The Waverley Route revisited!

[bigwordsmith]

SO folks, major progress to report!

 

Waverley's new home has finally been built, and the builders are now at decorating stage, which means we can start to think about baseboards.

 

However, that means we need to decide on a design, and while the room is enormous, purely as a by-product of providing Mrs. Smith with a new kitchen of course, she has put a few constraints on its use, as indeed has its design!

 

Below is a scale plan of the room ( The dotted line shows the area with full height headroom):

 

- Theoretically it is 1:50 when printed at A 4, but the simplest way to look at it is that length A-B is 37' and length C-D is 11'

 

So I could model a passable representation of Waverley Station, and have some pretty decent running as well, both of which I'd love to do.

 

However now come the constraints, and I thought I'd throw it out there to the RM Webbers for ideas and input as I'm getting a bit stumped!....

 

1) 5' has to be the minimum radius, otherwise I can't run realistically close coupled tenders on my Bachmann pacifics

2) The windows on the bottom  wall in the dormers have to be accessible to open and close, as the loft turns into a sauna in the sunshine - the veluxes shown on the top wall are fine and can be reached over a 3' baseboard 

3) Mrs. Smith wants to be able to store all her garden cushions and Christmas decs without fear of them getting covered in stray ballast

4) I can't obstruct the eaves cupboard doors at the right hand end of he pic, or the door to the loo (yes there is one) at the end on the left so w ill need some creative ways of getting across those 

5) Maximum baseboard width on the top wall on the pic is 3' narrowing to 2' opposite the staircase

6) I'd like to get in an area where I can work on locos etc.

 

So folks, over to you - all ideas gratefully accepted

 

Peter

Edited October 1, 2014 by bigwordsmith

[great northern]

That's a nice set of problems you've set us there Peter! When you said 37ft by 11 I thought you would have very few.  It will need quite a lot of thought, but two observations come to mind at once.

 

1. Five foot radius curves in a space 11ft wide will be very hard to achieve.

 

2. You don't have 11ft width, if you want to access those windows. I had the same problem, and it meant in the end that I had to give up 15 inches to get to them. That was a good thing in one respect though, as the view from over there is better than from the operating well.

 

First advice then is - be prepared to compromise, and decide what things you feel you must have, and those you can manage without. Make a list, it is well worthwhile. Mine is on page 1 of my thread, and by sticking to it I've now got the first layout I have ever been really satisfied with. Your list will no doubt differ from mine in many respects, but the exercise will help to concentrate the mind on essentials, and force you to confront some things you would rather ignore!

 

I'll come back on the rest, when or if, I can come up with any useful suggestions.

[LNER4479]

Hello Peter,

 

Well, I'm 'up' for a (mainline) layout planning challenge!

 

Having read your post a couple of times, I think I half understand the constraints but not fully so do you mind if I throw some questions / comments back at you?

 

Are the dotted lines where you envisage the baseboards would naturally go? If so, is that a constraint in the sense that you don't want them to go anywhere else? Looking at the earlier picture of the house building work, it looks like you have the usual triangular cross-section to work with (my previous layout was in a loft!), which means that the head height is reduced towards the eaves (ie along sides C and D). If it were possible to have the station more in the middle of the room (ie an 'island' baseboard so that you could get round both sides) then that might be worth considering?

 

I agree with GN about the 5' radius curves but I've taken that as stated for now.

 

The eaves cupboard doors - are they such that the baseboard can go over the top (ie above the height of the doors)? Can you post a picture of this corner to give us an idea?

 

The staircase - is that fixed? How does the entry into the loft space 'work' therefore? (there must be a 'no go' area where a baseboard can't go). Again a picture might be useful.

 

The door way through to the toilet at A - presumably a lifting section (eg just a plain stretch of double track) could be contemplated. That way, a complete circuit could be contemplated (although the 5foot radius curve restriction could be a bit of a 'killer' there)

 

For now therefore, just two conceptual ideas, probably as much to 'flush out' your natural likes / dislikes rather than anything like a workable plan.

