West Cornwall Layout Planning (Was Lands End)

[Chris Chewter]

Hopefully, sooner or later, I shall be moving home, to a new house with a single garage. As a result, the brain has been ticking how to fill the garage with a model layout when the following idea formed.

I've ruled out a roundy roundy as I don't think I can get a duck under arrangement passed the wife. I also don't think I can agree totally filling the room with a layout, so I need to be restrained. My original concept of the Dawlish sea wall has been shelved as a result, however I came up with the following what if concept which I think holds greater operating potential. Here's the idea;

What if the GWR mainline didn't terminate at Penzance, but carried down to the tip of the penninsular terminating near Lands End, Sennen or St Levan. I chose Lands End for its recognisable name. No doubt the marketing department of the GWR would agree! The continuation from Penzance also opens up the options for known named trains (Cornishman etc) to show up alongside more local services.

To maximise circulation space in the garage, the layout needs to be as small as possible, but whilst taking advantage of the space potential. So I've designed a 10ft by 2.5ft layout, with a curve running off to a fiddle yard on the other wall. Given this is a first draft and not based on an actual garage, there is the possibility of lengthening the layout to 11 or 12 ft, but this is dependant on the actual house we end up moving into! My idea is any possible extension in length will result in longer platforms and sidings.

I've gone with a single track design and used the Kingswear concept. The idea is that a single track has been laid Penzance similar to that laid from Paignton to Kingswear, but with Kings and Castles bringing down holiday traffic, and Castles and Halls taking milk traffic to London.

I've also allowed for 2-3 carriage sidings at the back of the layout, to allow the entire station length to be used, and a station pilot to release the train engine whilst the stock is cleaned for its return journey.

Attached is my first draft. Any ideas how it can be improved?

[Kris]

I would assume that the engine shed and TT were a little way up the track. In doing this would would free up some space for more goods facilities. If this were done then I would put a some limited loco service facilities possibly next to the pilot track.

[Jub45565]

I would agree with Kris, though it depends on the era you intend to model to a certain extent. There were several examples where originally the loco depot was next to the terminous, and later got moved out after complaints of smoke etc. What would most of us do to live opposite a steam MPD!

 

Ilkley was an example of this, though rather off the track of the GWR theme...

[Chris Chewter]

The era I was aiming for was 1960, but obviously a branch not facing the Beeching axe.

 

The idea of the engine shed came from a plan of Exmouth where there was a small shed to house the pilot engine overnight, although I'm aware that might be a southern concept and therefore may be non prototypical for this location. The Turntable I added as there was one at Kingswear to prevent tender first running back along the branch.

 

I like the suggestion of increasing the capacity of freight traffic, so I might, if space allows, put the turntable in the top right corner, and add in a couple of extra sidings.

 

If I did go with that arrangement, the only problem I see is that the only running around available is in the platform. Would shunting on the main line cause a problem?

[Philately]

FWIW, Alnwick, Northumberland was a terminus with remarkably similar facilities to the OP's above. It was not scheduled for closure by Beeching but was closed in 1968 so as not to have to install a bridge over the new Alnwick bypass. It had a small turntable but no engine shed as this was at Alnmouth, 3 miles away on the ECML. I believe the turntable was installed in 1887 when the Alnwick-Cornhill branch was opened, but it was a small measly thing, and by the 1960s was unused as it would appear that the ubiquitous J39s and latterly K1s were too big to fit.

 

To translate the to the OP's Land's End location, one might reasonably assume that Penzance shed could do the honours for all except perhaps for a station pilot, though it would be perfectly in keeping for a pannier or 2-6-2T to run light engine from Penzance each day, as happened with the Amble branch (passenger) engine - an F8 2-4-2 until passenger services ceased in 1930 - which was stabled at Alnmouth shed. A turntable would, however, be very necessary for all those Western 4-6-0s. Lack of a turntable would give a pretext to run 2-8-0T or 2-8-2T-hauled passenger trains if one were feeling fanciful.

 

But I don't suppose the Great Western would wish to take any lessons on operating practice from the North Eastern!

[Penlan]

I think I would like the track to be doubled out to the fiddle yard, or at least a long siding with a crossover before the fiddle yard, just to make shunting etc., a little easier.

 

There is a layout based on a similar theme to St. Just, belongs to one of the Falmouth Club lads.

[The Stationmaster]

I think you have to consider how closely you want to match your imagined Lands End concept to the reality of that end of Cornwall - not so much scenically but in terms of how settlement might or might not have an effect on the placement of other stations etc. Basically we are looking at 10 miles between Penzance and Lands End so there is going to have to be an intermediate 'somewhere' (St Just Road?) to shorten block sections and give you a bit of operational flexibility. Once you've got that flexibility you can think about how you can do whatever at Lands End and whether or not it is feasible.

