Lacathedrale

It's an O-gauge Slaters kit with S7 wheels - honestly nothing particularly unique but it has transfers, it has a pin wash, it has weathering and is functionally complete - which is a 'first' for railway modelling for me.

I don't really have anywhere else to put this without a workbench thread, so I'm quite chuffed to show off my completed MR van:

It seems we are mostly back where most of the original suggestions I got ended up: a permanent shelf-mounted layout in the shed along 1.5 walls. Certainly not a bad place to be, but permanent fixtures such this requires more gravity in decision making than 'let's whack up something on a trestle table and see if it sticks'. I feel like if I'm going to go as far as to build shelf brackets, brass hardware on varnished shelves, contoured fascia (for clearance below) and so on, then it deserves more than just a plain single track. I'm quite taken with Iain Rice's designs even if they are a little busy, so I wonder if there's a satisfactory midpoint between a pure tail-chaser like Stoke Summit and something with more operational interest like Chee Tor. I've ordered Iain Rice's "Mainlines in Modest Spaces" to see if he has anything specific to say.

Hi there, That looks a good deal better.to my eyes, good work.

I did an oil wash on some of my S7 wagons to try out a pin-wash. It came out looking good, faded quite alot compared to what I was expecting. I gather a second wash (or on an untouched model; more pigment) ? How long should I wait between initial application (yesterday) and the next? I broke ground on some wagons for Godstone road, but I've got that horrible feeling when you realise this stuff was meant to stay on the sheet and be laminated together, rather than being cut out... note to self: axle boxes are not brake gear On the bright side, I'm going to continue with the build anyway and with much less stress because I've already buggered it up. First pause is due to the fact I need a proper broach to open out the alignment holes in the sheets to laminate the body together, hopefully Justin will be able to nab some at the M.E. show in Ally Pally this weekend for me, otherwise it's off to eBay. I also grabbed a Bug "Hold and Fold" since I almost buggered up the folding on this little chap. With the Dapol 33 back to its owner and the imminent arrival of a J72 (of course, subject to me being able to build the little sod), a complete non-appearance of the VTG PGA wagons I ordered, the prototypical structures being reduced to 'the yard office' and with a fictional track plan - I think we are quite sufficiently departed from my original specification. I don't see this as a particularly bad thing; life is an ever changing evolution of ideas and inspiration. One of my bolts of inspiration was to backdate the 37 back to as-new 1960's all over green and model the J72 rather at the end of its rope. The only item that wouldn't be suitable would be the Grampus. Of course, I'd have to double-check whether any kind of aggregate would be seen...

I've been thinking about the end of steam. Watching some of the 'Sole Slip' videos on youtube has the presenter constantly talking about how at the end of Steam they actual railway part of railway locomotives was quite lacking: ground down into dust without maintenance and to be withdrawn as soon as they failed; frequent failures, delays and replacements, etc. It paints a very dark picture despite the nostalgia. Then I remember reading the article on archive.org about Borchester where the author describes how it was set in 1947, before that horrible nationalisation stuff. And then watching a video about streamliners and the narrator says "Despite the glitz and glamour of these pacifics, the railways were bleeding money to road and air transport". Was there really ever a time when the railway industry wasn't falling down a flight of stairs in slow motion? Possibly the Edwardian period?

<deleted>

Honestly I think given Luke's desire for dense trackage in a small space, that a Cyril Freezer plan book might be a good option to explore what the bare minimum requirements might be: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Peco-60-Plans-Book/dp/B002QVL16I

It's interesting you bring this up, because Iain Rice has a very similar view: a compact urban terminus (say, Fenchurch Street, or Cannon Street if one excluded the bridge over the Thames) don't fill wildly dissimilar footprints to non-trivial BLTs. This appears to be a combination of expensive land in cities and the requirement to squeeze in between existing concerns, and the ability to sprawl over cheap space in the countryside. His argument for either an urban or suburban terminus is precisely along these lines: they give you much higher levels of operational complexity, there is more track per square foot, there are often local loco servicing points adjoining, there is often multi-level concerns for even more trackage, etc. etc. Imagine modelling the end of Farringdon Station: depending on the era you've got the LNER, GNR, GCR and SE&CR all traversing the lines. You've got multiple cramped goods platforms, fourth rail electrification ,etc. etc. all in a space that roughly equivalent to a decent sized BLT that as you have rightly said, would probably only support one or two locos in steam across its entire length. I think the only big drawback about modelling such a scene is that one loses the 'railway in an environment' feel unless one is prepared, Copenhagen Fields-style, to dedicate lots of time to building structures. If you don't fancy this you're more or less reduced to using the old 'retaining wall with a road and some half-relief houses along the backscene' treatment. EDIT: just look at the trackwork here and tell me this isn't perfect for a small space: Alternatively, here's an 1898 view of Devon which has some unusual track arrangements (at least, not that I would expect from a suburban town):

I like the bay platform from a wholly emotional viewpoint - it looks pretty, it 'fits' mentally with a branch line station and particularly of a bygone era. It contributes to an impressionistic view of a scene. IMHO not EVERYTHING has to be done in pursuit of pure functionalism.

