Another newbie planning their first railway…

[RobertFrench]

I've found my way back to model railways, digging out my late father's rolling stock collection, and now having a great space to build something in.  I'm really looking forward to learning some new skills around building boards, laying (OO) track, wiring it all up, and then (probably in collaboration with my wife) creating a hopefully realistic scene.

 

Like others, I've been playing with a planning tool (SCARM for me, on a Mac) and feel that a representation of a rural 50s/60s station, currently based on Cranleigh which I know well, fits my ambitions.

 

I've got a large-ish, square-ish office at the back of my garage, that would allow a decent sized 'l-shaped' layout, with a scenic side and a small fiddle yard.  The scene would include station, small goods yard, with the high street in the background.

 

I had a brainwave that instead of a 'there and back' (a through station with a dead end, rather than a terminus) I could include a hidden 'return' route… but can see lots of potential issues with access in the event of derailments or whatever, behind the backscene where I won't have easy access.  

 

I'd welcome any thoughts/suggestions on how to optimise this set-up (and am robust enough to accept any number of 'don't do that, it's a dumb idea' comments too).

 

If it matters, likely to be a mix of Peco 75 Bullhead for the scenic bits and 100 Streamline for the return and fiddle yard.  Platform length is currently dictating overall proportions, trying to accommodate a 3/4 coach train + loco + space to run-round…

 

Thanks in advance for your thoughts,

Robert

[Hibelroad]

Be aware that you have created a reversing loop so that means electrical problems. There are ways to handle this and I think DCC circuitry which will handle this for you but some research will be needed in order to get the electrics right. Other than that, if this is to scale then the radius at the end looks rather tight. I’m not sure why you need to mix the rail sizes, if you buy a box of code 75 why not stick to that throughout, just a few thoughts. 

[AndyB]

Hi Robert.

I had a small N gauge layout that was sort of like this. Albeit the FY was a traverser.

 

One thing to remember is that in your Fidfle Yard, at the turnout where your return line meets the line going to the station, you'll need to switch track polarities. If you're thinking of using DCC control then you can get a gadget to do this...

 

[Pete the Elaner]

Apart from the reverse loop which has already been mentioned & with care, is not a problem, you have gone for a fairly simple design. That is an excellent decision.

Getting something running under its own power is a huge motivation boost & a simple design means you will achieve this more quickly.

You will also learn as you go. This is not a bad thing, but a complex layout leaves things looking a little inconsistent & makes restarting a huge decision. With a more simple layout, updating your earlier work or even starting again are both much more achievable options.

[F-UnitMad]

24 minutes ago, RobertFrench said:

Platform length is currently dictating overall proportions, trying to accommodate a 3/4 coach train + loco + space to run-round…

Don't forget to plan your fiddleyard to be able to hold similar length trains. 

The non-scenic curves look very tight in relation to everything else. Long time since I've been in OO, but from what I read Radius 1 (about 15") seems to be considered a no-no for modern locos & rolling stock. Those curves will also dictate train lengths, as haulage capability - tractive effort - diminishes the tighter the radius. 

[tjf4375]

1 hour ago, Hibelroad said:

Be aware that you have created a reversing loop so that means electrical problems. There are ways to handle this and I think DCC circuitry which will handle this for you but some research will be needed in order to get the electrics right. Other than that, if this is to scale then the radius at the end looks rather tight. I’m not sure why you need to mix the rail sizes, if you buy a box of code 75 why not stick to that throughout, just a few thoughts. 

I'm guessing it was a cost consideration - you wouldn't really want to waste decent bullhead track on non-scenic areas. Much easier and cheaper to get job lots of old 100 track for use in sidings and return loops etc.

[RobertFrench]

Wow, that was quick!

 

Thanks folks – instant great advice on the reverse loop – I knew that 'C' I got in O Level combined sciences would bite me on the backside at some point… will investigate further.  I was planning on sticking with analogue, as I do have a bunch of stuff that might not be DCC compatible, but I'll definitely give that choice more thought.

