Innie or Outie? Innie.

[Lacathedrale]

I'm trying to decide between two track plans and having a hard time seeing the wood for the trees.

 

Option 1 'Innie'

 

Inspired by Shelfie3, this layout's main focus is keeping things narrow and long. The pointwork is spread over half the layout, while the other half is platforms. In the rear I imagine a wooded embankment with flats behind. In the foreground some slopping wasteland on the left, and rusty disused siding leading to an end loading dock. The Station building could be elevated like Caterham with a covered ramp down to platform level, or a short canopy as Bromley North to mask the end.

 

 

I'm pleased to realise how much the concept has in common with relatively well known long-lived BR(S) termini like Hayes, Bromley North, Addiscombe and Caterham, all of which are dear to my heart and form part of the inspiration for the layout:

 

Bromley North

 

Caterham

 

Option 2 - Outie

Inspired by Victoria Park, outie is a A more conventional plan from Ian Futers 3-turnout trick (arranged slightly differently) as a much reduced ex double-track termini - two platform faces and a high retaining wall behind. One of the platform loops has been lifted, while the other has been retained as a siding for the Engineering Dept (or whatever).

 

 

Though the trackplan comes from Victoria Park, the scenic treatment is inspired directly by Katharine Street, an earlier layout I attempted and is set right in the armpit of Croydon.

 

Both Plans

In both plans there is a headshunt siding which will pass underneath the view block roadbridge. Either as a simple loco pocket on the main layout, or a facing connection into an aggregate dealer (as at Purley - where trains would need to be runaround and shoved back into the siding) in the fiddle yard.

 

Not a key consideration, but operation is likely to be similar in both: MU's arrive and depart, highly improbably loco-hauled parcels and passenger services leverage (even less probable) pilot locos to shuffle trains around. I am at peace with this being a bit at right angles to prototypical practice for now.

 

Thoughts?

I should highlight that unlike many of my pie-in-the-sky efforts I have the track, stock and baseboards ready to go on this one - but I'm finding it very hard to decide between which plan I prefer.

 

I think the Innie plan is more unique and I think it evokes well the characteristics of those BR(S) stations which survived the Beeching Era in rationalised form. @PMP assures me that there is no lack of operational interest with the Shelfie3 design despite the relatively meagre provision of lines. I think the aggregate dealer is more reasonable in this kind of layout, while the inclusion of the Kenny Belle or 'modern' EMUs like the 319 are far less plausible.

 

Outie is more conventional in style and the retaining walls, wider track plan, etc. all give me the impression of an inner suburban terminus such as how Central Croydon may have ended up. There's more justification for NPCS traffic and the inter-regional services I would like to include in this setting.

Edited June 7 by Lacathedrale

[DCB]

Both have the same issue,  only the one platform can be used for departures.

There was a Compact station throat ideas  thread recently which dealt with this.  

I see you have already invested in a table, personally I would have used L girder so the scenery could drop away to the front of the layout below track level as  well as having retaining wall behind.

A nice 3/4/5 storey building from the lower level would hide the fiddle yard.

[simon b]

Innie is the winner for me. Possibly with the addition of a runaround loop on the closest platform line.

[Lacathedrale]

@DCB this is a single line terminus, the foreground line is a headshunt - so both platforms can be used for departures. I am planning on raising the trackbed by about 15mm on high density foam, so there will be foreground undulations - fear not :)

 

@simon b thank you for the vote - though I will have to disagree about the runaround. Though more plausible given the loco-hauled stock and headshunt industry, it wouldn't be long enough for any of the trains I'd want to run!

Edited June 7 by Lacathedrale

[Mol_PMB]

New Brighton is another example of an ‘innie’ terminus which is conveniently approached under a road overbridge, and has a few carriage sidings for added interest. 
OK, it might not be quite the right region but it does have third rails, and in black and white it could almost be on the SR!

 

[Harlequin]

A trackplan alone isn't enough to decide whether a layout is worth building. You need fall in love with the whole scene and the atmosphere that it conjures up.

 

Intellect will get you so far but you need passion to see a layout through to completion.