Righto, so mixing together David's suggestion of a wider radius on visible sections and erring on the side of caution when it comes to exhibiting (i.e. not designing with that in mind before I've even finished my cameo exhibit layout) I've come up with something that is both garage and shed-suitable. Again, track, structures, layout, etc. are notional. This has a 45" radius on the visible section and 24" on the un-scenicked curves in order to handle literally any locomotive I can imagine, and eradicate 'trainset curve' problems. I was very against having a shelf layout in the garage, but I feel if I can ensure the non-modelled areas are slim and neat, more like furniture than rough hewn timber then this won't be an issue. I think given the exit positions of the scenic section I could probably get the layout down to approx 9" width, and would probably use a jigsaw to cut back the non-scenic boards as close to the running lines as possible. They would also have to be relatively thin. in theory if I wanted to move this out of the shed, I could extend the layout horizontally by slicing at the ends of the scenic sections and splicing in more boards. This orientation however would preclude both putting it in the loft, and exhibiting, and the nature of that long curve precludes a modular approach.

HI David, Thank you for the kind words, I'm just not sure if I can build it. Certainly a 45" continuous radius is much more generous than the 18" in the 'modular' plan (infact, it seems A1 Tornado can just about manage 4.5 chain curves which equates to roughly 2' radius - so the modular plan may have to expand anyway to meet that requirement). Phil's 'magenta' circular path across the square boards could be achieved in the visual section A-12-B-13 (shown below) but would preclude changing the arrangement. If I were less fussed about changing things that would seem pretty nice (Certainly nicer than the 18" 90 degree turns I'm currently budgeting for) and could potentially support a stacked figure of eight (or similar). 23theletterbetweenB&D, That is a good shout, when I was considering dogbones I realised that it was almost pointless - with a ~18" minimum radius that gives a 3' diameter and with some space on each side more like 3'6", and another 18" to return the curve back parallel to the entry point - 4-5' of 'wasted' space. It could possibly be included in the 'linear' layout proposed below. Or, as David has suggested, be more concrete in which arrangement to adhere to and use the inside of the layout as staging, possibly with a gradient down. I'm not wholly adverse to turning trains however, - I have imagined that one of the FY roads will be a cassette track either way. Here is a quick mock up of Phil's modular concept with the attributions and re-use I have described my previous post: Something that does jump out at me from the above visualisation however, is that the Garage/Exhibition Layout option really is only suited to an Exhibition. Were I to operate from home in the Garage, I would want to see the main part of the layout, and thus be operating around boards 1 or B, i.e. significantly far away from the staging area. This would limit any operation to an automatic running of through trains. Operating the layout certainly wasn't a primary concern but to deliberately cut myself off from it seems a little rash particularly when it would require standing in the garage doing little else. I don't have any idea if exhibiting is any fun at all, having never tried it - so it does seem a little presumptuous to organise a layout around that option. I'm sure there's something in there, I'll keep sketching.

33G looks pretty spectacular, particularly the angled station. The 'back siding' ending stage left would provide the option for some kind of cassette, extension, left hand staging, etc. and maybe makes the gasworks line a little more plausible? Maybe make the points which form the exit of the runaround loop and access to the goods siding a single slip? Or is that just as catch point? What about asymmetrical boards? 3' + 5' would drop the dividing point nicely down the middle of straight track.

Andi, how funny - the picture of the tunnel I linked above is at Catesby, on the Great Central Railway's London extension as per Posts #3-4 in your thread