 

The non-scenic curves are actually radius 2, so I think would be OK, but it's definitely tight.  Possibly a nice-to-have rather than fundamental part of the design…

 

When I first unearthed Dad's old collection – ranging from 70s/80s Hornby/Lima/Mainline stuff through to more modern Bachmann/Heljan/Hornby locos – I bought the Peco radius 1 starter track kit for fun, which instantly caused problems for the newer, higher quality locos, which are the ones I'm most likely to use, so I've avoided anything tighter than 2nd radius anywhere.

 

As @tjf4375 correctly pointed out, I'd figured it would be best to keep the 75 track for just the scenic area to save money – points in particular are much more expensive with the fancy bullhead track.

 

Robert

[AndyB]

I'm wondering if the sidings at the station might be refined a bit.

I'd suggest a kick back siding; at present they all come directly off the running rail. 

 

And you might consider a bay platform (departure platform) on the RHS of the station. Branch trains would arrive on the main platform and then shunt into the departure platform ahead of their return journey. Lots more play value for one extra point.

 

 

[The Johnster]

Should work well, see provisos above.  It reminds me of some of Schooner's trackplans, from this site, which are innovative and clever, but this is a bit simpler which is a good thing in a first layout as has been said.  You wil need to be able to handle stock in the fiddle yard, and to make life easier for yourself I would recommend spacing the fy roads a little further apart, but then I have fat piggy little fingers...   I'd be inclined to not bother with the runaround loop in the fy, where it is permissible to handle locos, what we used to call 'crane shunting' to put them on the other ends of trains. 

 

If you are prepared to accept the compromise of hiding or half-hiding the right hand end of the station loop in the hidden area, so that a loco running around goes off- or partly off-scene during the process, you will be able to extend the platforms towards the scenic break at that end, and increase the train lengths by a coach or so, but the length available for the fy may prove a limiting factor.  There is no harm appearance-wise in having platforms longer than the trains, though.

 

A Y turnout immediately to the right of the station loop might allow you to provide a fy along the rh wall of the room, which would extend the layout's capacity.  Use curved turnouts for this to maximise storage length.  AndyB's bay platform could be used for parcels traffic as well, and on my layout I occasionally run a pigeon special, something else it could be used for.  Special arrives, loco shunts into bay platform to collect pigeon van, attaches it to train, continues journey.  Horse box traffic is another possibility.

 

Welcome to the insanity hobby, Robert; we are always happy to answer questions even when we don't always agree with each other, and will be interested in how this project proceeds.  It is a very good starter plan and avoids several newbie errors.

[stivesnick]

Robert

 

Back to your original question. If you are worried about access to the track at the back of the layout, then make the backscene removable to enable you to clean the track from time to time. I use the plastic two part shelf connectors available from DIY shops. One part is fixed to the baseboard, the other to the backscene it self.

 

Regards 

 

Nick 

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, AndyB said:

I'm wondering if the sidings at the station might be refined a bit.

I'd suggest a kick back siding; at present they all come directly off the running rail. 

 

And you might consider a bay platform (departure platform) on the RHS of the station. Branch trains would arrive on the main platform and then shunt into the departure platform ahead of their return journey. Lots more play value for one extra point.

 

 

 

Actually, it appears to be a goods loop as posted in the OP, but the 25" OS sheet from 1915 shows no facing connection, just a very long headshunt/siding (with some sort of industry at the western end).  Note that it is connected to the eastbound running line within the double track section, thus avoiding a facing point.  Was it later converted to a loop?  Even if so I would be inclined to leave out the left hand crossover and extend it offscene so it doesn't look so cramped.

 

There is already a loading bank behind the eastbound platform (visible on the photo and included in the plan), so I would be strongly against the addition of a bay.  Trains can terminate and run round here if you want (maybe some peak trains ran beyond Guildford to Cranleigh?).  If they returned as service trains they would probably need to cross to the other platform before departing, but that just adds to the fun.

 

I would be very tempted to indulge in my favourite planning trick and concentrate on the west end of the station, ending the scene at or even before the platform ends at the other end of the station (obviously the points would need to be included but not necessarily on scene.  This would allow more space for the goods yard, which really looks rather constrained as is, even though at the cost of some scenic modelling.

