Harlequin

Great images! I guess the large half-timbered building on the other side of station avenue is what is shown on the 1897 map as, "Hotel". It would be great fun to model the face of that building (although a little bit of artistic license would be needed to slide it along the road and onto the baseboard)!

I think that the platform would be about 1.7m in the model or 425ft long - close to your estimate. I think you can comfortably fit eight 27ft coaches against the platform and still run around them. (You'll see them the next time I post an image.)

I imagined both crossings in the goods yard would be double slips but single slips might be OK - it depends on the usage.

An earlier map shows that there was a trap point on the exit of the goods feeder line but I can't find any concrete evidence for the crossover and slip between the goods lines.

Woohoo! I have a layout design in this month's Railway Modeller! (January edition.)

They haven't used the final revision I sent them, though, in which I corrected some problems and added some details. And some elements seem to have very heavy line widths...

Ho Hum. I think I need to check it thoroughly.

Update: I think this is more topologically correct.

I think when the station was first built the goods feeder line just fed the bottom of the three sidings. The other sidings were added later and I reckon that the reason why siding 3 comes so close to the others is because there's a crossover there so that all three sidings are connected to the goods feeder line, which can be used as a headshunt.

I also managed to include the loco "headspur" and I suspect the reason for that was so that a loco could access the goods yard without interfering with passenger traffic.

I'd better stop fiddling and do some work!

Here's how Caterham could fit onto the 2ft * ~11ft boards of my drawing:

• Reduced the three platform tracks to two to make a bit more room.
• Change curvature slightly so that track is perpendicular to board end and sidings parallel to edges (shame, but makes best use of limited space).
• I left space at the end for "station avenue" and some low-relief buildings.
• Added a trap point before the top goods line joins the running line - hinted at in the maps.
• Points kept clear of the board joint.

(I tried to include the loco "headspur" because it would be a distinctive feature but I couldn't fit it in either!)

Looking at it, I think the runaround should be longer...

A continuous run is not the only way to run trains without manual control.

You could use a DCC Shuttle module to automate end-to-end running or even go further and add computer control.

That looks pleasingly simple. You're right about compression vs. a sense of space - that's always one of the biggest challenges. Probably best not to compromise the length at this stage, I would say.

(In my drawing Caterham has baseboards ~11ft long simply because it fits in the gap between two of your roof trusses but of course it doesn't have to be that long and shortening it would allow a longer fiddle yard. On the other hand 11ft would allow a leisurely scenic entry to the station.)

If we could tweak it to fit on 2ft wide baseboards that would make it easier to move and easier to fit into the loft (while you can stand upright beside it!). I sometimes wonder about the accuracy of the older maps - for example, why three tracks beside the platform??? Wouldn't the escape crossover just have connected directly to the outer track? (I think it did later on.) And on the 1895/7 map of Kenley there seems to be some track parallel to the branch line, offset from the platform and not connected to it at all.

BTW: The road to the south of the station with the hotel and post office facing up the high street looks ripe for a little scenic bolt-on section! (Or maybe make room for it on the Caterham boards - it would be a great visual full stop...)

Coincidentally, I took some shots of the H class that was at Warley this year -  they get everywhere!:

Just to set the record straight, I'm a programmer (what they call a "developer" these days) and I'm one of the team that develops the "Xara Designer" range of products - the program that I use.

So you might say I've got inside knowledge of how to use the program but I'm just using pretty standard features most of the time, that anyone could pick up quite quickly in any good illustration software.

And that's the reason for this thread: I think it's easy to draw track plans using normal drawing programs and, although you do have to do more work yourself, the end results are visually superior to dedicated track planning software. So I'm showing the things that I do and hoping that it might encourage other people to have a go.

How about this - just considering modular baseboards that can be joined together...

The curved ends and the outer circuit are fixed, non-scenic. The curves at the ends are little bit contrived to get everything to join up but I think they could be made to work cleanly.

I hope the stations will fit on the boards because it's amazing that I managed to fit all this in and in such a way that it can be rejoined in completely different permutations...

I think I need to lie down for a bit!

Edit: Sorry Lacathedrale, we cross-posted.

As drawn with hills, tunnels, steep grades and tight radii, it looks like a classic 009 design...

IMHO, at 4mm scale, the room shape would be better suited to an L shaped layout opposite the door. Terminus to (quayside) terminus with a fiddle yard concealed somewhere.

But of course that's a non-starter if the continuous run is one of your "red lines".

I have the urge to actually draw the track plan in the style of an old map!

I'd like to retain the outer circuit if possible, as a mainly non-scenic fixture because I think this would make sense of the junction and allow more satisfying operation - more realistic distances and travel times. And, of course, a circuit allows you to set trains running safely without the need for computer control, while you do some shunting in a station.

Then tap into that circuit with standard modules at fixed offsets that can be removed and joined together away from the circuit. Just thinking aloud - it might not be possible.

Terminus module and fiddle yard module in opposition for end-to-end operation both when connected to the circuit and when connected back-to-back.

Hmmm...

(FYI: I've posted the last 1930s-style design, including original XAR file and a PDF version, in this thread: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126780-layout-design-in-illustration-software/page-2&do=findComment&comment=2955931)

Here's a drawing I've done for another thread in this forum (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/128727-what-process-can-i-use-to-narrow-down-my-layout-ideas/)

[Click to enlarge]

This drawing is a large sketch to mainly work out what will fit in the space so it's not fully resolved and since the owner may scratch-build his track does not use Streamline point templates.

I created brushes for single track and double track, including trackbed, so that I could see how the trackwork would fit and to save time drawing parallel tracks. (Hence the rather odd looking junctions.)

The stations are condensed representations taken from 1930s maps on old-maps.co.uk, that hopefully express the feel without being slavishly accurate.

LaCathedrale10b.xar

LaCathedrale10b.pdf

This design is now being shelved and we're going back in time to the late 1890s and back to the original idea of more modular baseboards.

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...!