 

So assuming that flexibility let's look at what you need and what you want -

1. You want ' big engined through trains' - which means you will probably need some carriage sidings and a means to shunt stock to them (a station pilot at least some of the time).

2. You want milk traffic, which would be in tanks for your chosen period so you want somewhere to turn them.

3. You want goods traffic (wouldn't be much but down there would need to be a goods shed and some siding space).

4. You will inevitably still have at that date some domestic coal traffic.

5. If your trains for item 1 have 'big engines' you will need somewhere close at hand to turn them up - tender first running for more than say half a mile or so would be unacceptable.

6. You will, of necessity, have some local passenger trains.

 

Now compare that with your plan and the principle problems which I can see are

A. Lack of space for 2, 3, & 4 compounded by the route to the turntable which effectively reduces the 'goods yard' to a single siding. Made worse by your premise created by Item 1 which could mean lots of moves to/from the table at busier times. To me this suggests your loco facilities are in the wrong place.

B. You can only get to your carriage sidings by shunting out onto the single line (as happened at more than few West Country termini in reality - but it does constrain your timetable so you need to keep it in mind).

 

So we fall back to what is almost a traditional model railway answer and for operationally logical reasons put the turntable in the corner behind the signalbox (or where the signalbox is at present). But in this case it is absolutely protypical. You can then think a bit more logically about your entire loco facilities and I think you have to accept that you haven't got the space for coaling 'big engines so you don't need a coal stage but you might still need to stable them and allow for oiling etc between their train workings, simples - a couple of radial roads fed from the table with one possibly connected at the other end into the outermost carriage siding.

Possibly include a short shed for your 0-6-0PT pilot if you can but otherwise it might work in with a morning freight trip and do some freight shunting before going on to passenger work (it only needs to shunt arriving 'big trains' - not departures) and it finishes the day or changes over part way through by toddling back to Ponsandane with the freight trip. But if it stays overnight it will need coal and that is done by backing it up against a wagon and shovelling the necessary from one to t'other.

 

The only thing I would add to that - from an operational viewpoint - is long carriage siding headshunt so you don't have to shunt on the mainline. But I accept totally that scenically that might not be such a good idea as it will make the whole 'mainline' bit look overcrowded.

[Danemouth]

I rather like this plan, it's very similar to what I have tried to do with Danemouth except I decided not to bother with the carriage sidings - went for a small goods yard instead

 

http://www.rmweb.co....8-danemouth-oo/

 

FYI the two 90 degree curves into my fiddle yard are second and third radius code 100 - rest of the layout is code 75.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

[Chris Chewter]

Given the helpful comments above, I've taken another look at the plan. After a bit of head scratching trying to work out how to put the turntable in the top right corner, I realised that there is no reason why the whole layout can't shuffle towards the front edge! This has helped to access the turntable without compromising the goods storage. The carriage siding headshunt has also been provided which will hopefully increase the operating potential by keeping the main line clear as advised.

 

I've added a short length in front of the signal box to allow a single loco to be stored (eg station pilot), however would this happen in reality due to steam obscuring the signal box? No reaon why the box can't be shuffled towards the left! I've deleted the single row shed as I like the idea of the pilot engine bringing in the goods at the start of the day or running in light from Penzance.

 

I've also added in the link from the top carriage siding to the turn table round the back of the box, but it looks a little out of place for some reason. Perhaps it's just me!

[The Stationmaster]

Given the helpful comments above, I've taken another look at the plan. After a bit of head scratching trying to work out how to put the turntable in the top right corner, I realised that there is no reason why the whole layout can't shuffle towards the front edge! This has helped to access the turntable without compromising the goods storage. The carriage siding headshunt has also been provided which will hopefully increase the operating potential by keeping the main line clear as advised.

 

It now looks a bit crowded at the front and difficult (but not impossible) to work in trap points on the sidings - perhaps a good start would be to take back out the crossover which has crept in next to the goods shed as it doesn't seem to be of very much use in any event with barely enough room to get round 2 coaches (on a good day). And putting in the short siding between the goods shed road and the long siding doesn't leave much in the way of access to the latter for road vehicles.

 

I've added a short length in front of the signal box to allow a single loco to be stored (eg station pilot), however would this happen in reality due to steam obscuring the signal box? No reaon why the box can't be shuffled towards the left! I've deleted the single row shed as I like the idea of the pilot engine bringing in the goods at the start of the day or running in light from Penzance.

