Keith Addenbrooke

Agreed - I already have a Setrack one, and currently supplies of Streamline are limited. I'm thinking I'll probably draw up two versions, one with each, so I can drop in a Streamline point if they become available again before I get that far (which is more than likely).

Thank you all – some really encouraging responses, which are much appreciated. My next step will be to redraw the plan that has evolved with a shorter loading dock siding at the top or North Station, just to make sure that I’ve optimised the spacings and not put in any kinks in the Flextrack joints. There's an excellent article on how to do this in the June 2020 BRM magazine (second part of a two-part Series that began in the May edition). When I’ve done that I’ll post it here to complete the story. It will be the layout I aim to build. One thing to be aware of when including a Setrack Y point is that the geometry is slightly different to that of Streamline: if I’ve followed it correctly Setrack angles work on halving – a double curve is 45 degrees, a single curve (or standard point) is 22.5 degrees and the Wye point is 11.25 degrees (Hornby's Express point has the same 11.25 degrees I think). Streamline points work with a consistent 12 degrees, so even though the Setrack Wye has a generous radius, there’s a 0.75 degree difference to smooth when mixing track. I think it just remains to briefly cover a couple of good ideas raised in the thread: One excellent suggestion for a different type of layout in the same space is one where only one end of a Station is modelled. Two of my personal all-time favourite UK outline layouts use this approach: Jon Grant’s Hudson Road (BRM Jan ’13 and RM Jan ’04) and the Macclesfield Club’s Hammeston Wharf (BRM Feb ’07). Both are mainly rural with road bridges as scenic exits, though both are larger, straight layouts. In this space you could take one of the ‘Fairford inspired’ layouts I posted earlier (I’d suggest the second one) and place a gently curved backscene diagonally across the layout from top left to bottom right. The A417 roadbridge would be moved to the other end of the platform, so just the end still showed, with the backscene running behind it. The rest of the curved platform would no longer be needed, it is ‘off-stage’. With a small continuous run layout, an urban scene can be one way of hiding curved platforms, so I had a quick doodle to see what might fit in my space. This is very much a working drawing, not a finished idea: I included a slip point to suggest a busier, more cramped setting. It’s not a main line station – trains are 3 coaches long, although one dodge often suggested for micro-layouts is to include several overbridges or scene blockers so a whole train never shows. I don’t know if this idea has potential: my own view is that it could look great if straightened out between two train-table fiddle yards, as a place to watch trains pass through or shunting, rather than watching each train make its journey all around the layout. I sketched it to see if I was tempted to develop it further: it could be good, but I'm happy with the plan we've been looking at. The other question was whether the layout could be enlarged - to get away from the 8’ x 4’ table top. While it would change my Given No. 3, there are good reasons for the question, not least that the total layout space could actually become smaller at the same time as the layout appears to get bigger. An 8’ x 4’ board may ideally want a 2’ aisle on at least three sides –preferably including both the long ones. This means a 32 sq. ft. layout could use up to 80 sq. ft. (10’ x 8’). Harlequin suggested one way of cutting exactly the same sized boards I have to make a 9’ x 5’6” layout with a central operating well: no need for aisles outside. There's no more scenery to build, and this size of layout could perhaps fit comfortably in a shed. I did a very quick doodle to overlay the proposed layout onto that size of board just to see how it compared: Points to note: 1. Immediately, the Upper Station can breathe. It can have two platforms and a scenic setting. Big win. 2. I’ve shown the shorter Loading Dock Siding – 12” should leave space for a Siphon G as a guide? Search RMweb (or Google) for "tail traffic" and you'll find a 2009 thread by The Stationmaster that explains tail traffic and mixed trains. Both could run on this layout. 3. The Goods Sidings at the lower station can be spread out and lengthened a bit – I’ve not checked, but I there should be enough space for a horse and cart to turn between the tracks. 4. The end curves can be eased. This is a quick sketch, and I kept my 3rd radius Setrack curves across the baseboard joints, but the Flextrack portions have a minimum radius of 30.” The alignment of these could be improved and easement curves introduced by maybe having a gently curved top Station platform? 5. The shorter side board could be a lift-out, perhaps set lower than the other boards with a bridge across a river valley, for example. There are plenty of layouts that do this very well, and in the room where I’m looking to operate the layout it would be the thing people saw when they came in: a feature. For me, the drawing was to see if I wanted to try and fit it into the room I can use. My ‘aisles’ aren’t actually 2’ wide to begin with, but the family are happy for the layout to take up 8’ x 4’, which is an important factor. From a layout point of view there are clear benefits to the expanded version with a central operating well – it makes its own case, but I have to take into consideration three other factors too: i) My layout has to be portable and must be set up in a multi-use office to the satisfaction of other users. ii) It has to fit into the storage space I have in mind – note: that could determine the actual board sizes. iii) And it has to be transportable between the two – size and weight of boards is again the constraint. Having re-measured the space and looked at the fixtures and fittings around the room (there are a lot, including fitted furniture and a fireplace that belong to the house – which we don’t own), and having looked at moving boards round the house and storage, four 4’ x 2’ boards still work best for me. It's perhaps the biggest 'Rule 1' compromise I'm making. I really like the look and feel of the 8’ x 4’ design that’s working best – I look at it and I’d like to build it. I’m not an experienced layout builder, but I’m keen to get started, and that’s a really good outcome for me. Thanks, Keith.