 

This follows your baseboard dotted lines. The shed could either be St Margaret's or Haymarket. If the latter, then the stretch of line in the top right hand quarter could possibly made to look like Princes Street Gardens.

 

This adopts the 'island' idea and, as GN has already said, leaves you the necessary 18" - 2foot to get at the windows, as well as being able to view the station from both sides. The big 'but' for me is that it appears to go straight across the top of your staircase so might be a non-starter; however, it might be possible to just squeeze past that? (some dimensions in that area might be useful)

 

Both of these have Waverley as a terminus station when it is of course a through station. I'd be interested to know your preference regarding this; I think the 5foot radius constraint, plus the access constraint at A might be a challenge if you want a through station.

 

Hope this is useful so far.

[bigwordsmith]

Wow - that's a couple of thoughts I hadn't even come close to!

 

Gilbert - what a great idea - I'd looked at your list on Page 1, and when I did my reaction had been 'What a lot of pre-planning detail' but having seen the results at Peterborough agree totally worth the effort

 

 

 

I think if I hug the edges I can get the 5' radius curves in, but the plan, as 4479 has commented is bait hazy! The dotted lines are the area here you have full head height (7'0") and I had thought about having the station on the top left with fiddle yard beneath, which of course then means lots of level changes.

 

Here are some pics of the actual room - as you can see the boxes on one side show how much stuff needs to be stored - there's almost as much again in cushions from the garden!

 

Sadly less than a quarter of the boxes on display contain railway stuff!

[LNER4479]

OK, got a better handle on it now, thanks.

 

'Leave it with me', as they say(!) - I'll try and get back in a few days time with some further ideas.

[muddys-blues]

Hello Peter, nice space there, just a couple of pointers and questions:

 

1: Are the Velux windows south facing ? if they are buy yourself some Velux blinds, they are tailored to fit, a bit pricey, but they will protect any layout area that is directly under the windows, I have a couple of Velux windows, and they where one of the best investments I made for those windows.

 

2: What is the height is the wall going straight up from the floor to where it meets the roof slope ? this will have a bearing on the width of your board taking into account for scenery or a back board against the wall sections.

 

3: Why not make use of following the angles from the point of wall C - to the corner of wall B, it gets you away from doing the norm of being straight as if you where in a standard rectangular room.

 

4: What height are you cupboard doors between the stairs and wall B ?

 

5: Are you looking to have a continuous roundy roundy running track ?

 

Best regards

Craig.

Edited September 30, 2014 by muddys-blues

[7APT7]

Hi mate

 

Nice track plan and look forward to seeing more on the progress...

 

Jamie

[bigwordsmith]

HI folks

 

So in answer to Craig's questions...

 

1) Yes they are, and I've got the blind man coming on Monday to suggest the best solutions - as you say fading is a potential challenge!

 

2) The top of the Ashlar wall is about 120cm ( 4') so there is just room for a short back board. I had thought about diving behind a scenic frontage for the curves so that the track appears to be heading in the opposite direction to that in which it needs to go to make a 180 degree turn to bring the trains back down the other side - I think a back scene of about 18" is more than adequate.

 

3) Running across the room could work, but it would occupy the whole area where we have full head height

 

4) I've decided to run across the cupboard doors on the eaves cupboards - we've put them in to provide some future proofing in case we sell the house when the room can be converted to a bedroom+ ensuite and a separate study

 

5) I like the idea of being able to sit back and watch trains go by, but don't want to be stuck with nowhere to have trains go to and from - my last big layout was in a similar space in my parent's loft 30+ years ago, and it had a reversing loop and a branch line which provided out and back as well as tail chasing, and a buried fiddle yard to make trains disappear when they left the terminus so that they didn't suddenly appear on the other side.  However that was a proper loft, with the stairs in the form of a loft ladder so we were much less contained than by building this one in a room with all the need for accessing windows etc.

 

Looking forward to seeing Newton Ridley progress!