 

You can always put the signal box on the other side of the 'mainline' - in fact operationally it ought to be that side to allow the Signalman easy access in order to deliver and receive tokens. And having got the signalbox out of the way you can get to work on the turntable and carriage sidings area (contd below ...)

I've also added in the link from the top carriage siding to the turn table round the back of the box, but it looks a little out of place for some reason. Perhaps it's just me!

Yes, it is probably because it's the longest (or one of the longest?) clear space of track anywhere on the layout! With the signalbox out of the way you can think a bit further about this area and how it would work. The pilot engine has to do an awful lot of shuffling to & fro to get from its siding to the platforms and you can't get from your extended carriage siding headshunt to any of the platforms meaning trains still have to be shunted out onto the single line plus you've added a carriage siding (could you use one of them to make Platform 4 possibly? - although that many platforms seems excessive). I would be inclined to take the through line back from the turntable into No.2 Carriage siding via a double slip and add a single radial stabling siding where the long sidings has appeared - but that's me.

[Chris Chewter]

 

And putting in the short siding between the goods shed road and the long siding doesn't leave much in the way of access to the latter for road vehicles.

 

 

Sorry, not too sure I understand. Blonde moment alert!

 

Are you suggesting ditching the siding circled, and shortening the parallel siding? I've annotated my last plan to check I've got your suggestion correctly.

 

With the other suggestions, the only way I would be able to fit those suggestions in would be to use slips. I plan to use DCC, and after trying to wire a double slip and failing, its not something I wish to do in a hurry. I just need to decide whether I want to tolerate the increase in loco movements as a result.

 

The relocation of the signal box makes perfect sense! Gah, why didn't I see that one!

 

Thanks

[Danemouth]

 

With the other suggestions, the only way I would be able to fit those suggestions in would be to use slips. I plan to use DCC, and after trying to wire a double slip and failing, its not something I wish to do in a hurry.

 

Thanks

 

Don't be put off double slips in DCC - they are straight forward, I've used the code 75 and followed the instructions. If I can do it anybody can!

 

Dave

[The Stationmaster]

Are you suggesting ditching the siding circled, and shortening the parallel siding? I've annotated my last plan to check I've got your suggestion correctly.

Ditch the short one and leave the other one as is (and ideally try to slue it away from the siding leading to the goods shed so it can have road access over a greater length).

With the other suggestions, the only way I would be able to fit those suggestions in would be to use slips. I plan to use DCC, and after trying to wire a double slip and failing, its not something I wish to do in a hurry. I just need to decide whether I want to tolerate the increase in loco movements as a result.

More movements =more fun (and possibly more headaches - but they are part of the fun )

 

The relocation of the signal box makes perfect sense! Gah, why didn't I see that one!

Because it is far easier to see what someone else might be missing than it is to see what you are yourself missing - just a part of human nature. (And I could again mention a prototype layout I planned where I missed out a double slip - fortunately the Civil Engineer who was doing the scale plans for the job off my sketch plan noticed the omission before any scheme details went anywhere else )

[Penlan]

As Stationmaster mentions the number of platform faces seems a lot, bearing in mind that Lands End, although a tourist attraction, has very little trade, the last proper fishing port is Newlyn, and there's not that much agricultural produce about. I think I would be tempted to mention looking at Padstow, Newquay, St Ives and Penzance as to traffic trends etc., and work out what's left for Lands End, for bar the grass runway Lands End Airport, there is very little communication around there at all. Scilly Isles boats dock at Penzance.

 

Good luck.

[Chris Chewter]

Re platform faces, it was my intention to use the two middle platforms and the bottom one by the goods shed for perhaps a 14xx and autocoach or a pair of coaches for a local service. The potential for platform 4 I agree is too much, and would probably block off with some GWR spear fencing!

 

I have tried to consider another location, but the appeal of this location is the ability to run through named trains. St Just perhaps would work better, but as mentioned above, its been done before. Therefore either I have to reinvent St Just or just imagine that perhaps a greater population grew up slightly inland from Lands End itself. Still considering that one.

[Chris Chewter]

Just taken a fresh look on Google Earth. I might bring the location 3 miles inland to St Buryan. Seems like a nice compromise to me.

[TomJ]

I think with a bit of 'good old fashioned modellers license' you could make a good and believable layout based in that area. The GWR did have plans for a branch to St Just presumably for the mines. The GWR were very keen on promoting tourism to boost their lines, many South West resorts were basically created by them. So I think you could have a scenario where the branch was originally built for the mining but as that declined tourism has become more popular as the GWR promoted Sennen. Most of the time the line is fairly sleepy with an autotank or prarie shuttling to Penzance and the odd train to further afield. However for a couple of months it becomes very busy with through trains from far away, neccessitating more (and longer) platforms and servicing facilities for bigger engines. Even somewhere like Newquay would have seemed far too large a station for the traffic ten months of the year!