Agreed - another nice idea, thank you. Even as I was adding it, I was thinking that the longer the siding got the worse it looked (and the more it drew attention to the tight curve on the incoming running line). I was thinking of going back to having just the loop, but the dock siding is a good idea, especially as there won’t be an equivalent at the lower station.

Hi Phil, I need to log off and go and do some other things now (the room is also needed for something else), but I’ll try and get the tape measure out again later in the week. One reason, as well as the mess, that I can’t do a photo is it also a shared office, so I’d need to make sure I didn’t accidentally photo something I shouldn’t put online, so a sketch would be better. I know from changing lightbulbs that the ceiling is 10’ tall, so at least it’s not a problem in that dimension! Keith.

I've had a quick look at this version to pick up on The Stationmaster's suggestions: 1. There is room for a decent length 27" siding off a trailing point from the upper loop. It could be curved a bit further to make it longer, but it's more likely to be useful disappearing behind a building to conceal an on/off wagon swap. Total siding length is over 9' (minus a few inches close to the points and buffers), added to which there is a 40" loop line. Plenty of capacity for a small layout, without becoming cramped. For this quick version I just moved the same points around so I can compare siding lengths, so there's one fewer siding at the lower station at the moment. 2. If I use Streamline Medium Radius points instead of my favoured long points at either end of the lower Station loop there should easily be enough room to run round a 30" (3-coach) train. 3. Operationally this is a plan with potential, as The Stationmaster suggests. I'd like to play around with it a bit more, as the platform lines (at both stations) are now rather horizontal to the baseboard edges - the original designs had more of a flow - but this is worth developing.

Fortunately not this time - it’s in the centre of the room, but always an important point to clarify: I’m of average height and reach too. I once had a space under some eaves in an attic which looked great on paper, but headroom on one side tapered to zero - I had N Gauge trains in those days, but I was still 1:1 scale. A solution for this kind of layout in that type of space could be to rotate the layout 90 degrees and put a short end to the wall? In this case, it would take too long to tidy up for a photo of the space here, sorry, but suffice to say, general access is needed either side of the space by other room users, it is a general purpose room with heavy usage. It does however mean the layout can be operated (and viewed) from both sides - just not easily from both at the same time. I have made the mistake before of starting a table type layout that had a run-round or passing loop around one end. It gave a really good run-round, and was based on a published plan that had been built (to a high standard), but points at either end of the loop were on opposite sides. A manually operated fiddle siding I added to the original plan was also diagonally opposite the main station. It all meant I wanted to be on both sides of the layout at the same time. In the end I just ran trains, rather than operated: I should have known better. What I like about The Stationmaster’s operating idea for this project is the way it is explained how the two Stations can be operated alternately, making it a more pleasant experience for a single operator. My original designs had all the points on one side, so with good track laying those versions could go against a wall, but care would be needed at the centre rear baseboard joint to avoid derailments (my plan shows a piece of Setrack across each baseboard joint, but better options are available).

