How do I find out how much space I need for OO gauge layout of Salisbury.

[Peak]

I have decided that in the near future, I would build a Late 60s/Early 70s oo gauge layout of Salisbury Railway Station.

How do I find out how much space I need to construct it? 

[Andrew P]

Message @PaulRhB he works there.

[TheQ]

Go on google maps and use the measure tool.. 

If you measure in a straight line including the sidings you'll need about 19 meters 

Just for the platforms you'll need about 6.5 meters.

 

That's why railway modellers use size compression.

[PaulRhB]

I’d start with Google maps and something like side by side maps,

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=15.0&lat=51.06890&lon=-1.80580&layers=168&right=BingHyb

 

Print out a scale drawing or draw it up on lining paper then figure out what you can compress. I do have a large scale drawing somewhere but it only covers the railway with no outside the fence detail. I can photograph it if I can find it. 
 

[PaulRhB]

In todays terms platform 2 and three just fit ten 70ft coaches so 2800mm or 9.2ft

 

platform 4 takes 12 70ft coaches so 3360mm or 11ft

[AY Mod]

It was Paddington last week. 😇

['CHARD]

I am resisting the urge to type Comedy GOLD. 

 

 

 

Oh, I failed.

[PaulRhB]

17 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

It was Paddington last week. 😇

Having drawn Kings X in 009 I think I’ll sit on the stones in my greenhouse 😝

[Dungrange]

1 hour ago, Peak said:

How do I find out how much space I need to construct it? 

 

1/76th of the actual size.  

 

The obvious question is how much of it do you want to model?  If you were to take the A36 Wilton Road as one end of the scenic section and the A36 Churchill Way as the other end, then that seems to be about 2.5 km.  In 00, you would therefore need almost 33 metres (108 feet) just for the scenic part of your layout.  You'd probably need a 6m (20 foot) fiddle yard at either end.

 

It's obviously doable if you're Pete Waterman and have a crew of Railnuts to help you.  But if you're asking such basic questions, I would suggest that you need to curb your ambitions and think about much smaller and more compact locations.

[Pete the Elaner]

As others have said, Google Maps is a great place to start, but you may need more space than you think.

 

How much do you want to copy a real location? Search hard & you will find somewhere which can be represented in a small space. You may have to forgo things like shunting, pointwork, signalling or a station (which would be sacrilege to some), but is this worth it to you?

I found somewhere on the WCML in a cutting between tunnels & a bridge. It has no pointwork, no shunting potential, not even the ability to signal check a main line service. There is a station but it is on the main lines. This suits me fine because I prefer tinkering with it to running, but it would be a non-starter for most.

[The Johnster]

The above answers are indicative of just how much room a main line junction station needs if modelled to scale; lots!  If you can accept compromise in terms of train lengths, curve/turnout radii, and clearance space, you should be able to reduce the length needed considerably, but it will still be a pretty big layout once the fiddle yards are consdidered (you will need four; Exeter, Basingstoke, Westbury, and Eastleigh/Southampton.  It will be difficult to compromise on station buildings without losing their recognisable 'Salisburyness' but restricting train lengths will mean that platform lengths can be reduced a bit.

 

A ten coach train with locomotive is about ten feet long in 4mm, and a 40-wagon goods is about 20 feet.  As a very rough rule of thumb, for a through station layout, I would suggest dividing the layout's scenically treated length into thirds, with the station occupying the central third and the outer thirds containing the junctions and other pointwork.  If you can manage any plain track run before disappearing into the scenic breaks, so much the better, and the curves at the eastern end are pretty sharp anyway.  If you're going to model the steam shed, you need to be talking in quarters not thirds.  Not sure what goods facilities remained in the late 60s early 70s, not been there since '67.

 

Now you can see why Pete Waterman needs cathederal naves...

[Dungrange]

21 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

but you may need more space than you think.

 

Indeed - even ignoring the length required, if you were to model the current Salisbury station with the Traction Motive Depot behind it, then you'd need a six foot wide baseboard and that wouldn't even allow for anything beyond the railway fence.  If you want to include the car parking in front of the station building, then the baseboard needs to be widened to seven feet.  Good luck stretching over a baseboard that is that wide.

