Trewartha Quay (00)

[aforsyth]

I've never attempted a micro layout (and never yet got far with a larger layout since my teens), but have decided to go this route after an unplanned house move ended up filling up the new 'railway room' (garage) with tonnes of junk! I even had previously built baseboards for a 6'x5' roundie layout, but this will have to wait until space is available.

 

Meanwhile, I've been musing over a 49" x 8" (approx 125cm x 20cm) MDF board I had left over. Originally I thought I would use this for a simple test track, but then imagination kicked in of a small branch line terminus (BLT) with a couple of sidings, perhaps set in Cornwall, a favourite part of the world. I came across the Carendt box layout site, and re-read the Inglenook shunting puzzle pages, and wondered if I could create a self-contained shunting layout with minimal passenger facilities. This would also allow me to practice with 'new' technologies & skills such as Electrofrog points, DCC wiring, computer control, modelling water and relief features, etc., before moving to a larger layout!

 

Here is my first draft plan, which I quite like.

 

 

 

 

Initially I imagined the passenger and freight lines disappearing off into a tunnel to a small traverser, which would allow run-round functionality, but with the idea of setting an 'Inglenook' in place, having one of the sidings hidden made operation appear complicated. In the end, I also realised that a loop is not really needed on this layout? Eventually, it would be good to connect this up to a larger layout via the passenger/freight lines, which also makes use of a traverser questionable.

 

Stock will be a pannier or class 08 shunting old-style private user open/box wagons for the Inglenook 5-3-3 puzzle, but an operating session using fewer but larger more recent wagons might also work. Passenger stock will have to be an auto train or classes 121/142/153, and a 2-car 108 might even fit? The plan favours a steam age setup, of course, although at present most of my stock is focused on the 80s, so there will have to be some modeller's license used to justify these operations!

 

Anyway - I'd welcome any comments and suggestions. I'm about to buy a 3-way point, but want to wait for some confirmation about the plan first!

 

Thanks in advance,

Alan

[brianusa]

Alan, if I were you(!), I'd cut out the island platform, do away with the house, etc, and put the station there.  Then leaving just enough room for a loco escape join the station tracks and give yourself a runaround which will give you some more operating potential.  There'd be just enough room assuming Pannier and a coach, maybe two.

 

Brian.

[SMR CHRIS]

I Like the idea of mid 80's that's the era I remember when as a 7 year old we lived in the UK Blue with yellow ends.

You could have

DMU for passanger service

08 for trip freights no run around required shunt the inglenook whilst the DMU shuttles in and out automatically before the 08 returns back up the line a guards van with appropriate figure on the vans platform protecting the propelling train.

 

Don't think to much about it just get on and start before you change your mind it's a small layout easy to work on and get to a finished stage quickly.

Go for it.

[Catweasel]

Alan. Just a thought which would give you more operating potential. Why not hang a single line sector plate off the end, as I'm doing with Pots Lane. It'll act as a runround loop with out  space stealing points.

[leadie69]

I've built a lay very similar to this one but I didn't connect the passenger line o the inglenook - I run a railbus on auto shuttle in the background while shunting the inglenook in front.  I'll take some pics tomorrow to share but SMR Chris has some good ones on his phone - maybe he'll post them here (hint, hint).

[47137]

I like this plan. It's similar so something I sketched out for a trial in EM gauge some years ago ... and never built ...

 

(1) Supposing the provision for extension to the right was through the passenger track instead of siding 3, then siding 3 could serve an industrial building, with the building hiding the passenger track.

 

(2) If it was mine, I'd build it a bit longer - say five feet - to give the trains longer in motion. You could get a sheet of the Knauf 'Spaceboard' (pink extruded polystyrene sold for loft insulation) and build the whole baseboard from one piece, with the offcuts building up the landscape.

 

- Richard.

[aforsyth]

Thank you for all the comments so far! Really helpful for me to think through things this way.

 

Alan, if I were you(!), I'd cut out the island platform, do away with the house, etc, and put the station there.  Then leaving just enough room for a loco escape join the station tracks and give yourself a runaround which will give you some more operating potential.  There'd be just enough room assuming Pannier and a coach, maybe two.

 

Brian.

 

That's a good idea, Brian, certainly for a steam-age layout. I do actually have a B-set and old Hornby pannier, but to be honest I wonder whether inclusion of the loop will overbalance this plan, and whether I really need it, particularly for a post-60s layout as it's likely to mainly become?