Hi Andi, I'm reading that now ! Hi Phil, The ruling radius of 45" was done on the assumption that a circular baseboard was desirable and achievable. It would appear that aside from paying Tim Horn (which I'd rather spend on other things), my lack of carpentry skills may preclude the construction of such a layout regardless of how practical it is. The mind is willing, but the body is weak! Regardless, your solution of modular boards is a lot more elegant, especially with the baseboards reversing (rather than having to model both sides of every scene). The inspiration for this was a tunnel picture here http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lner/catesbytunnel/gcct4.jpg Imagine something like this: Long Board A: Lefthand tunnel mouth Long Board B: Embankment/halt station Long Board X: Left hand ladder of fiddle yard (less wide) Long Board Y: Right hand ladder of fiddle yard (less wide) Curve 1: Right-hand 180 degree outside curve, viaduct Curve 2: Left-hand 180 degree outside curve, unscenicked Curve 10, 11: 90 degree curve, unscenicked Curve 12, 13: 90 degree curve, single cameo (inoperable junction, bridge, etc.) From this, one has three distinct arrangements: inside, outside and linear: Inside: One can arrange the tunnel, embankment and scenic curve into a long sweeping scene around 15' long: starting Clockwise from top in the 'outside' plan one could have A, B, 1, Y, X, 2. This would suit the garage or an exhibition. Outside: Alternatively, one could arrange the layout as A, 12, B, 13, Y, 10, X, 11. This would essentially be an out and back variation since only the outside fiddle yard roads could running through (i.e. maintain minimum radius while connecting through Curve 10, 11's) This would fit into the garden shed quite easily. Linear: Lastly, one could set up the layout in a totally linear fashion: X, A, B, (slot-in backscene), Y. This would be perfect in the loft. I would foresee it in multiple stages of construction and operations: Initial build: Boards A and X (where X could be two strips of aluminium angle instead of a 'real' fiddle yard.), and Curves 1 and 2. Choice: If the garage or loft is well suited, leave it as is. If it's more suited to the shed and operated from a well, replace curves 1, 2 with curves 10, 11, 12 and 13 for an 'inside' layout. Lengthwise Expansion: Boards B and Y Future Expansion: Depending on how the layout itself goes, construct additional long boards to extend the layout longitudinally. Rather than everything being able to connect to everything else (although this would technically be feasible), one is simply adding or removing the relevant curved section so the layout plan fits three possible areas. As such there wouldn't always need to be a return to 0,0 between long scenic boards. For ease, I think keeping the curves scenically contiguous but without track 'bleed over' would make the process easier to mentally cope with, or if so then building a 'new' curved section that is dedicated for a particular long board (i.e. station long board has sidings that bleed over into a dedicated curved section that holds an engine shed, and this is laid out as a discrete unit) I could stop at any point during the process too, with Stage 1 being relatively small (roughly 5' x 8' with an operating well in the middle) and Stage 4 being 'club layout' sized. As long as I keep the multiples broadly the same (or at least summing to 4', 8', 12', etc.) then there is no limit to introducing elements. The only option which would not be exhibit-able (I guess?) would be Stage 2.2 - but by that point I would have already built the curves for Stage 2.1, which could be substituted when it was 'on the road', and if I were to Proceed to Stage 3 then the layout could operate linearly without an issue. Does that make sense?

Thinking about it, maybe if the geometry could work, something like this: Layout stays the same in both permutations, but the 180' turns are oriented behind the operator in a "big" config which gives space for an operating well, or behind the layout in a "compact" configuration. The fiddle yard retains the orientation however, so when compact saves the 8-12" width, or when "big" doesn't encroach too much onto the operating well. Obviously, using MS paint isn't great for showing this. Maybe I'm just making life difficult for myself and I should accept one path or another...

Hi Phil, It looks like another signature change is required, Ha! With regard to circular baseboards, it just seems like four identically sized and shaped boards with an automatic provision for wide radius, curved backscene and an operating well would make sense. Maybe I'm cover-complicating things! As you can see from the timestamp the plan did go up late last night after a few ales and cheese crackers. Non-visible return curves are going to eat so much space on an oblong layout that I was quite unsure. I would be interested to see your thoughts given the stellar approach on the Caterham branch layout. The only real requirement for the logistics is that the staging is either directly accessible (i.e. operating from the inside with the visible layout in front and the staging behind) or very easily accessible (i.e. removable backscene boards) in order that it COULD potentially go into the attic. I'm still not convinced that's a great choice, but it's totally empty at the moment I would hate to build a layout that could only go up in the garage, and then have to tear it down if it takes up too much space for what it's worth. Cheers,

So this is broadly what I was thinking, just for illustration purposes (please ignore the "trackplan" such as it is) Quite how I would make big, circular baseboards with lots of height variation I'm not yet sure - but the principle appears sound. With an 18" baseboard depth there would be room for an office chair, etc. in the operating well so the layout height could remain low (to avoid it becoming unwieldy). Funnily enough Rice and some CJ Freezer designs have a very similar approach, but 'fill out' one of the corners with a depot/engine shed/terminus station. After some thought (and more perusal of aforementioned plans) it seems I could be more efficient with my space if I picked a discrete location to place the layout and fully expand the boards to that area; with cutaways for access to different spaces in the room/etc. and realistically an 8' circumference circle in my garage/loft can't really be considered 'permanent'. Despite that, the relatively wide minimum radius means that any oblong plan ends up more than 3' deep and with ~2' of hidden turnback loops on either end. What appears as a fairly odd design actually seems to make sense. If I can squeeze the depth of the staging module down to 6" or so (for an overall width at that cross section of ~7') then it would fit in my loft too without modification. Any thoughts?

