junction, as if Marylebone had closed it would have had a Chiltern DMU shuttle to Aylesbury and Met services to Baker Street and Aldgate, but not sure how relevant that is.