 

Edited June 7 by Harlequin

[t-b-g]

The island platform takes up less width and allows more room for scenic treatment along the edges of the layout.

 

My "3 point trick" layout has an island platform but I haven't got the short loco spur at the platform end. I have made the headshunt into the loco spur and made the third road a goods siding. If you use your second plan but replace the two platforms with an island in your gap, you have a mirror image of mine.

[simon b]

Have you looked at Addiscombe for inspiration?

Edited June 7 by simon b

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, Harlequin said:

A trackplan alone isn't enough to decide whether a layout is worth building. You need fall in love with the whole scene and the atmosphere that it conjures up.

 

Intellect will get you so far but you need passion to see a layout through to completion.

 

 

Seeing how many different projects our OP has on the go in different scales, regions and eras, I get the distinct impression that his hobby is more about the designing than actually finishing anything.

[Lacathedrale]

@Harlequin the concept for this BR(S) layout has been A LONG TIME in the brewing - going back to my first attempts at 2mmFS and EM as 'Godstone Road' and through 'Katharine Street' so I am confident the concept has staying power, I've just kept biting off bits which were too ambitious - either physically too large or too constrained by a desire for stringent prototypical accuracy.

 

@t-b-g you do make a fair point, but it's one I took on board last time my 'ever planning' nature came up. Right now I only have two projects on the go: My Edwardian LBSCR 4mm Terminus in the garage on which I'm still playing with trains before ballasting and paint, and this 'Office Cameo'. In order specifically to reduce the number of parallel projects/scales/eras. I do have a small box of 2mmFS grouping-era wagons and some larger G1 bits, but those aren't active at all. I have already built, painted lit the layout boards for this layout. I already have the track components and all the rolling stock, and I've come to the table with two basically complete trackplans. I am trying not to be the forever-planner, truly!

 

Regarding your advice - I agree that the island platform's width does give more space for scenic treatment, and given the wall-to-wall track of the 4mm Terminus I think the variety of a layout more balanced with suburban scenery would be stimulating.

[simon b]

32 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Seeing how many different projects our OP has on the go in different scales, regions and eras, I get the distinct impression that his hobby is more about the designing than actually finishing anything.

I'm a bit guilty of that trap myself!

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

@Harlequin the concept for this BR(S) layout has been A LONG TIME in the brewing - going back to my first attempts at 2mmFS and EM as 'Godstone Road' and through 'Katharine Street' so I am confident the concept has staying power, I've just kept biting off bits which were too ambitious - either physically too large or too constrained by a desire for stringent prototypical accuracy.

 

@t-b-g you do make a fair point, but it's one I took on board last time my 'ever planning' nature came up. Right now I only have two projects on the go: My Edwardian LBSCR 4mm Terminus in the garage on which I'm still playing with trains before ballasting and paint, and this 'Office Cameo'. In order specifically to reduce the number of parallel projects/scales/eras. I do have a small box of 2mmFS grouping-era wagons and some larger G1 bits, but those aren't active at all. I have already built, painted lit the layout boards for this layout. I already have the track components and all the rolling stock, and I've come to the table with two basically complete trackplans. I am trying not to be the forever-planner, truly!

 

Regarding your advice - I agree that the island platform's width does give more space for scenic treatment, and given the wall-to-wall track of the 4mm Terminus I think the variety of a layout more balanced with suburban scenery would be stimulating.

 

I am not saying there is anything wrong with having multiple projects. Just that the single minded drive to complete a specific one may not quite be there.

 

I have several on the go myself. There are two EM layouts started, I am building 2mm locos to help a friend out, there is my long term joint project "Narrow Road" with Ken Hill (EM with 5 stations) my involvement with Retford, Buckingham of course, plus my dabbling in 7mm, with one layout started and at least two in my head.

 

Plus I build a few things as commission jobs for others including a decent sized OO Gauge layout project with a continuous run and two terminus stations.

 

Leaving aside the projects that are really those of other people, I am active in building my Manchester EM "Grimesthorpe" layout, plus a 7mm L & Y 0-6-2T for the proposed 7mm layout, to be based loosely on the Isle of Axholme Railway.

 

So seeing my own projects through to completion is not my strong point either. The things that do get finished are the commission jobs.  