Other than for the pannier-hauled passenger train, is the loop actually important for shunting purposes here, assuming a self-contained layout with no fiddle yards? It seems to me, with 'nowhere to go', the loco wouldn't benefit that much from using a loop here, or am I wrong? I have too little experience in operating layouts to know for sure!

 

One other idea I have, which will probably need a lot of modeller's license, but is it possible and plausible to include some simple refuelling facilities on the middle siding, ideally? I'd like to be able to have an excuse to bring in the occasional mainline diesel, perhaps on the freight line, to refuel here, further adding to the shunter's problems! I realise it's 'my railway' and all, but I'd like to make it as believable and yet flexible as I can.

 

I Like the idea of mid 80's that's the era I remember when as a 7 year old we lived in the UK Blue with yellow ends.
You could have
DMU for passanger service
08 for trip freights no run around required shunt the inglenook whilst the DMU shuttles in and out automatically before the 08 returns back up the line a guards van with appropriate figure on the vans platform protecting the propelling train.

Don't think to much about it just get on and start before you change your mind it's a small layout easy to work on and get to a finished stage quickly.
Go for it.

 

A man after my own heart! Totally agree with you Chris, that was what I had in mind too. The main purpose here is to learn from the experience without spending too much time thinking it all through, as I am guilty of in the past. On the other hand, I respect the modelling experience on this forum, so want to make sure I am not going straight down a blind alley. I think an 08 and a 121 DMU, ideally with DCC sound, would enliven this mini scenario for many hours of playing!

 

Alan. Just a thought which would give you more operating potential. Why not hang a single line sector plate off the end, as I'm doing with Pots Lane. It'll act as a runround loop with out  space stealing points.

 

This is a great idea, Catweasel. It's a useful optional extension, although if I'm adding on a sector plate, I might well go for a 3+ line traverser for additional stock storage. However, either way, if I'm missing the functionality of a run-round loop, this is a convenient way of adding it as  needed. I like the look of Pots lane, BTW - very much the same sort of feel as I'm aiming for.

 

I've built a lay very similar to this one but I didn't connect the passenger line o the inglenook - I run a railbus on auto shuttle in the background while shunting the inglenook in front.  I'll take some pics tomorrow to share but SMR Chris has some good ones on his phone - maybe he'll post them here (hint, hint).

 

Yup - that's the kind of idea I had, exactly. And with DCC, I can have two single units on the hidden track, which at certain points emerge to occupy both platform roads, forcing shunting operations to stop! Now that would be fun if these passenger services were automated, and I had to shunt according to the timetable / signals... :-)

[leadie69]

As promised - a pic of my take on this idea (please excuse that quality as it was taken on my phone)

 

 

[SMR CHRIS]

Hi Alan looks like you have got plenty of support for this little layout there have been similar plans in the model press over the years and in the model planning guides.

The sector plate is a good idea could be hidden on the base board by the building infront of it, That is the sector plate moves under the shell of the building also with a 2 track sector you could even get a back platform siding in with access from the sector plate only giving say a parcel siding or a extra stabling siding for a DMU.

To save hijacking your thread with lots of photos I will make a new thread for Leadie69 's small layout and will edit this post with a link. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/96403-inglenook-with-more/

Just one photo of the the inglenook style plan with shuttling ráil car line at the back.

Edit added link to leadie69's inglenook with more http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/96403-inglenook-with-more/

[south_tyne]

As promised - a pic of my take on this idea (please excuse that quality as it was taken on my phone)

Nice little layout. I think that the addition of that 'shuttle line', the mainline I suppose, is an excellent idea and offers something else in terms of operational interest.

 

Clever to offer the view blocker in the form of a building/warehouse too. I'd be interested to see more of it!

 

David

[south_tyne]

Alan,

 

good to see your plans developing. I too am fascinated by small shunting layouts. The though process and time spent in design is often far greater tham larger layouts due to other constraints.

 

Some very useful pointers above and I concur with many. If there is an opportunitt to expand a little, maybe to 5', I think this would only add the the layout. Critical things are ensuring the length of the sidings are adequate for your needs, and that any headshunt is able to accommodate your maximum desired train length. I do like the idea of that 'shuttle' type set up in the layout above mind.

 

The operation of the traverser will be key as, if it doesn't work very well, it will restrict the layout completely. Have you given any thought to how you would build it?

