Harlequin

Nope! Clue: In the UK, trains run on the left of double tracks.

Hi "Lacath" (any chance of sharing your "real-world" name?), I have been reading "Model Railway Signalling" by CJF and "Railway Signalling and Track Plans" by Bob Essery. I also found some wonderful signal box diagrams on Google: https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&q=signalling+diagrams+uk&chips=q:signalling+diagrams+uk,online_chips:box+diagram&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie6LnvidDYAhWMVhQKHSQ6CvIQ4lYILygH&biw=2566&bih=1312&dpr=1.5#imgrc=_

Point taken and I will think about what you've said but Iain Rice's point is that some stations really were difficult to shunt and if you make it too easy then you get much less operation taking place "on stage". ( I used the word "point" twice in that sentence - in a thread about points and signalling... Sorry ;-) )

Thanks for the input. I'll try to put it all together into a coherent drawing(!), along with any other suggestions that might be posted. I am keen to have a small signal box and since the model operations will be busier than in a real station of this size, with definitely more than "one engine in steam", I will try to invent a plausible back-story. There's a photo of the equivalent crossover at the end of Moretonhampstead with ground disc, here: http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/m/moretonhampstead/ And my other favourite source at the moment, http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/mortonhampstead-and-teign-valley-branch.html shows point rodding from the "box" to the crossover (I assume). (See what I mean about the train shed hiding the train...)

Just for fun, here's the Caterham c. 1897 layout design from above (Peco Streamline geometry) rendered in the style of the old maps of the time:

Terminus stations with loops of track behind them are rare as hen's teeth in the real world (but I think they do exist in the US). You could keep the circuit on the original board(s), use some of the space for a reversing loop and devote the new arm to a larger terminus. That would allow you to run trains out of the terminus, round the circuit and back into the terminus "head-first" without having to stop and reverse. (You'd need a DCC auto-reverser to wire that up properly.) Something like this: Edit: Spot the huge mistake! It's a doozy for UK style running...

Please don't shoot me down too brutally here because I'm a novice trying to collate conflicting information from different sources! I know some of this is wrong but anyway, here goes... Here is my first attempt at a signalling diagram for Hampton Malstead: It's overlaid on top of my actual layout design so distances have not been compressed as they would be on a real signal box diagram and I have not changed my point symbols to show their "normal"/"off" states. The thin red lines are also not part of a real signal box diagram - just for me to work out where point rodding would go. In the mid thirties would the platform crossover ground frame (GF2) have been unlocked from the signal box, possibly electrically? Or would they be using a staff or token? Since the running line out of the station needs to also serve as a headshunt would there have been any special signalling associated with that?

The old broad gauge train sheds are very distinctive but personally I find them difficult to include in a model because they look a bit plain and have the same bulk and roof pitch as modern portal-frame farm buildings! So to the untutored eye they could look jarring in a mid-century setting. They also hide small trains and hide the associated station building, which in the case of Moretonhampstead at least, seems to have been quite a dour Victorian affair. Functional GWR design, not at all like the playful architecture of the Caterham line!

While searching for info about signalling diagrams I came across this interesting site that shows Network Rail's live info, as used by signalling staff and train operators: http://www.opentraintimes.com/maps E.g. Paddington: http://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/d3_1

Small update, minimal changes: Trees and other plant growth turned off for clarity. Point rodding turned off pending revision. Turntable removed and engine house repositioned. Brook flows under tracks through shortened culvert. Coal staithes removed. Trap point removed.

Moretonhampstead broad gauge: Moretonhampstead standard gauge:

In the case of the Borchester article, I think a lot of the answer is in the selective photography, as you suggest. IMHO the most convincing shots are quite tight and the least convincing is the "Aerial view" at the end. Same with houses and gardens in magazines: everyone else's efforts look wonderful and make you feel inadequate. But the magazines only show the best photos of the best bits. Having said that, of all the layouts I saw at Warley this year the one that engaged me most was Peter Denny's "Leighton Buzzard (Linslade)". So a true classic is probably a classic for reasons other than selective photography.