I think you’ve got something there, thank you. Streamline track centres may give that vital extra inch of width - as drawn my lines are a bit straight at the moment though. Adding in a central scenic divide as suggested by Joseph Pestell and it can also break up the table top look at the same time, but I’d be wise to look at a walkaround controller of course.

No problem - I read it in the spirit intended. I should perhaps have left out the ‘Fairford’ posting (I don’t think those ideas work as well as I’d hoped). I left it in for the point about coach overhang on tight curved platforms - the suggestion I think Joseph Pestell is pointing towards only modelling part of a station (so that bit could be hidden) would be a better option to explore on that point, certainly for an urban model, where it has been done very effectively.

Thank you - I really like the way you’ve shown this: there’s no rule that says boards have to be uniform in size (or rectangles) and this split could help keep the number of tracks crossing baseboard joints to a minimum. I looked at a similar but smaller arrangement in a previous house with a different layout space. As has been so often proved, it can give a much longer run and more generous sidings in the same overall space as a solid board plus outside aisles. It’s also impossible to see the whole layout in one go, which helps the illusion. For someone designing a transportable layout for exhibition use, it could become a bit awkward if too many different sizes were used, and weight / manoeuvrability come into play, and boards are commonly paired up to protect scenic detail, but this isn’t a consideration in this project. For me, the space has been carefully measured, and I’ll be sticking to the 4’ width as other family members need to be able to walk past to use the rest of the room - I may be happy with a central operating well with duck-unders or lifting sections, but I can’t impose that on others, which is why I a made it a Given (although you’re right that I don’t have to stick to 4 boards of 4’ x 2’, which I hadn’t really thought about). Fully understand TLDR - perfectly fair comment - I appreciate the response. Thanks, Keith.

Thank you (both for wading through my notes and the responses). For this project I’m thinking rural rather than urban (I hadn’t said, it’s only implied by my rough sketch) and while I’m happy to be very flexible with my time period, I am thinking historically rather than a heritage line in this case, to fit with my ambition that this is part of a bigger transportation network. The last plan would probably operate quite differently to the others, most likely with individual trains “taking turns” to appear - the assumption being that the next station in each direction has passing facilities: even as a plan though it does suggest ‘bucolic country branch. I have to admit, that plan is growing on me... Although I guess a short Goods train could be locked into the Goods loop at the station while a passenger train passed, or a short passenger train could wait at the platform while a Goods train by-passed it (via the loop) would I then be back to signalling both lines for bi-directional running and there’d be facing points in the loop if it became a running line? Best not. The backscene idea is well worth looking at - I almost included one in my sketch, and Joseph is quite right, it is one way American Model Railroad plans have aimed to move people on from train table thinking over the years. I haven’t looked at ideas for “one end of a station” for this project - there are many fantastic models that use this approach, including some of my favourites, but I’ve never settled on one I wanted to build. Thanks again, Keith.

And, finally, what is perhaps a more conventional layout design that still fits the Givens: Here the loop siding has been moved to the top of the layout where it serves as sceniced staging: 1. With Streamline Curved points, a passing siding long enough for two 40” trains is possible. It could be signalled for one-way working. Platforms could be modelled, but might start to dominate the layout, although a scenic divide could be used to separate this side from the lower station to mitigate this. Using Streamline geometry, track centres (the distance between parallel tracks) measure 2” – Note that, if redrawing these plans with Setrack, the gap between lines widens and there is less width to play with. 2. I’m not sure it’s really possible to fit a second long passing loop with Streamline Curved points at the bottom, so this station is no longer a passing station. There is just one platform, and room for a 30” run-round loop to access the Goods sidings. It is just about long enough for and engine to run round a train. 3. For comparison I’ve used the same layout for the Goods sidings as in my first design. Operation would focus on shunting the Local Goods. To justify the long sidings, the Brewery might become a large depot? 4. The Engine Shed is now unlikely – this is an intermediate station, albeit with quite a large Goods Yard. There is of course plenty of scope to develop this idea further, but I hope I’ve given a flavour of an idea. _______________________ I began my OP explaining why I’m posting a thread that starts at the end of my design process. If anyone has read this far and is still awake then do get in touch for a Certificate of Persistence, you’ve done well. Of course, a number of suggestions for major changes might arise from all this. These could include: 1. Switch to US outline HO modelling (Yay! My track gauge has fixed itself). 2. Put my baseboards in a line for a Branch Line Terminus and Fiddle Yard (please note: I don’t have 16’). 3. Switch to N Gauge and perhaps model four different cameo scenes, one per board. 4. Change my track for Code 75 Bullhead rail when supplies recover, for at least one bit of realism. These (and others) may be great ideas, but would need a new budget for a different layout. It would be a different project, not what I’m aiming for. With a final apology for posting far too much - I'm sorry I've rather got carried away, I’ll finish. I’m not on RMweb every day to respond to any replies if there are any comments, but will check when I can. Thanks, Keith.