 

David

[aforsyth]

Thank you for all the interest and responses. I've been a bit busy with work in the last few days, but hope to get some time this weekend. I'll write a separate post with an experiment I tried with the plan, but first to add my comments:

 

 

I like this plan. It's similar so something I sketched out for a trial in EM gauge some years ago ... and never built ...

 

(1) Supposing the provision for extension to the right was through the passenger track instead of siding 3, then siding 3 could serve an industrial building, with the building hiding the passenger track.

 

(2) If it was mine, I'd build it a bit longer - say five feet - to give the trains longer in motion. You could get a sheet of the Knauf 'Spaceboard' (pink extruded polystyrene sold for loft insulation) and build the whole baseboard from one piece, with the offcuts building up the landscape.

 

- Richard.

 

(1) Yes - the plan is that the passenger line is the main extension, but for freight trains it seems more logical to me that they would come in on a separate freight line, due to weight restrictions on the passenger track? I'm not any kind of expert, but that would seem to make sense? I like the idea about the industrial building. I was initially trying to work out a suitable building or feature that could hide the freight line, actually, until I realised that I needed it in sight for shunting! For the hidden passenger line, I thought about it being disguised by a road bridge rather than tunnel, then a high wall between bridge and r/h edge of layout. However, this being Cornwall, it occurred to me that I could try to use cliffs and headlands (a la Dawlish tunnels), thus the use of tunnels. Do you think that would work?

 

(2) A longer length would definitely improve things. I do want to try to try to stick to the tight 4'x1' constraints of the original Inglenook Sidings, though, and the existing board size is my best excuse! I will probably add the 2+ track traverser/sector plate on the right in a later phase.

 

As promised - a pic of my take on this idea (please excuse that quality as it was taken on my phone)

 

Love it - and the shuttle, as others have said, is a great idea. Thanks for paving the way... :-)

 

Hi Alan looks like you have got plenty of support for this little layout there have been similar plans in the model press over the years and in the model planning guides.
The sector plate is a good idea could be hidden on the base board by the building infront of it, That is the sector plate moves under the shell of the building also with a 2 track sector you could even get a back platform siding in with access from the sector plate only giving say a parcel siding or a extra stabling siding for a DMU.
To save hijacking your thread with lots of photos I will make a new thread for Leadie69 's small layout and will edit this post with a link. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/96403-inglenook-with-more/
Just one photo of the the inglenook style plan with shuttling ráil car line at the back.image.jpg
Edit added link to leadie69's inglenook with more http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/96403-inglenook-with-more/

 

Yes - thanks for setting up that new thread. The layout looks fun, and the industrial building works well for disguise. I'm not sure, however, what kind of building I could justify on this layout. Perhaps a quayside building/warehouse? That could work, but I do also want to be able to see what's on siding 3 from the front of the layout!

On-board sector plates and traversers would certainly add flexibility (and a 2 track hidden traverser was my original plan). At this point my priority is simplicity for the first layout in XX years, so I can actually get something built! That's why I like the idea of an off-board optional traverser/plate, which I can figure out and build later.

[aforsyth]

So - I was musing last night about how to easily check whether the sidings and headshunt are long enough for the Inglenook's requirements (loco+3 wagons for headshunt, 2x sidings with 3 wagons, 1x siding with 5 wagons), before ordering track. The plan was created in AnyRail, and I noticed I could export to 'TrainPlayer', which I downloaded as a 30 day trial and into which I imported my Trewartha plan.

Lo and behold, within minutes I could run some UK trains on the layout! The variety of locos and wagons isn't huge, but I found a 12T closed van, 08 shunter, autocoach and 0-4-0 steam loco that could stand in for a 14XX.

 

So here's some screenshots of the 08 with some 12T vans in appropriate locations:

 

 

Headshunt in use and autotrain:

 

 

Siding 3 / freight line:

 

 

 

 

It was tempting to 'play virtual trains' for longer on there, but I'm keen to get on with the real layout! Still, I'm impressed at how useful it is to 'test drive' your layout before committing pen to paper. They do have a very playable Ingenook shunting puzzle on there, even with decent steam sounds! Not entirely cheap (39 quid), but the 30 day demo will do me for now.

 

One obvious issue with the simulation is that the extra space used by couplings is not taken into account. Even so, it looks like I should be able to meet the 3+1/3/3/5 Inglenook requirements and perhaps have a 2-car DMU / B-Set with Pannier at the platforms.