The main thrust of my work presently falls onto an Iain Rice-style 2mmFS cameo layout; something I'm hoping to finish to a high standard and maybe even exhibit, and will live in my garden studio on a shelf. On the other hand, would like somewhere my locos can stretch their legs, would function quite well as a test track, could go together relatively easily and sit permanently in the garage or loft without hurting anything. I would quite like to do a more rural/countryside layout in an impressionistic style, where the railway slices through the landscape; a viaduct or cutting, charging out of a tunnel or across a river. Think "Stoke Summit" - mostly era/locale independent initially. Scale: 2mm Scope: Countryside, bridge/embankment or tunnel/cutting. Inspiration: Stoke Summit, Minimum radius 18" Size: Either 9' x 9' (studio), 12' x 16' (garage) or 18' x 7' (loft) My first thought was to discount the loft, and go with a 7'6" diameter doughnut-shaped layout in four 90 degree modules that would fit into an 8' x 8' space. A ruling radius of 45" in 2mm/ft would allow me to run anything with ease, and the nature of the visualisation would give a natural progression between scenic sections without the need for a discrete fiddle yard (but the provisioning of one wouldn't be a problem, even at a later stage - given the standard quarter-doughnut module.) It would give a ~20' linear run, so even if half was considered staging it does win out on a long thin layout of my max length. Backscenes bolt-on/removable and sceniced on both sides so the layout can be operated from inside the well looking out, as well as looking in. Has anyone tried this? It seems like a very efficient way of utilising layout space in finescale, just because dogbone reversing loops would end up being huge and otherwise on a circuit fiddle yards behind will necessitate very wide boards. Honestly I'm less fussed about the specifics of the design as it is a ways off, but I'd like to hear from anyone who has done something similar (or seen any failures). The only one that springs to mind was an LBSC/SECR "Quarry Lines" layout on this parish, but was 4mm and slightly larger.

The structures placed look sound enough, though I'm still insure about what to do with the gravel piles. I think the solution is to make up the intermediate fence and use some paper cutouts to gauge things. Speaking of gauge, I have requested a larger order via the 2mmFSA shop in order that I don't have to wait quite this long in future for basic supplies. I totally appreciate it's a volunteer thing and am not complaining, but I'm somewhat sitting on my hands in the meantime. The Dapol 33 has gone back to it's original owner, I've decided that money is better spent on track building supplies especially since the layout is so modest already, it hardly requires two locomotives and the '37 was not only my first choice but also has already been re-wheeled. I spent today putting together a studio desk for myself. That sounds a little self indulgent but I only have a computer desk here in the house, and my 'garden shed' that holds all my hobby bits was just boxes and a chair. Now hopefully I can set up the soldering iron, plasticard and scalpels without having to pack every smidgen away shortly after. I say soldering iron, because not only have I got that track coming, but I've also been doing some research on building my first brass loco in 2mm - not related to this layout specifically but just something to pass the time while I wait for the track.

That is so smooth!

Waiting for shop1 stock to arrive to commence tracklaying and to make meaningful progress on my layout, I'm at something of an impasse. For want of something to do, I read the "how to scratch build an 0-6-0 on the association website" and am eager to give it a try particularly because it seems the brass or etch (i.e. only consumables that will be lost if there is a failure somewhere) are quite affordable due to their meagre size. Are there any beginner friendly books that might be relevant for 2mm modelling that can take me from zero to hero (I've built a 7mm Connosseur Kits 0-4-0). In the meantime, I take it that I should look for an 0-6-0 with a closed cab?

Hi Tom, I can understand the use of a triangle gauge for regular track, but how did you manage with things like check rails and flangeways just using it? Justin1985 mentioned that he has used brass sheet with notches cut into a rudimentary gauge held vertically which seems doable. Cheers,

The wife was out late tonight, so I got mockups of all the structures for the layout built - there are technically some portacabins on the site now, but I have a feeling they'd have been something more traditional back before the yard was rebuilt. As the majority of the right hand side of the layout is level and a smooth yard surface I can always add them later. Pictures in some daylight tomorrow. It's quite an odd feeling, this approach: I'm taking my time building mockups which I'm knowingly going to throw away, but the reassurance that the pleasure is in the process is certainly helping. I'll try to keep telling myself that when it comes to tracklaying with this tiny rail.

Crikey, scribing every plank! I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the attention elsewhere! How are you (mechanically) laying the track? finding NMRA/NEM N-gauge rollers/etc. compatible with code 40 BH seems like an impossibility...