If I had unlimited space, I’d look to include a model of Fairford. Here are two designs inspired by the layout there that meet my Givens, again drawn by moving around parts of my original design. In reality, Fairford was a Terminus. 1. As Fairford was intended to be a through station, I think continuous run can be imagined. 2. There was a road bridge at the station entrance – the Level Crossing is in the right place so I left it. 3. The station moves to the end of the layout. Passenger trains can now no longer meet. The tight curve means allowance will have to be made for the overhang as coaches pass the platform. As the curve is viewed from outside this will be partly hidden, but it would be worth making a mock-up before committing to the plan to see if it looks acceptable. 4. I’ve taken out the turntable and moved the Engine Shed to the other end, where there’s more space. 5. A carriage siding was added at Fairford, so can be included, but would it have been needed had the station been a through station? (The same may be said for the Engine Shed and lower Run-round loop). 6. This Siding is a combination of a short siding at the end of the double-ended siding and a later siding shown in a drawing by Stanley C. Jenkins – I’m not sure, but I wonder if it may have been a 2nd World War addition? 7 / 8. There were two right-hand crossovers entering the upper siding, either side of the Goods Shed, so the Shed can be at 7 or 8 (on the Loading Dock siding). Either introduces shunting interest: the loop was a siding, not for running round. 9. But, if the run-round loop is used as a passing loop for trains to meet, there is again the problem of facing points. If the Engine Shed returns to the far end of the station, the loop can be designated for one way running.

Are alternative Layout Designs possible? Here are two – I’ve kept the same basic elements (and points) and just shuffled them around to remove the facing points. In each case, alternative compromises are involved – as you’d expect: Although Iain Rice’s original US design did have two opposing points or switches on the main (lower) running line, to make good use of the outside corners, this doesn’t translate easily into UK practice. These modifications could be made: 11. The industry can be moved across the layout to replace the second station. This removes the facing point from the lower loop line. Scenery in the top half isn’t badly impacted. It doesn’t have to be a Brewery, which is perhaps less likely ‘out-of-town’. Local goods trains would shunt this siding when heading anti-clockwise (“Down”), with wagons from clockwise trains (“Up”) switched out at the station to wait for the next Down goods. 12. The original Iain Rice plan had a single switch to access the upper goods sidings here. I removed it in my first plan to keep tracks crossing baseboard joints to a minimum. If I relax that constraint I can put it back and take out a facing point. 13. Signalling each platform line for one-way left-running operation now looks possible. 14. The longer left-hand siding becomes a headshunt for the two right hand sidings, each of good length. These can be laid out as a Goods Yard, with space between the sidings. When operating, shunting is separate from the platform lines. 21. The headshunt access has been moved to the other side of the baseboard joint. 22. The Engine Shed looks to me less plausible now, requiring a double kickback, but I’ve retained it for comparison. 23. There is one less track across the baseboard joint, they are straighter and less scenic space is lost. A left-hand point would give more space in the right-hand goods yard – I’ve just moved around the points I have so I can compare the plans.