 

 

[phil_sutters]

I can see the attraction.

Edited March 18 by phil_sutters

[Rivercider]

Salisbury has always been an interesting place but even if someone had plenty of space, time, and money then compromises would still have to be made as explained above.

By leaving out the former GWR station / coal yard / exhibition carriage sidings to the north then the width of the layout would be manageable. To me the spirit of Salisbury includes the bay platforms, particularly platform 6 at the east/London end, which would make the layout very long, though the severe curve at that end can be used to advantage. By leaving out the former steam shed at the west end, and Salisbury East Yard at the London end then it might be possible to recreate something of the character of the place.

 

In his booklet 'Track Plans' CJ Freezer shows how he was able to produce plans for a version of Exeter Central. In real life the station area including carriage sidings at each end stretches for about 40 feet in 00, pretty much straight too. He was able to produce a plan that fitted into a 25 foot x 10 foot room that kept much of the original, though at the expense of leaving out some sidings to reduce width. He was able to produce an even smaller plan  to fit a 15' x 8' room that kept many of the main features. Getting hold of a copy of the booklet would give you an idea of what might realistically be fitted into a space,

 

Edit - I have a few  memories of travelling through Salisbury at the end of the steam era, but more of the early diesel era. If I wanted to recreate services through Salisbury in 1970 I would accept a compromise of a loco plus 6 coaches for the Waterloo - Exeter line. A loco plus 5 coaches for Cardiff - Portsmouth, A loco plus 4 coaches for Salisbury - Waterloo semi-fasts. A 2-car DEMU for the Salisbury - Southampton stoppers, and a 2-car DMU for the Salisbury - Bristol locals. Even then the station length is going to  be about 10' including platform 6 at the east end.

To do justice to a version of a much reduced Salisbury a 15' x 8' room might do it, a double track circuit with fiddle yard on the opposite side. A Warship or two for the Waterloo - Exeter, a Hymek or two for the Cardiff-Portsmouth and freight off the WR, and a class 33 or two for the Waterloo - Salisbury semi-fasts and ballast trains from Meldon. A DEMU and DMU for local passenger would then be a basis for a train service.

At a push perhaps 5 coaches would suffice for the Waterloo - Exeter with 4 for the Pompeys, and 3 for the semi-fasts.

 

Good luck. 

 

cheers

Edited March 18 by Rivercider
Additional info - my ideas for a layout.

[Michael Hodgson]

11 hours ago, Dungrange said:

It's obviously doable if you're Pete Waterman and have a crew of Railnuts to help you.  But if you're asking such basic questions, I would suggest that you need to curb your ambitions and think about much smaller and more compact locations.

 

Naturally you'd want the Cathedral in the background of your model too - Salisbury's would be nearly 6' long and 5' 4" high in OO

[Dungrange]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Naturally you'd want the Cathedral in the background of your model too - Salisbury's would be nearly 6' long and 5' 4" high in OO

 

It depends on the direction you're looking. 😀

 

If this were to be an exhibition layout, then given the curve through the station, I'd be tempted to model it with the Cathedral being behind the viewer, the station at the front of the layout and the Traction Motive Depot to the rear.  However, if this was to be a permanent 'home' layout constructed around the walls of a barn, then I'd exaggerate the natural curve such that it could be bent round the walls, in which case the operator and viewer would be inside the curve.  In that case, the station would be behind the TMD and the Cathedral behind that.  As you note, if the cathedral were close to the station, it would be a massive building with the spires reaching to the ceiling of an average room.  Thankfully it's far enough away that a bit of forced perspective would permit something smaller to be painted on the backscene.  I'm not all that convinced that it's particularly prominent from railway infrastructure anyway.  Looking at Google Streetview there always seem to be a building or tree blocking sight of the Cathedral.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

21 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

Naturally you'd want the Cathedral in the background of your model too - Salisbury's would be nearly 6' long and 5' 4" high in OO

It's half a mile away, though.

 

Far Away. Small. It's the same thing, really, isn't it Dougal?

