The Waverley Route revisited!

[great northern]

Hi Peter,

 

One or two more thoughts, picking up on contributions made above. First, gradients. They are an absolute pain if the intention is to run long trains. You would need to do that if modelling Waverley, and one of your major advantages is that 37ft of length, which allows you to do so without them looking "wrong". Sadly though, RTR Pacifics are going to struggle badly to get rakes of 11 or even more up gradients even as easy as 1 in 100. I've tried it in the past, and it didn't work.

 

Second point would be hidden storage.Murphy's law dictates that if something is going to fall off, it will do so in the most inconvenient and inaccessible place. Again, I speak from experience. I put some extra storage sidings in along the rear wall of my loft, as an afterthought. It wasn't the slope of the roof that nearly killed me, it was squeezing up into the 14inch space I had left for access. You can guess where derailments happened. You really need to have your fiddle yard where you have easy and pain free access - everything in plain sight and reachable without difficulty. If it is to go underneath the station, you will need it to be at least six inches below to have any chance of getting at things. Also, a fiddle yard is most useful if it is just that - a place where you can fiddle with things. Trains can be varied by lifting stock on and off, but that isn't going to happen if it requires contortions to do so.

 

That ties in with the next point. Given a very large space, it is easy to get carried away, and plan something very complex, but if the intention is to operate single handed that can be counter productive, and an active disincentive. The more complex it is, the longer it takes to build too. I finished up doing something that in essence is very simple, and I could have got a lot more into my available space. I'm glad I didn't though, as even now I finish up having to run one train at a time. most of the time. I get the advantage though of having every part of the layout within easy reach, and operation is still varied and complex enough to keep me interested.

 

Finally, I come to what I have referred to in an article as "inconvenient truths". I define those as things which get pushed to the back of the mind, to be considered "later". My major one when considering Peterborough North was the station buildings. No way could I have made those myself, but equally no way could it be Peterborough without them, so I had to face up from the start to the fact that I would have to pay a professional to build them, and that the cost would be considerable. You would I think have the same choice to make with Waverley, a very large and complex station. Even the roof  alone would be a very big job.

 

I know all of this will come over as very negative, but I'm speaking from years of experience, disappointment and disillusion. I've started and abandoned many schemes, often at considerable cost, when, if I had made myself consider harsh realities from the outset, I would have never even started on them. I reckon your Galashiels idea would make a very good and interesting model in its own right actually, and be far more readily achievable, operable, and equally important, maintainable. And the place I considered when my thoughts wandered to the Waverley route was Hawick. That would be an interesting challenge!

[gordon s]

Just to support Gilbert's view on hidden storage.  The logical place for storage is often underneath a station as the length of run needed for the gradient will often take you back in a big loop to where your run starts.  There are then many factors that need to be considered.

 

1. Gilbert mentions a minimum of 6" clearance.  This needs to be a 'net' figure as the true clearance needs to allow for the depth of the baseboard supports (3-4") or a similar depth if you decide to use Tortoise motors.  I suspect the true gap needs to be nearer 12" and even then there are numerous issues to deal with.

 

2. By it's nature, storage yards need several parallel tracks for storage.  ET had 14 tracks from memory, which on 50mm centres meant the storage board was around 800mm wide.  Try reaching under a station board 2' wide through a gap of 6"-12" to access a train that has derailed.  Possibly it can be done with just one train in situ, but now imagine it's the 10th one in with the storage lines full.

 

3. You won't be able to see which lines are full and where space exists and then you won't know how far to drive the train in as it's all hidden from view.  That means some form of track sensing devices.

 

4.  Turnouts have moving parts and they fail over time.  How do you replace a turnout or solder a broken tie blade underneath a second board and through a gap of 6-12"?

 

5. How do you clean track in hidden areas?

 

These are all things I have found out through failures of various designs in the past.  Those failures meant loss of time and money, but also were depressing and resulted in part built layouts being scrapped.

