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

[melmerby]

3 minutes ago, Geep7 said:

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.

And a very large shed!

[Dungrange]

15 hours ago, AY Mod said:

It was Paddington last week. 😇

 

At least Paddington could be fitted in a smaller space.  An eight foot wide baseboard to model everything between Eastbourne Terrace and the canal and it would only need to be 18 foot long to capture everything between Praed Street and Bishop's Bridge Road.  Obviously there would need to be a fiddle yard as well, but at least a model of Paddington would be smaller than Salisbury, even if I don't think it would be that interesting to operate and too much of the track would be hidden by the overall roof.

[Olive_Green1923]

5 minutes ago, Geep7 said:

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.

 

It's funny because I think we have all dreamt of  building these big, complex layouts, which are simply not possible in 99% of cases unless you're very well off or have a Club / group of friends to support you and do it justice.

 

As a younger modeller, I always found myself drawn to the big layouts at exhibitions, yet now it's the complete reverse. At an exhibition, you'll find me spending the majority of my time observing the smaller / simpler layouts vs. the bigger / complex ones, because:

 

a) they operate more efficiently (nothing worse than seeing a big layout with nothing running)

b) the operators can focus more time on shunting etc, not just running trains in straight lines

c) the attention to detail is often better and is often more prototypical to a certain location

d) you can chat more easily to the owner / operator because they don't have to spend all their time concentrating

 

And of the course the other upside to building a smaller layout is that - in theory - you can finish it and start the next one in a smaller timescale!

[AndrueC]

16 hours ago, TheQ said:

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.

Yup. When I was designing my first layout I wanted to include my other hobby so looked into including a golf course. Even in N scale that's impossible unless you live in a mansion.

 

Another friend wanted to model a dock with a cruise ship tied up and discovered the same problem.

[Geep7]

3 minutes ago, Olive_Green1923 said:

 

It's funny because I think we have all dreamt of  building these big, complex layouts, which are simply not possible in 99% of cases unless you're very well off or have a Club / group of friends to support you and do it justice.

 

As a younger modeller, I always found myself drawn to the big layouts at exhibitions, yet now it's the complete reverse. At an exhibition, you'll find me spending the majority of my time observing the smaller / simpler layouts vs. the bigger / complex ones, because:

 

a) they operate more efficiently (nothing worse than seeing a big layout with nothing running)

b) the operators can focus more time on shunting etc, not just running trains in straight lines

c) the attention to detail is often better and is often more prototypical to a certain location

d) you can chat more easily to the owner / operator because they don't have to spend all their time concentrating

 

And of the course the other upside to building a smaller layout is that - in theory - you can finish it and start the next one in a smaller timescale!

Exactly this. If I had a larger space, i'd probably still build the same terminus station as I had built for my West Sands layout, maybe with a couple more platforms, and a few more goods sidings, and MU stabling sidings, but just include a lot more plain running tracks to see the trains running in the countryside.

 

However, my current layout is only 9ft long (including a 3ft fiddle yard), and i'm just as happy modelling that, as I would be 16ft-18ft layout, even if I can only run 2-car multiple units.

[Dagworth]

5 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

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

 

 

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.

 

 Building a huge layout doesn’t have to be the sole domain of music moguls. Yes I work in the same industry but have nowhere near that kind of income but I’m still building an insane layout, a scale model of Ipswich. I live in a modest rented terraced house (albeit with a reasonably large garage) and now have three large (!) layouts and three small ones. 
 

Ipswich is built with no compression at all, the only major alteration is to straighten it slightly so that it all fits on a 4ft width  straight set of boards. As someone said above, this does entail hand building the points to get them correct. 
 

It all comes down to choices, I live alone (edit: that's actually not true, I share the space with three gorgeous felines!), I don’t drink very often, I have no children, and my house is pretty much a workshop! 

 

Andi 

Edited March 18 by Dagworth

[TravisM]

1 hour ago, Geep7 said:

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.

 

But even he had to selectively compress large parts of his layout

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

And a very large shed!

 

It's a bit older than my garden shed but rather better constructed.

 

[Peak]

12 hours ago, Rivercider said:

 

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

How much of the area would be reduced? Would East Yard and Fisherton Yard still be there?

[Dungrange]

9 minutes ago, Peak said:

How much of the area would be reduced? Would East Yard and Fisherton Yard still be there?

That's up to you. If you need 100' to model it to scale and you only have 15' then you need to define the least interesting 85% to cut out.

[Dagworth]

Bear in mind that a crossover to scale may be 5ft long whereas if made from Peco points will be around 2ft long

 

Andi

[Cruachan]

12 hours ago, Rivercider said:

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

Back in December 1991, RAIL 163 carried a suggested contemporary plan for Salisbury station in 4mm scale that, with a good deal of compression and compromise, worked out extremely similar to your suggestions above.

 

The plan wasn't to scale, but the text stated that it was intended to fit in a space 15' x 9', with maximum train lengths of Loco+6 coaches for Waterloo - Exeter services.

[Rivercider]

25 minutes ago, Cruachan said:

Back in December 1991, RAIL 163 carried a suggested contemporary plan for Salisbury station in 4mm scale that, with a good deal of compression and compromise, worked out extremely similar to your suggestions above.

 

The plan wasn't to scale, but the text stated that it was intended to fit in a space 15' x 9', with maximum train lengths of Loco+6 coaches for Waterloo - Exeter services.