 

As to Robert's point ( LNER 4479) I'd forgotten that Grantham is your project, so revisited and think you must have even more space for that than I've got!

 

ATB

 

Peter

[gordon s]

Hi Peter, a few comments if I may.  I've struggled for years with a sloping roof and Velux windows plus a staircase.  Taking the boards over the stairs requires headroom and the higher you go, the narrower the room becomes.  My room is 18' square and I've had to lose 2' each side to get sufficient height to clear the stairs and not fall foul of the roof slope.  Your 11' width could easily become 8' and 5' radius curves will be impossible to achieve within an 11' width.

 

I'd be really happy to share some thoughts on this, but as a start, most of my failures and pictures are well documented in my ET thread with a link below.  Building a layout beneath a sloping roof is not easy, so it's preferable to build in the middle of the room and then push the boards back.  Once in position, it's very difficult, if not impossible to ballast and paint track, so that needs to be done earlier in the build process.  Any buildings will add to the height and force you to move the boards further towards the middle of the room.

 

There will be many challenges ahead, so I wish you all the best with this project.

 

Here's a few pics to illustrate some of the problems….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[muddys-blues]

 "and I've got the blind man coming on Monday"   aah !!! almost the classic line from the Nunnery joke when Sister Mary is having a bath  .

 

If the "Velux type" windows are from Velux themselves, the blinds are available on the internet, and the a piece of cake to fit.

 

quote "Looking forward to seeing Newton Ridley progress!" well this is where I have been stalling, I have a similar style of loft space as you, at one end it is 8' wide, and the other is a smidge over 6' wide, due to the ways Welsh Cottage building in the years gone by, and the length is 23', one length of the roof had a as you put it "Ashlar" wall that was 32" high then sloped, and the other side length is 48" high & then sloped, so like you are, I was always restricted by your shortest or lowest dimension, it became so frustrating making compromises losing radii for height etc, and even with the head space in the centre of the eves, this came to around 5'10, I am just over 5'10 so there was a stoop element, which became so uncomfortable after any length of time I didn't want to work on it, so my Good Lady agreed we could build a purpose built room outside as an outbuilding, to which none permitted planning was granted yesterday.

 

I plan to resurrect my "Newton Ridley" blog again very soon.

 

Good luck & happy modelling

Craig.

Edited October 1, 2014 by muddys-blues

[coachmann]

Peter, I cannot comment on the room space or roof, although Gordon S. has plenty of experience on that front. I would caution about Edinburgh Waverley if it is to be a one-man layout. Lots of juicy trackwork and a maze of points looks very attractive but it will take some wiring, maintenance and a good memory for switches while operating. The station alone will take ages to construct and detail, then there are all the signals to build and electrify. Remember you can have all the same trains out in the country and save yourself a heck of a lot of building in the process, plus you will have thing up and running in a few months. All work and no play 'an all that......

Edited October 1, 2014 by coachmann

[bigwordsmith]

Damn - I just wrote a long reply to everyone then clicked back to check on something and lost it!

 

So ere goes again in order - 

 

Gordon - wow your layout and hackwork make me want to pack up and stop even trying - you've got Allan Downes' buildings, amazing scenery and the most awesome track work. I know there isn't a hope of me coming anywhere close to that standard, as my soldering skills are non-existent so I can only sit in awe. I've just bought all Dave Shakespeare's track from the Tetleys Mills sale - Gilbert is organising packaging this week, so I've made the decision to go to code 75, and in fact have a load of lengths of flex finescale from my last layout of 30 odd years ago! Hopefully that will give me plenty of options, I've also just bulk bought a bunch from Hattons as Peco has jacked their prices by about 15%

 

I'd also love to have a crack at Templot, but only use Macs so can't unfortunately as it's a PC only app

 

Craig - yes you're right I did think of that, glad to see I'm not the only one with a convent education ( primary) and a twisted sense of humour!