 

Like Gilbert, please don't take these as negative comments.  They are just highlighting the pitfalls of hidden areas so you can consider other solutions to the storage problem... 

Edited October 2, 2014 by gordon s

[bigwordsmith]

Guys there's nothing negative about good advice, and the prime reason I floated the question was to tap into your experience and avoid remaking mistakes that others have found costly, so I'm deeply respectful of your counsel, especially as three of the most prolific large layout modellers have decided top help out, for which I am very grateful!

 

The idea of buried sidings is something I've used before, and as I'm now approaching the big '6-0' it has been a timely reminder that I'm not as lithe as I was 40 years ago, and even then I only had 4 roads which worked fine until I tried hauling a long rake of trucks. I hadn't thought about points wearing out, which well worth considering, especially as I plan to re-use the Tetleys points - better make sure that I keep those above ground.

 

Common sense is telling me to follow your advice and find another way of managing the fiddle yard. Gilbert's point bout OMO is also very cogent, so again thanks on that.

 

TO Robert, I'll also say that I would appreciate all input, but don't let it impede Grantham's progress!

 

Back to the drawing board!

 

Peter

[jon_1066]

What about putting the fiddleyard where you have the Waverley Shed then put the Waverley shed above the running lines on the Right hand side somewhere.  This would mean the gradient up to the shed would be less of an issue since you won't be pulling long rakes of coaches up and down it - just light engine moves.

[jon_1066]

One other idea:

 

 

Go into the middle of the room with the model of Waverley.  Put the fiddle yard on the bottom wall and the MPD over the through tracks.  This lets you have the maximum width possible for Waverley to do it justice.  You have through running for Waverley but the fiddle yard is open and easily accessed as is Waverley.  

[bigwordsmith]

Actually Jon I like that idea - it also effectively gives me the return loop  I wanted, only downside is it would call for a duck under and I am a bit concerned that increasing arthritis ( this is after all intended as a retirement project) may limit one's enjoyment!

[LNER4479]

Yes, that's one of the schemes I've been working on (as it gives you the reversing loop). However, it does make getting to the loo (through the left hand door) a bit of an issue!

The fiddle yard needs reversing ie access from the left hand end (not a problem) otherwise trains can't ever arrive in Waverley having departed the fiddle yard in a clockwise direction. (edited - apologies, having revisited the thread this evening, I realise I mis-read your plan. Duh!)

Edited October 2, 2014 by LNER4479

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

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

All the plastic bodied RTR Doncaster pacific models are light footed. Reasons vary by model but all are readily overcome with a good helping of the dense stuff, and various modifications. With 500g bearing on the coupled wheels they pull well enough for my requirement, which is a reliable start with the whole of a full size train (for the power class of the loco) on a 1 in 80. (The only two satisfactorily weighted as supplied plastic bodied RTR wide firebox steam models that I possess are the 9F from Bachmann, and the Britannia - and by extension the Clan as it shares the mechanism - from Hornby.)

 

Actually more important than loco weight to achieving good performance on gradients is the free rolling of the stock. Minimum acceptable standard is that it rolls away on a true 1 in 100. A lot of stock will fail to attain this when new, whether purchased RTR or just completed. But give it some hours running and the bearing surfaces polish up to good effect. To this end incorporating a level circuit in the layout which can be used for testing and extended running is very useful.

[60027Merlin]

Peter,

 

A further couple of points from personal experience of layout matters.

 

I suggest that it would be wise to bear in mind that, as it is a solo effort, the project is manageable for you to achieve within a realistic time scale. With all the other things in life requiring your attention, lack of sufficient free time, even when retired, can be a bit of a problem from time to time. Remember that if you are unable to work on the layout because of other commitments then nothing gets done unlike a team set up.

 

Secondly, Waverley Station and the Waverley Route will require a fair number of locos and rolling stock and with that in mind the maintenance of a large layout plus the attendant locos and rolling stock is a time consuming and continual task.  