[Nick Holliday]

14 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Actually, it appears to be a goods loop as posted in the OP, but the 25" OS sheet from 1915 shows no facing connection, just a very long headshunt/siding (with some sort of industry at the western end).  Note that it is connected to the eastbound running line within the double track section, thus avoiding a facing point.  Was it later converted to a loop?  Even if so I would be inclined to leave out the left hand crossover and extend it offscene so it doesn't look so cramped.

 

I would be very tempted to indulge in my favourite planning trick and concentrate on the west end of the station, ending the scene at or even before the platform ends at the other end of the station (obviously the points would need to be included but not necessarily on scene.  This would allow more space for the goods yard, which really looks rather constrained as is, even though at the cost of some scenic modelling.

As far as I am aware, the headshunt was never converted into a loop, and the 1920 Wagstaff signalling plan probably shows the station at its maximum extent. I would suspect that the frequency of passenger service was such that any running around of goods trains could be easily undertaken during the interval.  As can be seen only two facing points locks were needed, although it looks like there was one on the point at the west end of the up-platform, which would be required if services from Guildford were terminated and reversed from this platform, as someone suggested.

 

The headshunt actually extends up to Cranleigh gasworks.  This was quite a rarity on the Brighton system, as only about a dozen, out of the ninety gasworks served by the LBSC had a siding connection - the LBSC obviously didn't receive the Peter Denny memo from Railway Modeller!

[Innerhome]

Two thoughts:

Any sidings shunting you do may end up going part way round the left hand curve which is fairly sharp - that might give you problems with derailment - so if you could ease the radius a bit would be better (and also - if possible - extend the scenic section a bit to avoid the shunts going off stage.

The fiddle yard as you've drawn it - is almost a branch line terminus. If you have the space could you extend the width of the boards a bit and if you wished you could then create a second station as a phase two. As an out and back that's where a lot of the activity will take place. Some similarities with Bodmin - although that was a different railway company.

[AndyB]

16 hours ago, stivesnick said:

Robert

 

Back to your original question. If you are worried about access to the track at the back of the layout, then make the backscene removable to enable you to clean the track from time to time. I use the plastic two part shelf connectors available from DIY shops. One part is fixed to the baseboard, the other to the backscene it self.

 

Regards 

 

Nick 

Hi Nick.

I'll be facing the same issue on my own layout. I've not (consciously) come across those two-part shelf connectors before. 

Any chance you could point me to a picture of what youve used for this? 

Cheers. Andy

[stivesnick]

36 minutes ago, AndyB said:

Hi Nick.

I'll be facing the same issue on my own layout. I've not (consciously) come across those two-part shelf connectors before. 

Any chance you could point me to a picture of what youve used for this? 

Cheers. Andy

Hi Andy 

 

The items are called knockdown fittings are available at any DIY/hardware store. They come in packs of 4 or 10 and are around 50p per item.

They come with a screw fixing, although the units are a tight fit, so using the screw is not always required. 

 

I used thin MDF for the backscene as it is more ridgid that hardboard. You will need to glue a thin piece of wood to the MDF to enable you to screw the male part of the fixing to the backscene (unless you are happy for the screw to poke through the MDF). The female part is screwed to the main baseboard. 

 

I used these on the removable backscene entrance to the fiddle yard and as a portable exhibition layout had good access for installation. For fixing these to a backscene where access behind the backscene is difficult I think the squence is as follows:

1. With the two parts joined together, fix the male section to the backscene ensuring that the bottom of the female part is flush with the bottom of the backscene.

2. With the backscene laid flat on the baseboard, mark out where the female part needs to go. Fix the female connector to the baseboard and hopefully it will line up.

 

Photos enclosed - hope this makes sense.

 

Nick 

 

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

As can be seen only two facing points locks were needed, although it looks like there was one on the point at the west end of the up-platform, which would be required if services from Guildford were terminated and reversed from this platform, as someone suggested.

 

Along with a starting signal, so presumably that was at least intended to be the case.  Lever 8 on the signal diagram seems to be quite busy.

 

In model terms, not having to shunt the carriages to the westbound platform reduces play value a bit, but it avoids a movement that would intrude on the fiddle yard.