 

Larry. Fair point, but I do want to have a departure and arrival station, and the idea of Waverley is attractive as I can hide all the 'West End' point work under scenery and focus on the Calton Hill end but without custom made track I think those flying diamonds and slips could be a challenge. I do however suspect Waverley itself might be a tad ambitions, but looking at the Waverley West Thread has spurred my imagination.

 

I'm sure  that whatever gets built the station all be the last bit and I'll spend many happy hours tail chasing.

 

One thought that has popped in is that I fit a couple of mobile air con units to the loft which will allow me to get over the heat challenge.

[gordon s]

Thanks for your kind comments Peter.  I've been battling the numerous design restrictions for years and what sounded like a great space of 18' square has in reality meant many compromises and I can only advise those with similar spaces to spend longer on the design phase than perhaps may be normal.  Getting the boards over the bulustrade dictates a minimum height and then I was continually squeezed between a height that only increased as the width narrowed.  In the end I've ended up with 18' x 14'.  A decent station will need platforms of 8'.  Add other 8' for approach pointwork and then a possible curve and you can see where the space just disappears.  Your 37' length is a huge advantage, but 11' maximum width will need some careful planning.

 

It certainly can be done, just take plenty of care in the planning stage and draw as much as you can before cutting wood and laying track.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Waverley one side, KX the other?

...5' has to be the minimum radius, otherwise I can't run realistically close coupled tenders on my Bachmann pacifics...

They'll sail round 3' radius at scale separation, so don't let that restrict you (30" radius at dead slow). Check for yourself, set the loco to tender link to produce a 6mm gap between the cab side back edge and the leading edge of the tender side. (I have removed the plastic button on the tender underside and made a hole for a self tapper in the right place.) The 62'5" total engine and tender wheelbase is then reproduced as 249mm on the model, near enough for me. (I got the 6mm gap between cab side and tender from a certain A3 many years ago, it looks right on all the Doncaster wide firebox types when compared to photos. Haven't had a measuring tape in the pocket when I have been near 60163 though.)

 

What limits this arrangement on the model is the crude fall plate, which as supplied fouls the tender step on all the A1s I have worked on. That stops the tender swinging freely for curves. Remove this separate part by slacking off the small screws which hold the cab on, and test loc and tender like that. Then either reshape the fallplate and reinstall or make a new fall plate arrangement. To alter it, anneal the brass, flatten it completely and then give it two sharp right angle bends so that the 'floor' element is now horizontal - as it should be, and not a crazy gradient! -  and floats above the tender step.

[jon_1066]

What about something like this (please excuse terrible drawing)

 

 

You have a continuous run on the right hand side and a terminus on the left.  A triangular junction allows you to have a return loop to run traffic to and from your terminus.  You can also watch trains go by.  It preserves access to the stairs, dormers and loo.  It could be expanded by going over the stairs to give an end to end run.  11ft is not bad for a roundy - most people don't have that much space so you could start with that then expand into the terminus.

 

[LNER4479]

Peter, I cannot comment on the room space or roof, although Gordon S. has plenty of experience on that front. I would caution about Edinburgh Waverley if it is to be a one-man layout. Lots of juicy trackwork and a maze of points looks very attractive but it will take some wiring, maintenance and a good memory for switches while operating. The station alone will take ages to construct and detail, then there are all the signals to build and electrify. Remember you can have all the same trains out in the country and save yourself a heck of a lot of building in the process, plus you will have thing up and running in a few months. All work and no play 'an all that......

 

Ee's not wrong you know:

 

(from the internet at http://www.railwaywondersoftheworld.com/railways-scotland.html)

 

Am busy trawling the net for suitable pictures as inspiration for some ideas (sat in a boring meeting at the moment!)

 

That having been said, there's not actually too much with that track layout that couldn't be achieved with Peco (as you will have gathered when visiting the Grantham thread I'm a bit of a fan!) - the big problem is actually the space you'd need between the platform ends to the tunnel mouths. Anyway, I'll give it some thought as I draw something up.

 

Craig has asked some more of the questions that were in my mind so your further replies useful.