 

However don’t let this out you off – but it is well worth it to keep it in mind during your planning in an effort to make things easier.

 

All the work put into it will be repaid once the trains start running!

 

Looking forward to seeing progress on this.

 

Eric

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Geat old trick, originator unknown, number locos differently each side to 'double up' the number of class members. The clip together construction of some coaches - Bach mk1 for example -  means that alternative liveries can be carried either side. If the layout is arranged with a reversing loop the same train can then somewhat change appearance between first and second passes.

[LNER4479]

OK Peter, here goes:

 

This plan keeps to the basic round all four walls concept (not unlike yours). However, perhaps there the similarities end. The main feature I have worked in is the continuation of the railway eastwards from Waverley and used the right hand end of your space to add the shed and Carriage Sidings. The mainlines can follow a generous 5 foot radius curve with the shed behind. Loco depots are ideal things for fitting into corners and I have thus shown a large shed building in the top right corner and the turntable in the bottom left. I've chosen it this way round as this allows you to do a great line up your pacifics, with them all smokebox facing out of the shed (ready for southbound workings). Please note that the depot is only shown as a basic outline - you'll be able to get much more in there than the lines I've shown.

 

To make the layout 'work' I've shown a fiddle yard and running loops all along the top wall. Part of this is so you have a complete circuit round your loft space without the trains having to pass through Waverley station every time (no passenger trains would pass through the real Waverley non-stop). The fiddle yard is double ended, ie trains can arrive and depart from it in either direction; the running loops give you additional capacity for trains heading to or away from Waverley.

 

I've worked in an approx. six foot length of the railway through Princes Street Gardens which I think is a nice (absolutely iconic) feature - of course the two outer tracks actually form the avoiding lines past the station once they've entered the tunnels but that's irrelevant from an appearance point of view.

 

I've also indicated where you could add Galashiels as a simple double track loop off the mainline along the bottom left hand wall - this is something that could easily be added subsequently.

 

This plan explores the idea of using some of the middle of the space. Unlike Jon's suggestion however, I've shown the tracks curving round from the left hand end to join the main circuit along the top wall - this is so as to allow easier access to the loo! (only one duck under or lifting section). I am aware that the radius of this curve would be significantly less than your 5foot ideal - perhaps this would be more of a 3foot radius curve. But this would only be used for trains (and hence locos) arriving/departing the left hand end of the station. You could therefore make that a deliberate operating restriction (which could add interest), ie the pacifics only work in from the east end (ie terminate at Waverley, as of course many of them did). I'll talk a bit more about operations in a moment.

 

The fiddle yard in this case is of the dead end variety - which is made possible by the reversing loop nature of the station. A set of running loops along the top wall once again adds to the number of trains that can be accommodated on the layout. I've not attempted to fit in Galashiels with this design - however, I think it might be possible to model it on top of the fiddle yard as I think you would have a reasonable distance either side for approach gradients. (Thinking on you could let the main circuit drop down towards this area to ease the gradients further - grade separation)

 

You'll notice that the right hand end is completely unaltered from Plan1. I few words therefore as to how I envisage this working. I've shown 3 tracks leaving the east end of Waverley, a straightforward double track mainline and a bi-directional single track leading to the carriage sidings. A train arriving from the south (east end), say an express from Kings Cross, would arrive and terminate at Waverley. The loco can then retire to shed (this is described below) and a pilot loco then hauls the stock out of the station into the carriage sidings (and can then run round the stock and return to the station as the sidings are double ended). The reverse process takes place for a train originating at Waverley and heading south. Lots of operational interest there if you want it.

 

I've also indicated the area in front of all this (ie sat facing wall 'B' as being your working area (that was on your wish list) - I forgot to show this on Plan2 but I meant it to be there all the same.