[Oldddudders]

1 minute ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

It's half a mile away, though.

 

Far Away. Small. It's the same thing, really, isn't it Dougal?

404 feet in 4mm at half a mile. Too complex for me. 

[43110andyb]

Charwelton is 36’ long, if it had been constructed to actual scale by the original builders Wolverhampton MRC it would be 70+’ long but you can still have a really good representation I think at over half the length.

[KeithMacdonald]

3 hours ago, Rivercider said:

Salisbury has always been an interesting place but even if someone had plenty of space, time, and money then compromises would still have to be made as explained above.

By leaving out the former GWR station / coal yard / exhibition carriage sidings to the north then the width of the layout would be manageable. To me the spirit of Salisbury includes the bay platforms, particularly platform 6 at the east/London end, which would make the layout very long, though the severe curve at that end can be used to advantage.

 

It's big. Very big.

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17.3&lat=51.07190&lon=-1.80624&layers=178&b=1&o=100

 

[Harlequin]

@Peak Adapting a real world plan isn't simply a matter of looking at a map and scaling down what you see. It's a complex recipe of measurements, compromises, trade-offs and sheer practicality.

 

If you're careful you can compress track plans (shorten the lengths of parts selectively) and still keep the essential feel of a place.

 

The same is true of simplifying a station plan. Leaving things out helps with compression because turnouts are removed and what's left can be pushed together but when doing that you have to be really careful not to affect the basic operation of the station.

 

Station plans can be curved or even partially hidden to fit them into a room.

 

Finally, ask yourself whether you can really afford the time, commitment and money to complete a large complex station.

 

Edited March 18 by Harlequin

[Olive_Green1923]

4 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

@Peak Adapting a real world plan isn't simply a matter of looking at a map and scaling down what you see. It's complex recipe of measurements, compromises, trade-offs and sheer practicality.

 

You need to understand not only maps and scale factors but also how much you can compress, simplify and adapt a plan to fit the space available.

 

If you're careful you can compress track plans (shorten the lengths of parts selectively) and still keep the essential feel of a place.

 

The same is true of simplifying a station plan. Leaving things out helps with compression because turnouts are removed and what's left can be pushed together but when doing that you have to be really careful not to affect the basic operation of the station.

 

Station plans can be curved or even partially hidden to fit them into a room.

 

Finally, ask yourself whether you can really afford the time, commitment and money to complete a large complex station.

 

 

..and then of course you have to factor in the practicalities of operating it. Unless you have a team of people who can both provide rolling stock and operate it, you will end up with a layout which is either half empty or hardly used because one person on their own simply couldn't operate it prototypically (with the exception of automation).

 

 

[melmerby]

Another thing modellers have to contend with if using RTR track is that much real world trackwork is bespoke to the location and can't be faithfully replicated with RTR track such as Peco Streamline.

Compound points are quite common and often there are many curved points of varying radii on the approaches.

 

When you start planning with RTR track often many compromises are needed to get everything to fit.

Of course if you build your own track, much more prototypical layouts can be produced.

[Geep7]

16 minutes ago, Olive_Green1923 said:

 

..and then of course you have to factor in the practicalities of operating it. Unless you have a team of people who can both provide rolling stock and operate it, you will end up with a layout which is either half empty or hardly used because one person on their own simply couldn't operate it prototypically (with the exception of automation).

 

 

And this is why, whilst I would love to build a model of Guildford or Reading stations even if I had the room / money to do so, I wouldn't. Pete Waterman, to build Leamington Spa (and current OO project), obviously has the money, but also a rather large team of friends to build it with.

[Dungrange]

13 minutes ago, Olive_Green1923 said:

one person on their own simply couldn't operate it prototypically (with the exception of automation).

 

Which of course adds substantially to the cost of building such a large station (and the time taken to build it).

 

22 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

It's a complex recipe of measurements, compromises, trade-offs and sheer practicality.

 

Which obviously raises the question - why Salisbury?  Unless @Peak is a music mogul with a very large property and a few million in the bank, bits of the prototype will have to be missed out.  Defining the appeal of Salisbury would help to determine where the compromises should be made.