[bigwordsmith]

@jon - I think that would be Mrs. Smith's preferred option - having had the idea of me getting a big loft 'for the train set' in the first place, she's now finding lots of uses for it herself.!

[Memphis32]

So that's where the rest of the Tetley Mills track went - I'm afraid I've deprived you of 4 sets of points! Interesting that it's all gone to Edinburgh-based layouts (mine is the St Margaret's shed plan you commented on a while back)!

 

Looking forward to seeing this one develop!

[Waverley West]

Hi Peter,

 

Can I just ask - is the layout to be DC or DCC? Sorry if this has been mentioned already. Opting for DCC would simplify wiring considerably and using route setting via a DCC controller (I use an ECoS) would make operation a relatively doddle, as it is on WW. As other posters have said, you can do a lot with Peco track too, although you will inevitably have to simplify/stylise the track layout. The modern track layout may even be a good starting point there? I think you can still do that while retaining the "feel" of a station though.

 

My own personal preference would be to have Waverley as a through station, even if you end up only modelling one end. Modelling Waverley as a terminus just would not seem right. The representation of the west end could just be an out-and-back loop though. Then you could still have through expresses going to all points north.

 

I also think modelling one end, rather than the whole station, would be preferable, simply in order to make it all achievable within a reasonable time scale. You could for example use the half-station approach that I adopted and just model the face of the station roof, which would be a relatively simple task. The rest of the station could then be modelled in the same way I did Waverley West, with a short section of roof followed by a photograph image of North Bridge on a back scene. I would love to model the east end of Waverley as well as the west end, but for now, I have too many modelling plans to even think about it. Modelling the entire length of the station, even horribly compressed, would be quite a challenge and pretty time-consuming, as Larry cautioned above.

 

That's just a few thoughts of mine for now anyway.

 

Cheers

Dave

[Waverley West]

Another point I should have mentioned is make sure you carefully consider what the signature features of the layout are to be. I initially modelled Waverley West much as it is today but without the Mound Tunnels. The first time I stood back and looked at the layout properly, I was horrified. It just did not seem right at all and after a night's sleep I decided to rip up that area of the layout and rethink it. 

 

Just because you include them doesn't mean they have to take up much space either or a lot of modelling time either. My Mound Tunnels, which are removable, are barely a foot long and have the National Gallery above depicted as a photograph on a mini-backscene spanning the layout. Result:: minimum space, relatively little modelling for the payback and maximum realism.

 

You could probably adopt much the same approach to the scenery around the eastern end of Waverley, including the Calton tunnels. Waverley is nicely sunken into the landscape which makes an ideal "boundary" for a backscene to maximise perspective and minimise the modelling of some very ornate landmarks, which would be very time-consuming to model accurately. That's my lazy, short-cut approach to modelling anyway!

 

Dave

[bigwordsmith]

Dave thanks for contributing - I must be honest seeing what you've achieved at WW was my inspiration to tackle the East End!

 

I agree it has to be a through station, the key is to make it work, which is why I wan to play with different levels and fiddle yard etc.

 

I think DCC is a great idea, but the cost would be beyond prohibitive, and I also noticed on Gordon's thread that he has had to set up section breaks with circuit breakers to track down shorts - the more progressive wiring approach with analogue means IO find a fault as soon asI flick the latest switch! With some of the flywheel engines on stream now I think the ability to drive a loco more realistically is becoming much more attainable so I'll see what happens.

 

I think the key is you can go from Anlogue to DCC with relative ease, but not so the other way around!

Edited October 1, 2014 by bigwordsmith

[Waverley West]

Hi Peter,

 

I see your point about the cost of DCC, as you obviously have a pretty extensive fleet of locos already. And what you say about switching between the two is also true. My own personal view is that I'd rather go for DCC, even if it means cutting back on costs elsewhere, like having a smaller loco fleet for example but it obviously depends on your situation and your plans.