[Lacathedrale]

So I'm absolutely sold on the island platform of 'Innie' and I thought I would show the track plan in place on the boards that are now painted. I'm absolutely sold on the island platform idea and the scenic treatment for it: on the left a brick road bridge, the backscene an embankment with trees and houses and flats behind, and on the right hand end a low-relief terminus building and short platform canopy.

 

Original Innie

 

 

I also tried out the original Victoria Park design (and as done by T-B-G  omitting the front platform entirely). For the sake of easy reference let's call this one Middie. Apologies for the creased paper - the ruler, wooden rectangle and metal bits are just to hold it flat:

 

Middie

 

 

I feel like Middie represents a slightly earlier era (or busier freight faciliities) with the additional siding (maybe the remnants of a platform loop or goods yard?) while Innie depicts a later era where the connection of that siding to the running lines has been severed and overgrown.  In my world this would be used to shunt the stone wagons to/from the aggregate plant and a place to lay over any locos or engineering vehicles. The additional facing connection seems like it would be a very useful addition to the layout.

 

Happily the station building, bridge, backscene, etc. are all independent of this minutiae - any thoughts would be gladly taken, though at this stage I'm really happy with both designs and just finding it hard to pick!

[Mol_PMB]

I like the breadth of the platform on 'Innie', it gives a feeling of space. I'm not convinced by the short spur that the class 33 is standing on. I can't see a clear purpose for this in the previous history of the station, and if you're aiming for an era after the track layout has been simplified and rationalised, then I'm sure it would have been taken out.

If you're having some sort of freight facility then that spur would be better facing the other way, i.e. towards the bridge, and space them out a bit more laterally. Alternatively a unit stabling siding alongside one of the platform roads or parallel to the main line heading off-scene would be prototyical.

[Lacathedrale]

@Mol_PMB the little loco spur is something I've never seen used, but I've seen the ghosts of them around Norwood Junction, New Cross Gate, etc. and I felt it was conveniently characteristic. You do make a good point that it's a hangover from an earlier, pre-multiple unit period though - and while I'm not hung up on that particularly, the alternative with the extra facing siding really does seem to work better for the aggregate services I want to run on the layout.

 

I re-printed the track-plan and re-jigged the geometry a little and here's the result, now firmly out of planning and into actual layout construction:

 

 

The platform is 48mm wide, so prototypical for Addiscombe (24') and slightly narrower than Bromley North (28'). Definitely not the spacious 32' of Caterham, but I think it's reasonable.

 

 

[t-b-g]

This is my arrangement. Making the platform fit between the two routes off the first point actually gives the longest possible platform. The road with the trap point is the goods line. Mine is on 2 x 4ft x 1ft boards, which will allow 5 short bogie carriages plus a loco at each end, all within the platform length and inside the starter signals. I got as far as sticking the Templot print down on the first baseboard and making the points, then I got distracted!o

 

I do like your version though. I think it would work nicely.

Edited June 10 by t-b-g
To clarify a point

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 07/06/2024 at 21:51, Harlequin said:

A trackplan alone isn't enough to decide whether a layout is worth building. You need fall in love with the whole scene and the atmosphere that it conjures up.

 

Intellect will get you so far but you need passion to see a layout through to completion.

 

 

Hi Phil, is it OK to quote this elsewhere - I don't know if it's a general comment or one spoken from the heart, but it's something I should probably cut out and stick on the wall when we move house next week, and will certainly want to refer to in future posts here on RMweb no doubt.  Doesn't just apply to me either, I'm sure, Keith.

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

Hi Phil, is it OK to quote this elsewhere - I don't know if it's a general comment or one spoken from the heart, but it's something I should probably cut out and stick on the wall when we move house next week, and will certainly want to refer to in future posts here on RMweb no doubt.  Doesn't just apply to me either, I'm sure, Keith.

Hi Keith,

 

Yes, feel free because I do believe it to be true in general and from personal experience. It is the reason (or a major reason) why so many layouts founder before getting anywhere near completion.

 

[Lacathedrale]

A (rather quiet) thread has been started in the layout forum for this. Obviously, time will tell!