 

A final comment on Plan2. You could actually lose the 180deg curve at the left hand end and have Waverley as a terminal station. The design would work just as well and you could get round the other side of the station without the onset of arthritis troubling you! 

 

And finally, a suggested plan for the station (its not dead to scale but should give you an idea). What I've done is to try and condense the basic design of the real Waverley whilst still retaining some of its principle features (ie a massive island platform with dead end bays). By adapting the additional suburban island platform on the south side (just one platform face - on the other side is the retaining wall of the main train shed), there are 5 platform faces (which I think is reasonably manageable), 3 of which could take your 8 coach expresses and 2 of which are the through platforms. Both of these have adjacent avoiding / run round lines which, amongst other things, could be used by goods trains passing through or for locos to get to and from shed.

 

The trackwork forming the main station throat is complicated (deliberately, to give a steam era 'feel') but should actually be just an exercise in Peco track laying as it can all be constructed from standard streamline products. As shown, I believe you can get to any of the platforms from the main inbound track emerging from the tunnel; equally you can get from any of the platforms to the main departure line. Also you can get to/from any of the platforms from the third bi-directional track to the carriage sidings.

 

For trains which pass through (ie continue their journeys to/from the west having called at the station) they will have to use the correct through line from a directional point of view. One aspect that appeals here is to set up loco changes for such trains. ie an express from the south might change from a pacific to a D49 (say) and possibly lose some of the coaches (ie a portioned train) - all perfectly possible using the adjacent avoiding / run-round lines.

 

 

Finally, a comment not directly related to the plans but aimed at one of your constraints. In terms of storage (of those cushions and Xmas decs!), have you though about fitting doors to your baseboard legs once constructed? This will give the appearance of a series of cupboards with the railway on top and allow items to be stored neatly out of sight - and shouldn't compromise your available space for the layout!

 

 

Well I hope this is of some use / interest to you. That's set Grantham back by exactly one evening's worth of effort - but no worries, I've quite enjoyed the layout planning challenge.

Edited October 2, 2014 by LNER4479

[7APT7]

Hi ya

 

Great write up and some excellent point work... needed at the one end...

 

look forward to seeing it's progress.

 

Jamie

[bigwordsmith]

Robert that is stunning and I am hugely grateful for what , in my opinion was a well worthwhile evening!

 

I think the first plan is absolutely bang on, and I love the way you've worked out a suitable track plan for Waverley as well as incorporated the route through Princes St.Gardens. One great benefit of this approach is that I could model the gardens and back scene from polystyrene which would allow it to be lifted off in the event of a derailment. I also like the way it brings the visible lines forward thereby allowing room underneath the eaves for a back scene.

 

I'll take this forward and scale it up and put the result on the forum shortly.

 

The constraint that you have overruled is the re-use of Waverley Shed as is - But I should know by know that even four years of building and tinkering doesn't mean it's finished, or indeed right for the next line!

 

Many, Many thanks- I wouldn't have achieved such a clean result in ages, let alone one evening!

[jon_1066]

How deep will that baseboard have to be to get four running loops and Waverley station in?

[Waverley West]

Hi Peter,

 

You've had some great advice here and I would especially agree with the idea of keeping all trackwork and electrics easily accessible.

 

The only thing I would reiterate is don't be put off by the thought of modelling a station as large as Waverley and the time/cost involved. It is just a question of how you do it. If you're prepared to make compromises to recreate the atmosphere of Waverley, rather than every nut and bolt, then the workload and cost involved can be drastically reduced. Better that than not modelling your dream station (well, my dream station anyway!).

 

The station itself on my Waverley West measures just 6" x 4". I think you would be better using judicious backscene divides rather than modelling the full roof anyway (which would make for a very boring expanse of roof in model form and prevent you from seeing the trains). As for stock, well a couple of expresses and a few local trains will go a long way to recreating the services of any era. My Blue/Grey era expresses for example are represented by one Blue/Grey HST and a rake of Mk 2d coaches which are hauled by a fleet of three Deltics and a few 47s. The Mk 2d rake also doubles up as an interregional express. Not much more expense there than any other reasonably sized layout. If I felt I had to recreate every rake that entered Waverley during that period, it would be a very different story.