Apropos of nothing, I came across this image of a GNR sign:

Thanks all, Lots to think about here! That's very interesting. It would definitely help to open the goods yard up a bit and I could also move the weighbridge off-scene. Another option is to consume more of the meadow, thus giving access to the southern siding from both sides. But I need to be wary of railway vs. non-railway balance. A nearby racecourse is a great idea - a great reason for increased traffic in this imagined world. Unfortunately a 45ft table isn't big enough to accommodate most tender locos, although I gather that it was possible to temporarily extend them when required (probably impossible to model). To be honest, I think the writing's on the wall for the turntable. Two reasons for the crossover at the end of the platform: 1. The southern extension serves the cattle pens, like Moretonhampstead. 2. I think I read somewhere that Board of Trade rules said that where double lines terminated they must be aligned, not staggered. (I must admit that doesn't seem quite right or necessarily applicable in this case, now that I write it down, but I'll say it anyway and see if any experts have an opinion on that.) [Edit: The crossover at the end of the platform was common to many broad gauge termini, I think.] For some reason, having part of the station trackwork being implied, off-scene, feels wrong to me. Not sure why. But I take your point about using the traverser more creatively. (I had a secret connection through the engine shed in the back of my mind.) The closer the gasworks line is to the running lines, the less reason for a separate bridge. But then maybe, with the turntable gone, the whole station throat could cross an enlarged brook or small river on a timber platform. That would be quite a feature! Decisions, decisions...

Did you see this thread recently?: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/129771-jmri-virtual-sound-decoder/

Thanks. Do you mean too squeezed as a model or too squeezed as a prototype? Obviously it is deliberately "concentrated" as a model to pack interesting features into a small space but I hope I haven't gone too far and that there's still "room to breathe". I'm thinking about the turntable. Back story: The original broad gauge shed burned down, unfortunately. The station building itself was damaged in the fire and although it could have been repaired the board took the opportunity to modernise and commissioned a contemporary Arts and Crafts design. Thanks. Moretonhampstead was/is a big inspiration but was simply too big to compress into the space available while keeping anything like the trackplan. The awkward kickback siding to the gasworks is a very deliberate Ricean device to make operation more challenging and to make the layout visually more active and interesting. Back story: The siding and the bridge were added when the gasworks was improved and moving coal from the goods yard via horse and cart along the local lanes was no longer good enough. As to the signal box, I would justify it on these grounds: There are 10 sets of points (inc traps) to control An as yet undetermined number of signals to control There's ongoing activity shunting coal into the gasworks to be coordinated with goods and passenger traffic The station workers complained bitterly about having to stand around at ground frames in moorland gales Even Moretonhampstead famously had a small "box" attached to the engine shed, with fewer points to control then here So a small box was erected. Does that sound plausible?

You can have as many wishlists, checklists, "givens and druthers" as you like but until you have a real space to build a model in, there's nothing to constrain them. So I think you're right: It's not having the space yet that makes a layout difficult to visualise. One way out of that would be to design a portable layout and thus impose some constraints on the size, number and format of baseboards you'd be willing to move.

Thanks! I'm using a normal drawing program because I wanted to get cleaner output than the dedicated track planning programs - more like the track plans you see in the magazines. More info and resources here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126780-layout-design-in-illustration-software/

Thanks. I think there were enough examples of turntables at terminus stations that survived well into the 20th century to justify the inclusion of one in a fictitious 1930s setting - if I concoct a reasonable back-story. (I'm thinking also of Newquay, Minehead and Kingswear but I realise these were bigger stations.) But you have made me ask myself, "Why did I originally include a turntable and do I really need one?". I'll have to think about that!

You could use some of the space for more trackwork but think about the balance between railway and non-railway scenery. That's down to personal preference and what the layout is actually trying to be and do. If you are going to model steam era then maybe a turntable might and engine shed might fit in the top left corner. Or in a later era Motive Power Depot. Or you could perhaps have carriage sidings or place the goods yard out there and use the space inside the loop for something else. At one end of the operating well, it might be a good idea to have a small workbench area for modelling and maintenance. The software I'm using is just a normal drawing program. See http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126780-layout-design-in-illustration-software/

For a layout that circumnavigates a room it makes sense for the major wiring bundles to start at one "pole" and travel equally in both directions, meeting at the opposite "pole". (Because it would be mad to have a device next to the starting "pole" who's power/control came all the way round the room...) So the door shouldn't problem, really: The door is a natural place for one of the "poles". However, you could fit a bit of plastic ducting around the architrave, up over the door and down again, if you did need to route wires past the doorway. White stuff with a clip on front so that you can adjust the wiring at any time.

Here's the first image of a design I've been working on for my first layout on returning to the hobby after many years. It's a fictitious mid-1930s GWR branch line terminus (yes, I know - another one...) Trackwork is all Peco Streamline and all points are large radius so that it can be constructed from Bullhead (correct 4mm scale) track. The station design compresses together elements from various prototypes and I have an imagined history behind it, which I might expand upon. The model will use some of Iain Rice's ideas (as you can no doubt see) and will be mounted at around eye level. I have drawn point rodding runs, following KNP's recent advice to plan it in advance, but I have not yet attempted to work out the signalling. I'd love to hear from you if you can see mistakes or opportunities for improvement but please bear in mind the constraints of space and the deliberate foreshortening of depth.

Here's a possible rough design: Min radius 610mm (2ft)