Freight wise you could have a small amount of general goods remaining, mostly coal. maybe the St Erth diary relocated west for milk. A few mines were still limping on in this period so that could provide some traffic. There were also a couple of china clay pits near Lands End so perhaps you could imagine they are still open for a bit of extra freight? Of course by the 70s is just a single track branch with no facilities and a bubble car shuttling to Penzance!

 

I would agree that Lands End, although v popular as a tourist destination isn't really a settlement, and the current horrific theme park dates from the 80s. However the GWR did start a bus service from Helston to Lizard Point ( much better anyway IMHO!) so there's an idea. Howabout calling it 'Sennen for Lands End' or St Just for Lands End'?

[shortliner]

There was a layout - years back called St Just, possibly in RM, but more likely in Airfix Magazine or Scale Trains. It was a GWR branch and I can't even remember who it was by - We are talking about late 60's - early 70's - Sorry I can't be more help - but the nudge may remind someone else

Jack

[JohnR]

I think it was in MTI, Jack. Blue diesels so maybe mid-70s? I think there were two version, one slightly bigger than the other.

[Flying Pig]

Having regard to (some of ) Stationmaster's comments, I came up with the following sketches, which attempt to make more use of the width of the board and achieve a more flowing look at the same time. The main operational goal was to allow access from all platforms to the carriage shunting line and loco yard, so the goods sidings are just suggested and there's plenty of scope for redrawing them (worth a look at the layout at Penzance perhaps? The 1936 1:2500 map on www.old-maps.co.uk has some interesting details, including a monster goods shed right by the sea).

 

Unfortunately I made the platforms too long by 8-10" compared with Captainalbino's, which steals too much length, but this could easily be corrected (I can't be bothered having struggled with Anyrail half the afternoon - great for Setrack, but give me XTrkCad for flexi). The lower platform needs to be a smidge wider - again easy to do.

 

I prefer the look of the first plan, but the second keeps passenger trains away from untrapped goods sidings. I'd be tempted to extend the goods headshunt off set as a reception road. BTW the red lines just clarify how the slips go - one single and one double.

 

 

[Chris Chewter]

I'm completely bowled over by those plans. The look fantastic!

 

Just one question, I presume there is no reason why the single slip couldn't be a double thereby removing the preceding crossover on the second plan, although I agree that the first plan increases flexibility for traffic movements allowing goods traffic to enter the yard directly.

[The Stationmaster]

I'm completely bowled over by those plans. The look fantastic!

Just one question, I presume there is no reason why the single slip couldn't be a double thereby removing the preceding crossover on the second plan, although I agree that the first plan increases flexibility for traffic movements allowing goods traffic to enter the yard directly.

Agree absolutely re the plans although (being horribly finicky) I would lengthen one of the good sidings and put a goods shed on it - like I said, finicky. Being rather less finicky I would turn round the platform release crossover because it will make the arrival of a freight train easier to deal with and make it possible to run-round longer trains than its present orientation. I think I prefer the crossover arrangement which allows departures direct from the goods yard (freight trains of course would not arrive in the goods yard but would run to Platform 2 in order to run round - shunting with the engine on the stop blocks end is not at all easy unless you are using a crane )

 

As far as that single slip is concerned I would suggest keeping it like that and retaining the crossover as it creates an opportunity for a parallel move in a thoroughly un-rationalised Western manner - which helps to date the layout.

[Flying Pig]

This might work better. Release crossover reversed as Stationmaster suggested, which also permits the released engine to run to the loco yard without being blocked by its own train. I've moved the bay to the other side of the station to increase the length of the platform with loco release, though it can't be quite as long as the opposite one was in the earlier plans because of the Y leading across to the carriage and loco sidings.

 

Looks like I've used the less favoured goods sidings in this one as well, but the two versions are identical in other respects so that shouldn't matter. Sidings omitted completely so you can pick your own.

 

[wagonman]

I like Simon's (Flying Pig) first plan in particular as the flow is so much more realistic. An alternative would be to have just arrival and departure platforms with the carriage sidings in between, in classic GWR style, not forgetting the overall roof of course.

 

Much of the domestic coal traffic in the far south west was brought in by sea, though that may well have finished by 1960 It certainly had in the Bristol Channel ports.

 

One other detail: Kings didn't work into Cornwall.

[Chris Chewter]

One other detail: Kings didn't work into Cornwall.

 

Just shows how I've always planned a Devon layout originally. I forgot all about Brunels Royal Albert bridge. Looks like either I need to sell some stock or keep my pair of Kings to run in a darkened room when no-one is looking!