 

Just as a mad thought - does anyone feel like replanning this with the whole station spun 180 degrees and the sidings at the front?

 

[AndyB]

@RobertFrench you might like to check out this book.

It has 6 pages of B&W photos and captions covering Cranleigh.

 

[RobertFrench]

So, er, lots to digest here, thank you!

 

I've had a rough go at @Flying Pig and @The Johnster's suggestions to shift everything Eastwards a bit, to see how it works and check I'm understanding it correctly.  This creates the headshunt, towards the Gas Works in the Cranleigh prototype.  I'm guessing freight would either arrive from the Horsham direction and 'wrong line' into the siding, reversing back as necessary, or arrive from Guildford, run around, then as before.  Looks fiddly in real life but probably quite fun in 4mm.

 

 

Arguably you could push the whole thing further East to leave some of the platform 'off scene', use the footbridge (if it wasn't obvious, the blue blob is a footbridge!) as a scene break.  Might be a bit odd having the east-facing loco 'off stage'…?

 

I think the downside of this approach is losing the level crossing and Knowle Lane, which I've got some connection with (a sad incident in Mum's Mini Metro pulling out from what's now a car park Sainsbury's loading area and in the model will be the platform exit/line to Horsham) and the back scene of Cranleigh High Street…  equally rotating it 180º would lose the village setting I'm quite keen to retain.  I suspect at the very least I need to get the tape measure out again and see how much space I've got in total.  Things to ponder on before I start building.

 

Thanks @AndyB – I've got a copy of the Branch Lines book, which is good for setting the scene, and I'm getting lots of ideas for prototypical rolling stock from shots along the line.  I've also got the Pryer Signal Box Diagrams booklet, and have been raiding the Bluebell Railway photo archive!  Very few pictures in colour, unsurprisingly but somewhat unhelpfully!  Also agree the sidings are probably over complicated – I think I'll remove one of the sidings around the Goods Shed, which will provide a bit more space for loading/unloading/turning lorries.

 

I like @stivesnick's backscene mounts.  Will definitely investigate those, as making the backscene removable definitely resolves the access challenges for the return loop…

 

@Innerhome I think the shift and creation of a long headshunt should remove the challenges of shunting on a tight bend, but I clearly need to do some practical work on the off-scene curves to make sure they're not a derailment waiting to happen.  On the fiddle yard, this is definitely the least developed area so far, but I suspect creating an additional scene isn't going to be a runner – saying that I might operate it like a terminus (ie consider a platform with run around + some sidings) for the 'play' value, but without dressing it up as such.  That said, an earlier sketch of the fiddle yard area did include a turntable to avoid doing the 'crane shunting'… but I suspect all of that will come out in the wash.

 

Thanks for reading, and thanks for the ideas… I can see this activity is in danger of becoming an addiction already… 

Robert

 

[The Johnster]

If you can get hold of a working timetable for the period you're interested in, you will be able to work out which direction the pickup freight arrived from, and, by extension, how it shunted the yard and whether 'wrong road' running through the station loop or running around is needed.  A pickup on  this sort of branch line would shunt stations and sidings as convenient on the outward or return run, and where sidings faced in both directions, possibly both.  Time is allowed in the WTT for shunting and since the actual amount of shunting needed is unpredictable has to set to allow for every possible move and complication; if this intereferes with the other traffic on the branch the pickup will be booked to be 'locked in' to the sidings or on the passing loop out of the way at the necessary times.

 

A warning about WTTs; they are fascinating, abosrbing, compulsive, and highly addictive windows into a traditional railway world that has vanished and cannot be recreated by heritage railways, and you can lose whole days...

 

Setting the station further towards the rh scenic break is, I contend, a significant improvement in the use of scenic space and the overall look of the layout and the headshunt will make operation more interesting.  I'm wondering if moving the running line closer to the baseboard edge at the lh end, which would probably require a redesign of the fiddle yard, might not allow a loop back to the return loop behind the layout, allowing for continuous running.  This is useful for running in new locos, and for allowing a train to circulate while you are shunting the yard, which is a rather satisfying way of operating.