 

 

DCC has been a godsend on WW, as operation is so simple and the ECoS system has taken the simplicity several steps further too, at least once it was set up anyway. I have section breaks (basic connectors) at each board join, so that if I ever get a short, I can usually track it down pretty quickly by isolating or connecting in the boards separately. A short without an obvious cause can be very daunting initially, but I haven't been beaten yet and 99% of all problems (not that there are many once it's all set up) are cleared very quickly.

 

One more point, be wary about the gradients you use between levels, especially if you want to run long trains. You've got the space to keep the gradients down though, so that shouldn't be a problem, but a bit of research might be needed to determine the maximum gradient given the train lengths you're hoping to have. I'm sure you've thought of that already, I just thought I'd mention it!

 

Glad you've decided to have Waverley as a through station. Anything else just wouldn't be right!

 

Dave

[bigwordsmith]

So after taking on board everyone's thougjhts, and deciding today was far too nice a day for work, I've had a go at trying to come up with something and would welcome feedback

 

This is an A3 version of the plan if you can download/view it  at that size

 

It uses multiple levels, and has lots of flying double crossovers, double slips in the station throat and tries to get some operational interest going without just being a round-roundy.

 

All operations go two ways so you can depart Waverley from either direction and eventually return.

 

I've set it up so that you can exit Waverley going right on the pic ( i.e. East) and either go on the ECML (top line), which drops straight down  to -4 inches, and weaves along below datum level until it gets to the fiddle yard which is itself below Waverley, or you can go on the Waverley Route, in which case you call at Galashiels Station. I've allowed bays on opposite sides at Galashiels, as well as up and down slow ands fasts to facilitate stopping trains from either direction and passing expresses.

 

There are no goods facilities. My experience is that goods trains are best left in fixed rakes to trudge around from the fiddle yard and back again!

 

Once past Galashiels the Waverley Route drops down to -4" and feeds into the fiddle yard where I've shown the 'Scenic Break' at the bottom of the pic. It would have been too complex to show the double turnout, and I'm not sure how I'm going to fake the viaduct with a set of tracks below the main parapet!

 

Gradients are between 1:60 and 1:50 - which could be a tough call for the light-forted peppercorns, but fortunately we have lot of lead offcuts from the new roof!

 

The plan is roughly to scale - the red/cream/green blob sitting in Waverley represents a scale 8-coacher, but doubtless you'll all see the bugs I'm missing.

 

I decided to get over the heat problem with a combination of Velux blinds and air con units!, and also binned the idea of accessing the eaves cupboard at the front!

 

OK Guys, let's hear your comments!

 

Thanks to you all

 

Peter

[LNER4479]

The trackplan itself look fine in terms of the configuration of points and running lines - I like the complex look of the station approach. However, I do think you might struggle a little bit with those gradients, especially at the right hand end - the extra drag round curves always makes the effect of the gradient worse.

 

I'm afraid I'm not too deft with computer drawing (I'm a graph paper and pencil man!) but I wonder if you can actually simplify things a little at the right hand end and make Galashiels part of the climb out of the fiddle yard. That should avoid the need for the sets of double tracks to pass over each other and ease the gradients.

 

You appear to violated one of your constraints(!) in that you've got quite a bit of railway in front of your opening windows - is that not quite the constraint it appeared to be? Also, I see reference to 'Waverley Shed (as built)'. Is that a reference to your loco depot as already featured on this thread? In which case, is that another 'constraint' (ie that you wish to include that rather than build a new depot).

 

I've got quite a few concept ideas buzzing about in my head and was just about to start committing them to paper when your post appeared. Do you still want to see these* or do I sense that you already have a fair idea of what you want your layout to look like already? (*it might take me a while and progress on Grantham beckons!)

[martin_wynne]

I'd also love to have a crack at Templot, but only use Macs so can't unfortunately as it's a PC only app

 

Hi Peter,

 

Templot runs fine on a Mac using Codeweavers Crossover -- it doesn't need a copy of Windows. See:

 

 https://www.codeweavers.com/products/

 

Lots of Mac users are running Templot this way.

 

regards,

 

Martin.