 

I've now ordered my 3-way point (electrofrog), so I'm committed! :-)

[47137]

Suppose you make the "top" passenger line shorter, stopping near the 'y' in Quay. This platform will still be long enough to take a single car DMU, and you could add a station building in the space. Then, the operating schedule might require a two-car DMU from time to time, which will have to go into the "lower" passenger line i.e. the headshunt. So you will have to clear the headshunt to make room for it. Might add some spice to operating.

 

- Richard.

[aforsyth]

Suppose you make the "top" passenger line shorter, stopping near the 'y' in Quay. This platform will still be long enough to take a single car DMU, and you could add a station building in the space. Then, the operating schedule might require a two-car DMU from time to time, which will have to go into the "lower" passenger line i.e. the headshunt. So you will have to clear the headshunt to make room for it. Might add some spice to operating.

 

- Richard.

 

Nice idea Richard. I might well do that (although I don't actually possess a single car DMU yet other than a GWR railcar!).

 

I actually imagined eventually having two railcars stored on the hidden passenger line (assuming a DCC layout), which would require the use of both platforms if they were both arriving at peak times, adding interest to the operation as you mentioned. The only issue is that if I have any more passenger stock two single-car or one two-car DMU, it won't fit in the hidden area on the self-contained layout, requiring the bolt-on traverser.

I will certainly bear it in mind though - it would be nice to have a proper station building. I was assuming a low-relief or off-layout SB, but hadn't thought much about it.

 

Cheers,

Alan

[brianusa]

Certainly sounds like the planning is half the fun! For a fully rationalised layout, check out Looe SLT on here.

 

Brian.

[aforsyth]

Certainly sounds like the planning is half the fun! For a fully rationalised layout, check out Looe SLT on here.

 

Brian.

 

Haha - believe it or not, I really like the end result there, although I'll stick to my more 'pointy' plan. I actually can't wait to get this one up and working. There's so many stages and techniques to try out! I've been looking at pictures of Cornish harbours (Falmouth, Wadebridge) to get an idea how the scenery might work. I just hope I can do this wonderful part of the country justice.

[BG John]

I added a Heljan Railbus to my original freight only plan. It's short enough to fit in a small space in the fiddle yard, but big enough to cause plenty of interesting disruption to shunting!

[47137]

A small railbus could haul a milk tanker too and give you a short mixed train.

 

- Richard.

[BG John]

A small railbus could haul a milk tanker too and give you a short mixed train.

 

- Richard.

That depends on whether it has buffers and couplings!

[aforsyth]

So - I have the 3-way point (and in fact everything I need to create baseboards and track layout), but before I put saw to wood, I had some thoughts about minor changes, partly based on some of the great feedback. I will show my latest plan in a later post.

 

I was also looking up Scalescenes dock material, and how people apply this, which let me on to this great layout on the old RMweb from John Teal ('RJR')  with a very similar setup to my quay sidings. Here are a couple of pictures from that, which were very helpful:

 

 

 

Very nice modelling. I like the relief warehouses, dockside walling and separate repair/loading berth, which I probably don't have room for.

 

In the layout thread, Charlestown harbour in Cornwall is mentioned as good inspiration (despite never having a 'proper' railway at the quayside). I like the fact that it has a beach right next to the harbour wall and therefore close to the quayside - so hopefully I can justify something similar.

[aforsyth]

So - with the inspirations from the last post and topic feedback in mind, here's my updated plan.

 

 

... and in detail... :

 

 

The main points:

 

• The layout width has been increased from 8 inches to 12, although I have deliberately not expanded the track layout much to take advantage of this. The extra width (3 inches or so at the front) gives me room for a quayside, water and perhaps a small boat at the front, along with a small beach and the tidal stream on the left. An extra inch or so at the back gives a little more space for the stream and low relief warehouses, and will hopefully allow the hidden passenger track to access at least two tracks on the traverser. All thoughts and ideas very welcome! :-)
   
• As mentioned, I've included a 3-track traverser on the right, and realised that it might also be possible to make the passenger lines 'through lines' to a traverser on the left, giving more flexibility and storage. These traversers are really later additions, because I'm not sure if I have 8ft available in my office, and I relish the fact that the basic layout plan is self-contained anyway. Any thoughts? Switching from BLT to through station does make it quite a different animal, but it'll be nice to have that option even if I treat it as a terminus (with onward branch rationalised to this point). Clearly, since the layout will normally be against a wall, the traversers won't be able to switch between all tracks, but I can put up with that limitation, or is there a better way..?
   