That is uncanny, I had never seen that plan before, but is pretty much as I envisaged. I think I might have left out Fisherton Yard to make the board narrower, perhaps just retaining one road there. One other thing I don't like there is a departure from the up bay runs wrong road into the fiddle yard, but otherwise that looks a good plan

 

cheers 

[Rivercider]

2 hours ago, Peak said:

How much of the area would be reduced? Would East Yard and Fisherton Yard still be there?

In the early 1970s there would still be a lot of Fisherton Yard and the East Yard in use. Have a look on Flickr for example.

I took photos later in the early 1980s.

 

Here is a view looking into Fisherton Yard with the pilot 08658 stabled between duties. By this date the yard was used mainly to stable the exhibition coaches I believe. 23/4/80

 

The East Yard was still busy into the 1980s, it handled ballast trains to/from Meldon Quarry, and also Speedlink traffic though in the 1970s it would have been busier, there are a number of MOD depots in the area that saw a lot of traffic.

 

Looking from the platform towards the East Yard, 7V00 for Meldon Quarry approaches behind 47152, 17/7/85.

 

For a layout set around 1970 these yards would be active, but in order to make it fit in a reasonable space  I would leave them out and imagine them to be off scene, or heavily rationalise them, just as the plan posted by Cruachan.

 

cheers      

 

Edited March 18 by Rivercider
Missing word added.

[RJS1977]

On 17/03/2024 at 20:27, AY Mod said:

It was Paddington last week. 😇

Did he want to build a model of Salisbury station as well? 

Making a model of Television Centre out of Mr Curry's new carpet is one thing....

[Fishoutofwater]

12 hours ago, Rivercider said:

One other thing I don't like there is a departure from the up bay runs wrong road into the fiddle yard, but otherwise that looks a good plan

That plan is not entirely faithfull to reality. There was (and stiil is) a trailing crossover to allow departures from platform 6 to the Up Main. There never was AFAIK a facing crossover Down Main/Up main just east of the platforms. Fisherton Yard never had a direct connection to/from the running lines - it was connected to the stub end of the GWR Down line which was a kickback from platform 1; just as the present day Traction Depot is connected.  Several other changes possible depending on your space/desires.

 

[Dungrange]

4 hours ago, Fishoutofwater said:

That plan is not entirely faithful to reality.

 

Not really a surprise when trying to compress what is a large station into a small space.  That plan is definitely in the category of 'inspired by Salisbury' rather than a model that is faithful to the actual station, but it does show what can be achieved in a relatively small space.  If @Peak wants to include more, or improve the authenticity, then more space is required, which comes back to the original question.

[tomparryharry]

Well, a mile in 4mm is what:- 70 feet? I'd dearly love to be able to recreate something on that overall scale. The last time I seriously considered a properly scaled layout, my neighbours on both sides were alarmed when the bulldozers turned up...

 

A 40-wagon mineral train is somewhere about 10' in 00. Proper length passenger trains even longer. Any station is longer as well, so you might want to leave out things like platforms, etc. There is a fine line between a properly proportioned scenario, and a highly squeezed Waterloo Approach. A lot of railway locations are way off-scene, sometimes miles away. Getting from one railway route to another is commonplace with junctions within junctions, all on the same line. A classic example is the station throat for Waterloo, which commences at Clapham Junction, Queenstown Road, and finally Waterloo itself.

 

If you have the space & resources, then go for it. if I could, I would. On the other hand, Mrs. Smith might complain...

 

"Ian, the neighbours at number 3 are complaining about the pilot working, and the Down Starter signal is disturbing the budgie...". 

[Harlequin]

@Peak I notice that you haven't responded to the discussion here, apart from asking another unanswerable question.

 

How much space have you got to make your layout? Are you going to use an existing room, or a garage or are you going to build something to suit?

 

[BachelorBoy]

Alternatively @Peak, tell us how much space you have, and we can tell you what scale you need. 

[BachelorBoy]

On 18/03/2024 at 04:13, TheQ said:

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.

 

That 19 metres in OO shrinks to 6.5 metres in Z, and just 3 metres in T. 

 

 

 

[TheQ]

Perhaps more manageable would be the never grouped nor nationalized,

Salisbury Railway & Market House Railway Company, the terminus is now called the corn exchange

The line all 1/4 of a mile of it, survived until around about 1970. 

Part of it is on the map previously posted, it's the branch on the right hand side which drops down and is just below the Malthouse.

 

Number 8 bus from Salisbury, 18 miles up the road is  the village Ludgershall, it's  station.. needs a shed,  I've built it...53 ft long!!!! The station is around 35ft...

 

 

If I were to model the cathedral in the grounds just round the corner from Ted Heaths house, is a cottage i'd have to model..

My late Aunt's house, Tutors cottages..

Edited March 20 by TheQ

[BachelorBoy]

Salisbury Cathedral's spire in OO would be about 5'3" or 1.6m tall

 

 

[Olive_Green1923]

48 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

Salisbury Cathedral's spire in OO would be about 5'3" or 1.6m tall

 

 

 

Despite this being correct, it still seems absolutely bonkers when you imagine it.

[njee20]

1 hour ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

That 19 metres in OO shrinks to 6.5 metres in Z, and just 3 metres in T. 

 

It's a shame that pointwork in T is pretty poor, the scope for creating tiny versions of large stations would be incredible!