Harlequin

Thanks!

Yes, I can see that your SE&CR ~1900 vintage locos wouldn't look very comfortable sitting in my version of Purley junction!

I have been pursuing the 1930's versions of the stations - just because I was looking at them before you had settled on a period.

So, just to draw a line under the 1930's version of the design, here's where I got to this evening:

• Added fiddle yard
• Gave Purley a third platform
• Expanded Purley goods yard
• Purley goods yard now has a trailing connection to the main line and long headshunt in the fiddle yard
• Separated slow and fast lines enough to position Purley signal box

So, now back to the fin de siècle.

I'll think about what you've said and look at older maps.

My source for historical station plans is old-maps.co.uk but If you've got any track plans that you're looking at in particular it would be great if you could post them here or PM me.

(I'm not stepping on your toes, am I?)

Here's a revised version. It's still a bit sketchy but I think it shows that the basic idea would work:

[Click to enlarge - it's big!]

• Uses the full 7ft width by assuming board surface is just above the top of the truss cross-beams.
• Min radius on Caterham branch: 734mm (~29in).
• Pushes the tracks out to the usable edges of the loft space in non-scenic areas.
• Aims to evoke the feel of stations rather than exact track plans.
  • Reduced and simplified sidings
  • Shortened station lengths (but you still have 6ft long platforms at Purley junction - pretty impressive!
  • Caterham branch looks like slow lines to Brighton until it diverges hidden in the tunnel
  • Slow lines through station rejoin fast lines off-scene
• Abandons Kenley.
• Abandons the reversing loop and uses the space for Caterham station.
• Baseboards slimmed down over access hatch, could be liftout section.
• Each grid square 305*305mm (1ft*1ft)

(Please don't be confused by the junctions/points where some lines appear to ride over others - that's just because of the brush I was using that combines trackbed and centre line.)

What gauge/scale?

The radius of the reversing circle will be less than 2ft, close to 18in I guesstimate.

The reversing circle will be difficult to access if things get stuck or derail under there. And it's probably not sensible to make the station removable to gain access.

The yellow lifting section seems to be immediately beside a fixed section so it's not clear why it needs to lift.

Edit: Sorry, yellow is not a lifting section. I misread the drawing.

Harlequin I'm sorry to hear that you feel it might not work, I would definitely like to see it - particularly if as discussed the main scenic parts of the layouts can be broken relatively easily into 4' sections, as it would permit shifting to various locations in the house over the course of completion. All combinations of the layout (the engine sheds, the marshalling yards, Kenley as a halt and Caterham as a terminus) appeal to me - so plucking and placing into an end-to-end or dogbone is very much on the cards. 

 

Failing that, there are MANY other SE&CR prototypes that I'm interested in - the Greenwich Park branch for one. I've put a bid in on the Iain Rice 'Urban Layouts' book. While I certainly now hail from the Purley area, I grew up at the top of the hill from which New Cross, New Cross Gate, the East London Line, Bricklayers Arms, etc. all sprung from. Of course, the majority of it was gone by the time I was born - but many sunny afternoons gazing at the Bermondsey viaducts and criss-crossing tracks. Maybe there is scope for a dual layer out-and-back layout simulating New Cross Low Level (passenger and then goods-only before the line from East London ended up being routed through the main New Cross station) and the patchwork of routes and sidings underneath the Brighton Mainline.

 

By the way, Alea Iacta Est - SE&CR Lined Green C-Class 0-6-0 Goods loco ordered.  Overall, I'm pleased that I've put a stake in the ground as a point of divergence. In terms of standards, I think I will attempt OO-SF just to see how it feels to me (and which won't require any adjustment of my rolling stock) and take it from there. I get the feeling I'll settle on EM regardless.

Well, this was the idea. Please don't scrutinise too closely because it's very sketchy and I know it fails in various ways, as drawn. (Board joins in odd places, things too close together, station layouts not quite right, tight radii, etc, etc...)

The thicker red lines were intended to be double track and that's where the main problem comes from - I didn't allow enough space for double track (although I always intended to use clever tricks to make best use of the space).

I might still be able to rescue this idea if I could assume that the full 7ft width is available! This could be done by fixing the baseboards to the sides of the two trusses, rather than on top of them. Do you think that would be possible?

I guess you couldn't resist the lure of the C-Class. (It's a close cousin of the "Dean Goods" that I'm eagerly waiting for.) I can picture it standing alongside Kenley station building - as an evocative diorama if nothing else!

BTW: Have you looked at the new Peco bullhead track and points? It's getting closer to OO-SF.

Thanks. That's really useful.

Unfortunately, the restricted width and shorter than expected length mean my idea probably won't work in 4mm but I'll have a think and either post it in it's failed form or post something that does work later on.

With such a large layout (potentially) is it realistic to scratch-build/kit-build everything?

I'm not familiar with what's available for Proto64 but I guess that it's not so well covered as 4mm and so would be somewhat slower to build.