Operating Scenarios Three things to note: 1. The intensity of Services will greatly exceed that which a station like this might really have seen. 2. When operating, the Carriage Siding (bottom right) may sometimes double as a “fiddle track,” with rolling stock appearing or disappearing as needed - it’s in easy reach of the operator. The Brewery buildings could also be used to hide an entrance / exit for swapping goods wagons on / off the layout. 3. In this kind of operation, stations have multiple identities, representing every place on the journey. Three indicative scenarios: Scenario 1. Morning It is early morning. Engine A is preparing the first Up passenger train of the day. Coaches B are coupled up and additional “strengthening coach” C is added to the train. In his book on Model Railway Operation (PSL, 1993), Cyril Freezer suggested that one way to distinguish between trains is to add “strengthening coaches” to a standard rake of coaches. An early morning train such as this one might have a Siphon G, while a through coach from London may appear later in the day? When this train is ready and waiting in Platform 1, single coach train D – ostensibly having originated at a feeder branch terminal, is brought in from Station 3 into Platform 2 for early morning passengers to transfer. Perhaps a deal was done when land was sold to the railway that required a connecting service? Passengers having crossed to the train on Platform 1, it is given the all clear to depart. After a good run (several laps) it is brought to a convenient stop at Station 3. The focus moves back to the station. The branch train D then moves to the carriage siding, and engine E comes out of the Engine Shed to prepare a Down Goods with wagons F. It will wait in Platform road 2 until the next Up passenger train arrives in Platform 1 (where it will then wait), before setting off on its journey. With passenger trains in Both Platform 1 and the Carriage Siding, any wagons for breweries imagined to be at the breweries at stations further down the line must be shunted into the Goods sidings to await a clear line, and so the shuffling continues throughout the morning… 2. Arrival This second scenario shows the arrival of Down passenger train behind Engine A (which has been taken off and turned at some point in the day – literally). Coaches B and a different strengthening Coach G make up the train. It is unlikely that a branch such as this would have a Buffet Car or Restaurant Service, so a Through Coach is perhaps more likely? Branch Line Train D waits for connecting passengers to disembark and transfer, while Goods Engine E has returned to the shed, having completed its run and having placed wagons at destinations along the way. After the Branch train has left, Engine A will run round and shunt the coaches into the Carriage Siding. 3. “Shunting Puzzle” This particular scenario is inspired by a Shunting Puzzle first published in 1972 in Model Railroader Magazine with a freelanced plan for the “Sagatukett River RR” (It was reprinted in 1981 in “58 Track Planning Idea” - a version of the same plan in “101 More Track Plans” omits the shunting puzzle). Engine E has just arrived with a terminating Up local Goods Train – 3 wagons plus Guards Van G. These are the rules: Engine A and Coaches B cannot be moved, and the Main Running Line through the Station must be kept clear at the end of each shunting move for Branch Train D to come and go as required. Engine E can run round the train when needed, and use the main line to get to the Brewery. Wagons are to be distributed as follows: Wagons 4, 7 and 9 will form the departing train, which is to be a “Down” train. Guards Van G must be at the rear and Engine E at the front. Incoming Wagons are to be shunted as follows – appropriate destinations are needed to justify these otherwise random movements (eg: Goods Shed / Loading Dock, etc.). Wagons 1 and 2 will replace Wagons 6 and 7, and Wagon 3 replaces Wagon 9 (in the original puzzle this was much more difficult – having other wagons in the way could complicate things here by making wagon rakes longer). Wagon 6 is to move to the Brewery siding, and Wagon 8 is to be shunted to the Goods Yard siding currently occupied by wagons 4 and 5. Wagon 5 needs to go to the place where Wagon 6 is currently. The compact nature of the station layout, with sidings running directly off both loops, becomes part of ‘the game’ here. Shunting puzzles are not for everyone; they are popular with some advocates of micro-layouts, and planning appropriate destinations for wagon movements can help. All this looks good to me, if it wasn’t for the implausible facing points running off the platform lines. How come I didn’t spot this earlier myself? Looking back at other plans I’ve drawn up in recent years, I’ve avoided facing points on double track main lines – while I know my design isn’t typical of Great Western Branch Line stations, it didn’t register with me that I had such a potentially big problem with plausibility (note: the result of studying American Model Railroad plans more closely than UK prototype track layouts). Are there alternatives, or I could accept facing points for this small layout?