 

That's my advice from the Bodgit School of Railway Modelling anyway! 

 

Cheers

Dave

[bigwordsmith]

@jon  I'm just scaling that up now!

[bigwordsmith]

@ Dave

 

I agree with you and I have plans to find out much more about your use of photo backsenes which I see as a huge opportunity to make work. I am tempted to have a 'virtual' station canopy, i.e. just not have it, or if I do mix eras and whizz the roof forward to the 2015 plan to replace it with clear glass, represented by see through acetate!

 

Stockwise I'm not worried - forty odd years of collecting, not to mention very active participation on eBay, Rails and various swap meets locally has given me enough stock to put together 2 pullman rakes, 2 Mk. 1 Rakes, 1x Thomson and 1 x Gresley in both Hornby and Ian Kirk, as well as a 7 coach Kirk set in teak to go behind the P2 ( That's my ghost train)

 

A recent visit to Froude & Hext in Swindon unearthed 40-odd brand new Mainline trucks which ad  never been sold and were mine for £ 3.33 each, so I have a lot of stock!

 

On top of that at least 60-odd locos!

 

ATB

 

Peter

[LNER4479]

How deep will that baseboard have to be to get four running loops and Waverley station in?

I estimated 2foot width for Waverley station (although it can vary depending on how wide you choose to make the platforms). The running loops would occupy a further 8 inches so say 3 feet for the full width. That's about as much as you'd want. Years ago, my father had a layout which had a very similar configuration (see railway Modeller March 1982!) and this was on a piece of chipboard 3 foot wide. It never really caused any problems but it's about the maximum width you can work comfortably width.

 

Yes, Peter, I thought I might have violated the constraint about the depot! Could it be adapted in any way to fit along that wall? I also suspect that to get into the farthest corners of my plan in that area might be 'challenging' but I'll be interested to see how it scales up. For this reason, I saw the centre of the depot being quite 'thin' to minimise any over-reaching problems in the corners.

 

I did overlay your outline plan with a grid of 5foot squares so I hope I'm not too far out.

[Waverley West]

This fits on a board not much more than 3' wide...

 

 

So I think around 3' would be a reasonable assumption.

 

Dave

[bigwordsmith]

The other thought is to actually run it at a lower height off the ground so that it can be viewed from a seated psotion for most operations and you only stand up to deal with things - that way you could do a 4 foot width if needs be, although as decrepitude approaches the old back hinge may not welcome that!

Nice shot Dave - You keep reminding me of how high the bar already is!

[Waverley West]

 

Nice shot Dave - You keep reminding me of how high the bar already is!

 

Sorry Peter, I just wanted to show you what can be fitted into not much space!

 

Cheers

Dave

[jon_1066]

If as was suggested you combined the station engine shed with the fiddleyard you could solve most of your problems.

 

 

So you use the engine shed as a view blocker and have the fiddleyard in behind it.  The view as you come up the stairs would be the of the West End of the station with Princes Street gardens directly in front of you.  Trains would pass into the station and then directly into the fiddleyard.  This would give you space to put in the MPD you currently have and also model Galashields on the bend as in your original plan without any gradients.

[landscapes]

@ Dave

 

I agree with you and I have plans to find out much more about your use of photo backsenes which I see as a huge opportunity to make work. I am tempted to have a 'virtual' station canopy, i.e. just not have it, or if I do mix eras and whizz the roof forward to the 2015 plan to replace it with clear glass, represented by see through acetate!