Consider how long the build period will be before you can start to operate.

You've got a good long space so I think S7 might work with a simple end-to-end design along one side - but there might not be enough headroom to allow you to stand beside a usable width of baseboard. Depends on the dimensions.

And the moral is: To produce a great model you have to be an artist, like Kevin.

At the very least think like an artist. Think about the colours of things in the real world. Think about light and shade and texture. Think about materials. And think about age. Then think about the best techniques to portray those things and go for it.

(Not that I'm any kind of authority because I haven't modelled anything for decades! But that's just what struck me from the exchange above. Sorry everyone, I'll fetch me coat.)

Does anyone know what make/model of DCC decoders will be supplied in the Locomotion Dean Goods "with sound"?

And is there any info about the sound project that will be supplied?

(I had a search around but couldn't find anything.)

Edit: The Oxford website says about their model:

"The Dean Goods is DCC Sound fitted and comes with a ESU LoksoundV4.0 decoder, speaker and sound chamber. Sound supplied by Coastal DCC"

So can we assume this same configuration will appear in the Locomotion model?

It is gorgeous. Caterham station had the same building until 1899 when the double-tracking work was complete. I'm not sure whether single or double track would work best in this scenario - I do like Victorian era strangeness. Going much earlier than that puts me squarely into very short trains, single track and small rolling stock - maybe even back into 7mm territory if I zoom in to just Caterham, the Purley engine shed and model the fiddle yard AS the Purley sidings. A brief look at the RTR british ranges (with all their idiosyncrasies) brought back a surge of discontent that drove me to S7 in the first place.  I've got a book on the branch line coming, so I'll keep an eye on that and see how it pans out either way.. 

 

On absolutely the other side of the coin I've been following Rudy's Railroad on Youtube and really quite fascinated by the level of control and realism obtained with just RTR items and some basic DCC infrastructure - not only things like acceleration and deceleration, but tonnage-based modifiers, auto stopping at particular points on the platform, routing certain trains to have priority over others, freight to take the slow lines, etc. all from just plain switch and occupany detection. This kind of operation feels like it's getting away from the balanced craftsman vs. gamer approach I have been trying to take but it looks like it would give a huge scope for work after the layout itself is complete (which is normally where I start to lose interest).

I have an idea based on my rough drawings above that would give a reduced but recognisable (hopefully!) representation of Purley junction + goods yard track plan, double track branch through Kenley halt and double-track Caterham terminus but I don't know if it would fit. If you're interested I could try to lay it out and post here or PM you privately, if you prefer. Do you have accurate measurements of the space and maybe some photos?

On the other hand, if you'd prefer, I won't push my ideas any further because it's your project.

Out of interest, what do you find unsatisfactory about British RTR products?

+1 for a track plan with every layout article.

Track plans provide clarity and technical details that photos and real-world maps can't.

They are an art form in themselves, which are (usually) a pleasure to look at.

They also allow layout designs to be compared and assessed against each other more easily. Witness the popularity of track plan books through the decades.

Kenley station building:

(from Google StreetView)

How could you resist?

I think John Betjeman wrote about ladies like Jill in his poem "Agricultural caress". ;-)

https://poeticresolution.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/agricultural-caress-by-john-betjeman/

I would have thought that planning how and where uncoupling will take place is a subject wholly relevant to Layout Design. 

 

John

If the topic were about placement I'd agree. But it's more about how to make and install the uncouplers rather than where to place them.

It sounds wonderful! :-)

I imagined the lines disappearing behind a false backscene behind the terminus, Caterham, and if you did that you wouldn't really need to commit yourself to what that line / those lines actually are. They could be the Tattenham branch or mainline or whatever you imagine when you were operating.

Because you have the circuit where trains periodically disappear and can run for long durations you can imagine that having left station A in the model that it passes through or stops at imaginary stations B, C and D before you finally bring it to a halt in station E in the model. So you can leave things out - "less is more" ;-)

Edit: Having done a bit more reading about the Caterham branch I realise now that you had already done some judicious editing of stations in your description! Sorry.

Here's a small update to my previous drawing:

I joined all the scenic sections together with a continuous backscene, hid the reversing loop behind the backscene and added some width to the terminus and junction boards.

BTW: If your roof pitch is 45degrees then for every 100mm you can lower the baseboard you get 200mm extra width...!

Suggestion for basic topology:

Total size 35ft by 6ft. Continuous run, reversing loop, through station/marshalling yard, terminus, fiddle yard. Min radius ~825mm (~32in).

The removable boards are all 1220mm by 460mm (~4ft by 18in) to make more efficient use of the standard 1220*2440 sheets of ply, mdf, etc.

In reality you'd probably try to make the curves and straights in the scenic areas a bit more interesting.

Have you tried just asking them?

 

Roy

I joined their forum, intending to ask the question there, but after several days they still have not allowed my account to post. Hence I have posted here instead.

If I do get an answer from them through any other channel I will report back here.