There are many different ways to arrive at a Layout Design. My own process here involved an enjoyable day working through some Plan Books I have for favourites I might modify to fit my Givens and Druthers. I settled on an Iain Rice design for an American country station, which I kind of ‘reverse engineered’ to fit my requirements. After a number of iterations over about a week, the final design looked like this: This layout ticks all my boxes – I especially like how it minimises the tracks across baseboard joints while including everything I wanted. As a bonus, I have all the track pieces I need. Things to note: 1. A challenge using American ideas for UK layouts is fitting a station platform without it dominating. Some US Stations have high platforms, but not the layouts I looked at. This one had a depot between the tracks, and while there aren’t many examples of GW island platforms, it gave me a neat solution. 2. I haven’t included a fiddle yard / hidden sidings. I looked at adding a staging loop, but this would have needed a tighter radius curved point at one end of the layout to fit. I explored this in a thread here on RMweb, but decided against it – it would have broken Given No. 4. I considered a single ended refuge siding, and asked the question in the UK Prototype Questions Forum to see if examples existed of refuge sidings on single track GW lines. The consensus was that they didn’t. Instead, the layout can be wired so that trains can simply be held at the subsidiary station until needed. 3. I like the generous length of the goods sidings (note that the measurements are for track cutting – deduct a couple of inches to get the effective capacity). A good tip visually is to avoid stuffing them full of goods wagons, to retain the illusion of space. The outer siding could serve a goods shed or industry, but a reason will be needed for the second siding, for which access is trickier. Perhaps it holds wagons waiting to go up the line to a nearby (off-stage) station / industry with no shunting loop or trailing point access? The original plan doesn’t include an engine shed siding, which I’ve added. 4. The original plan included points (switches) in both directions off the main running line, and I kept them, to make use of the corners. A carriage siding wasn’t required, but a 36” siding can take 3 coaches. 5. These points are the problem: a UK railway would not have these facing points from running lines. Add operating ideas that require both loops to be bi-directional, and the design becomes less plausible. It was ultimately this point that led to the suggestion I post my ideas for discussion in this Forum. The other thing I’d done when working through my initial planning process was to test the basic design to see if it might offer the kind of operating patterns I’d want, over and above just running trains. For this, I return first to Frank Ellison: “For Model Railroading is definitely a play. It is the presentation of the drama of railroading in which the tracks are the stage, the buildings and scenery are the setting, the trains are the actors, and the operating schedule is the plot.” Again, there are plenty of ways to interpret and apply these words, or to disagree with them. Ellison’s own view was that, for a model railroad: “a scale run of not less than two miles seems essential” (and he modelled in O Scale). He also advocated bringing hidden sidings or staging yards into the open, despite his theatre background, where the ‘off-stage’ can be as vital as the ‘on-stage’ to a good production. But can I put on a show with the layout design I have? Kalmbach’s Operating Manual contains a lot of detailed and informative information, covering mechanical reliability, track and couplings, and includes comprehensive operating rules for model railroads derived from the prototype practice of the day, plus rules for setting up and running a model railroad club. He also shares ideas on layout planning and how to reach beyond the limitations of a model layout. Modellers of a prototype location may have access to relevant information to help here, but where I’m designing freelanced layouts, an integral part of the design process is that of setting the scene: To do this, the basic Schematic for the layout, which is like this: is imagineered to become this: The Feeder Branches aren’t modelled, but provide a rationale for connecting Services at the Main Station, which effectively becomes a junction, justifying a small engine shed and carriage siding. The Brixham Branch to Churston off the Kingswear Branch is an example of this kind of arrangement. With this expanded Schematic, what can of operating patterns might be possible? I looked at three Scenarios, which I’ll set out below. I should note that the ideas I’ve quoted from Ellison and Kalmbach appear in other writings too – it just happens that they are my inspiration.