• The layout has become much more industrial, whether I planned it that way or not, but I might still be able to have a reasonable cliff face in front of the hidden passenger siding. I do like it in my minds' eye though, although my artistic wife may think otherwise...!
   
• I've added a few scenic tricks I've seen in the past, and which have been mentioned on this thread:
  - Adding the front part of a goods depot provides a way for the freight line to sneak out of sight, without requiring a tunnel. It also suggests that the sidings could be longer (and yes, they could connect to the traverser too, but that's getting over-clever to my mind!).
  - Providing a pier or harbour bridge on the left provides a place for rail and stream to disappear to. Although I can imagine this could look good, I'd appreciate any tips in what kind of kit or parts could be used for this type of structure. I don't mind trying to scratchbuild the basic shape, but very fine detail work is probably beyond me right now.
  - Similarly, the passenger line on disappears at the top middle under a road bridge now, rather than into a tunnel.

 

So - some significant changes here. I still want to use the 4' x 8" board as my main track base at a higher level, with this being framed as normal and supported by a lower 4' x 1' frame, allowing the front and back of the layout to be scenically more interesting (and less likely for trains to get knocked off!).

 

Looking forward to your comments!

 

Cheers,

Alan

[brianusa]

Beginning to get serious here! I have to ask, why two separate routes into such a small destination? I could see pre Grouping perhaps, but in your era a bit unlikely and nowadays it would be non existent! Whether or not it ends up as a BLT or a through line, I still think it should have for maximum 'play value' a runaround even if one end is on the traverser. When I designed my current layout, I went for as much variety as possible as I didn't want to get tired of it. Its been up and running for fifteen years or so now!

[aforsyth]

Beginning to get serious here! I have to ask, why two separate routes into such a small destination? I could see pre Grouping perhaps, but in your era a bit unlikely and nowadays it would be non existent! Whether or not it ends up as a BLT or a through line, I still think it should have for maximum 'play value' a runaround even if one end is on the traverser. When I designed my current layout, I went for as much variety as possible as I didn't want to get tired of it. Its been up and running for fifteen years or so now!

 

Thanks Brian. I did try to squeeze a run-around loop on there when you first mentioned it, but I'd need to extend the board length to enable it (or lose the gentle s-curve of the layout, which I am currently quite attached to). I would agree that ironically a loop might be more important if it's a through station, since the greater variety of loco-hauled trains that this permits would need this (or a rotating traverser of some sort).

 

<edit>Just to comment on your query - the separate routes are in my mind freight (only) and passenger/light engine, with the occasional engineering or diverted freight arriving from the hidden passenger storage line. As I look at it, in my eyes this layout almost looks like a small Cornish quay station with china clay loading/transfer wharf, although I wouldn't pretend to be able to justify that. With the past abundance of freight-only branches in mid and east Cornwall, wouldn't this type of layout be feasible? At least during GW and BR days, perhaps.

I suppose I could put together eight original clay hood wagons, with 'A, 'B', C' ... on their hoods for the shunting puzzle? :-)

</edit>

 

Re:loops:

Interestingly, during my first design iterations, I planned for both passenger and freight lines to exit to hidden storage via a double tunnel portal, which allowed just enough space for a crossover in the hidden area. Do you think that this permutation would actually be an advantage? In terms of self-contained layout operation (i.e. Ingelnook shunting and passenger shuttle), I couldn't see a good reason to have the loop on there, which is why I originally abandoned the extra crossover.

 

BTW - is your layout described somewhere? I'd be interested to see the plan of such a successful, satisfying design!

[aforsyth]

Decided to mock up the layout to check sizing, so I printed out the AnyRail plan and placed the 3-way and other points accordingly with some rolling stock:

 

 

Everything fits - just! The DMU will also fit in the hidden storage road and clear the point, but it's all at a minimum. The squashed placing of that hidden storage road is one of the reasons I want to increase the layout width to 12 inches, as I mentioned above.

Just shows how inaccurate that Trainplayer simulation was in the earlier post! Mostly due to the missing extra coupling size, I guess.

 

Anyway, I'm pretty happy with this so far. Buffer stops might need to be shortened (wall-mounted perhaps), but it looks like the target rolling stock should fit. Next step - start framing up the baseboard, hopefully this next week.