 

Stockwise I'm not worried - forty odd years of collecting, not to mention very active participation on eBay, Rails and various swap meets locally has given me enough stock to put together 2 pullman rakes, 2 Mk. 1 Rakes, 1x Thomson and 1 x Gresley in both Hornby and Ian Kirk, as well as a 7 coach Kirk set in teak to go behind the P2 ( That's my ghost train)

 

A recent visit to Froude & Hext in Swindon unearthed 40-odd brand new Mainline trucks which ad never been sold and were mine for £ 3.33 each, so I have a lot of stock!

 

On top of that at least 60-odd locos!

 

ATB

 

Peter

Hi Peter

 

Hallo from a stenaline ferry in the middle of the Irish Sea in gale force winds on my way back home after a weeks holiday in Ireland

 

Froude & Hext are only about 2 miles from my home, I use them frequently.

 

Looking forward to seeing your new venture get going.

 

Regards

 

David

Edited October 3, 2014 by landscapes

[bigwordsmith]

Ah David what a numpty I am - If I'd thought about it I'd have invited myself round to see your excellent shed when I was visiting Swindon D'oh!

 

And you told me you lived there a while ago!

 

Rats

 

P

[bigwordsmith]

Right folks,

 

Much discussion in the Smith Household about just how much of this enormous loft one needs for a railway, 'the Boss' wants somewhere that won;t have ballast dropping onto it to store garden cushion etc., so hopefully this is the acceptable compromise!

 

 

I've allowed the bottom right hand corner for storage cupboards or whatever and will bring the curves over there down to a 3' radius with just the tracks on an un-ballasted board until we get to the staircase where I'll need a lift off for when we bring loads upstairs. Several folk have told me a Peppercorn will go round a 3'footer and I've tried it on the shed - they;re OK pulling, but the tender gets all screwed up going astern.

 

The red lines are low level, and by laying it this way I can maintain the existing Waverley Shed without any amends, other than re-siting the controls. I plan to run the low level main along the front of the shed on a gentle gradient - shades of The Gresley Route - and this will be a feature at that point

 

From there, the low level runs into four long storage loops - I know that's not a lot of storage, but Gilbert made a compelling cases for cassettes and I've got an idea of how to use them...

 

In terms of hidden tracks,  there are just six pairs of points concealed, and these will all be under easily removable polystyrene scenery to allow good access. I'm also planning to lay all the hidden stuff in code 100 as it's more forgiving of less than excellent wheels and especially Back to Backs

 

`Gradients are a ruling 1 in 80.  I suspect there will have to be some significant weighting and adjusting on the Peppercorns, but my trusty old XO4 powered A3's will haul ten carriages up that without breaking sweat, and all the diesels should easily do so as well. TBH, 8 bogies is most likely to be the maximum load, so hopefully 'sorted' Bachmanns will do the business.

 

'Waverley East' captures the spirit of the East End of Waverley - I've taken some of Robert's ideas such as the two-way road from the suburban platform, and also brought the carriage sidings across to give somewhere I can load/ unload cassettes of stock - hence their odd angle to the baseboard!

 

Looking at the scenic breaks, I'll probably run the bit between Waverley and Galashiels up to higher than train height so that the Galashiels station won't impinge visually on Waverley and vice versa. The idea is that from Waverley at normal observation height Galashiels station will be lost by the townscape behind / around it.

 

Galashiels is completely free form at this stage - I'm thinking of having two bay platforms that will receive trains from Waverley as well as the up and down main. I'd like a two-road engine shed and a small goods yard so we could shunt some vans off a passenger train for example, or send milk to market on a pickup goods.

 

Operationally the idea is that the whole thing can be one man operated - by setting the points at Galashiels to run straight through, a pair of trains can go off on their travels around the circuit and be left to their own devices, while a loco trundles off to the shed and is dealt with. The shed will have its own controls - reached by turning 180 degrees form Waverley's, and Galashiels will have the option of local control or switching from the main panel, so potentially three operators could work the line.

 

Right, that's my thoughts so far, I'm sure you can come up with some good refinements, and thank you again to all of you for your advice and help so far.

 

ATB

 

Peter