Furthermore, here's a Dapol photo of No11 (amongst others) on the Dapol forum: https://digest.Dapol.co.uk/forum/main-forum/gwr-railcar/project-managers-blog-ae/474-oo-gwr-railcar-opening-post?p=6031#post6031

It has horns.

OK, so after a bit of reading:

This photo of No10 (built in the same batch as No11, to the same design), shows horns: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64529-Dapol-streamlined-railcar/page-6&do=findComment&comment=2304087

This drawing of the No11 model by Dapol shows horns: https://digest.Dapol.co.uk/forum/main-forum/gwr-railcar/project-managers-blog-ae/474-oo-gwr-railcar-opening-post

The horns may have been fitted later in the life of the vehicle but the same applies to the lamps, which Dapol supply as accessories (* on some variants), so I'd hope to at least get horns as optional accessories for the model of No11.

I realise that the differences between variants when they were first built, and then over their lifetimes, are quite complicated. I'd just like to know for certain what accessories should be supplied with each of the Dapol models, as retailed now.

Is there a list of what accessories should be supplied with the different versions of the Dapol GWR railcar model?

I know that some versions don't come with lamps but what about the horns?

My railcar (no. 11) does not have horns but they are shown in the line drawing on the box. I realise the box is probably common to all the variants so might not reflect the details of a particular version but the fact that they are shown on the line drawing and there are holes in the undercarriage where they would fit suggests they might be missing...

So it would be great to have a clear list, for all of the variants, that owners could check against their purchases.

How wide is the space at your estimated baseboard level?

Front runner at the moment is varnishing the staircase and adding some of these to each tread.

 

I tend to go barefoot in summer and walk around in socks the rest of the year, so these seemed a better option than the alternatives which seem to be based on sand or similar and which I felt might clog up with fluff.  I've no idea though since I have zero experience of any of these products beyond anti-slip stair treads outdoors in public places and in a few offices.

It looks like those would take a long time to stick on neatly! How about something that would do a whole tread at one go, maybe based on rubber or granulated rubber?

I searched for "anti slip treads for stairs" and some good possibilities turn up, such as these:

https://www.selfadhesive.co.uk/3m-general-purpose-safety-walk-trade-anti-slip-cleats.html?gclid=CjwKCAiAu4nRBRBKEiwANms5Wz4ixJUIiailn55CvSD9ztrDIVC7G25TpsBNjp4oowzk_NgrforoSBoCifgQAvD_BwE

http://www.seton.co.uk/anti-slip-rubber-stair-treads-self-adhesive.html#JUP182 GRY

FYI: You can get post-focus apps for SmartPhones. I can't say how good any of them are - haven't tried them properly yet.

It sounds like you need two (or more) separate scenic locations so that there's a reason to marshal traffic at one location, send it to the other and vice versa.

(A scenic location connected to a non-scenic fiddle yard alone wouldn't be satisfying because you wouldn't have to follow prototype practice in the fiddle yard. The fiddle yard's track layout would be designed to work efficiently in model terms, not prototype terms, and you can just reach in and move things by hand instead of shunting.)

So, bearing in mind your worry about overdoing it, perhaps something like this:

1. A terminus station with goods yard. The feeder branch line(s) eventually connect to a double-track circuit of the entire space at a major junction (scenic)
2. A marshalling yard alongside the mainline double-track circuit, maybe with passenger facilities (scenic)
3. A fiddle yard (non-scenic).
4. A less busy area of the layout where passenger and goods traffic simply runs on the double-track circuit through countryside, through cityscape, alongside the coast (whatever you like!). (scenic)

Those four features could perhaps be mapped onto the four areas of your loft space.

The suggested double track circuit of the entire space allows trains to run for more realistic distances between the locations, rather than departing one and almost immediately arriving at the other.

Doing it in 4mm would help achieve the sense of openness that I think you're after and I think it would also give you enough space for a reversing loop so that "up" traffic that had departed from the terminus could become "down" traffic and arrive back at the terminus.

P.S. Those two cross joists might become a major annoyance so it might be worth investigating ways to remove or replace them.

Regarding crossovers between two parallel lines:

Yes, you could wire the point motors together so that the points are either both in the normal running position or both in the crossover position.

Regarding the noise:

The old Hornby/Peco point motors are basically simple electro-magnets fed by a pulse of alternating current. It's that current that makes them buzz and their simple design also makes the points snap from one side to the other with a loud click.

There's a more modern alternative these days: DCC controlled servos, which move the point blades in a more gradual and quieter movement. Examples are Peco "PLS-100", DCC Concepts "Cobalt" point motors. I think I'm right to say that these devices usually also have built in electrical switches that allow you to power the frogs of points correctly - very useful if you'e using "Unifrog" points.

Edit: Sorry, I should have read the thread properly. Pete and 34<IsItAC?> already said most of this above!

Hi Kevin,

I made a little video of my railcar with sounds running on my dining table:

The sound recording is not great but it's the best I can do just now. It sounds much better in reality.