Druthers My preferences, or ‘Druthers’: Relating to construction: 1. A minimum number of tracks crossing baseboard joints (no points on joints). 2. No planned gradients (I don’t anticipate this being a problem). Relating to overall design: 3. With “Kalmbach” operation, I’m happy not to have hidden track or a fiddle yard. 4. Single track running line (probably necessary, to keep to min. 3rd radius curves). Relating to more specific operating possibilities: 5. Ideally, a loop long enough for trains to pass, not just to run round a train. 6. Preferably, two goods sidings (for shunting), an engine shed and carriage siding. 7. A passenger station with a platform long enough for a whole 40” train. Is it possible to deliver all this in 8’ x 4’ or less? That’s the challenge. Depending on the priorities set and the compromises made, plausible designs do exist. In the Signalling thread that preceded this one, reference was made to a branch line pattern developed by Maurice Deane years ago - I think it formed the basis for Revd W. Awdry’s Ffarquahar Layout (from the late 1950s?). A different design, from the early 1980’s was Bredon, which was in Railway Modeller in 1981, and was adapted for Peco Setrack Plan books. It focused on operating a station more than watching trains run, but showed what could be done.

Givens For me, the design process starts with inspiration: what sets the pulse racing, what makes the time and effort worth it. We’ll all have a personal answer. This is mine: In 1976, the American magazine, Model Railroader, reprinted a condensed version of a classic series of articles first penned in 1944 by Frank Ellison: “the Art of Model Railroading.” Ellison had a background in theatre, and it shows in his writing: “What has become of the Mid-Nightmare Flyer and all the other dream trains of the Parlor & Dining Room RR. that used to wheel over Mt. Reverie? What has become of the dream itself - that magical vision which stirred and took shape on the day we brought home the first toy train for the kid’s Christmas? It was a wonderful dream of tracks, trains and a procession of towns and rolling hills; of picturesque little way freights at dozens of sleepy country towns; of switching that drag to the siding to clear the main for the ballast-scorching Armchair Limited whistling around Phantasy Curve to pass in a swirl of whimsical dust. It was a dream of action too - of trains of every class to be found on a dispatcher’s train sheet, wheeling over a busy arterial highway of steel, weaving in and out of way-station sidings to overtake or to meet and pass. It was, in truth, the dream of a transportation system at work.” I was eight years old in 1976 - and I was captivated. I wanted that dream. I still do. Publisher Al Kalmbach, also writing in 1944, using the pseudonym “Boomer Pete,” wrote his book, ‘Operating Manual for Model Railroaders’ from a similar perspective. It had a big impact on me when I read my Dad’s copy as a kid. But what does all this mean for layout planning? This was Kalmbach’s view: “A real railroad is built to carry traffic from one place to another. A model railroad should be so planned that it will give an illusion of doing the same thing even if it doesn’t. The simplest layout is a circle or an oval with a siding, station, or yards at one point on it. That one yard or station can be imagined as both ends of the line and definite orders can be made up and carried out for moving traffic from the one terminal around the main line and back to the same point.” (p41) Feel free to disagree, for much has changed since then, and much of it for the better. But that’s my dream still. For me, if for no-one else, if I’m to build and ‘finish’ a layout: a continuous run is a must. I lose interest in other ideas too easily. Over the years I’ve drawn up literally hundreds of plans, from branch line terminii to city stations, and I have other projects (some are on RMweb). If I had 20’ or more maybe I’d plan a spacious terminus to create my illusion, and watch trains disappear in the distance. But even then I’d sometimes roll back the carpet, fasten together some leftover Setrack into a circuit and watch a train run, and run, and run. My Given No. 1: a continuous run. What is ‘my train,’ my Given No. 2: for me, it’s a Great Western branch line train. I can’t remember when I first saw branch line engines in Great Western green, GWR emblazoned on the sides, with coaches resplendent in chocolate and cream. I’d have read about GW branch lines in Railway Modeller in the 1970s, but photos were black and white, so was it at an exhibition or on holiday in Devon? I don’t know, but I guess my parents did: my first train was an N Gauge GWR Pannier Tank and two chocolate and cream coaches with white roofs. I model in OO gauge now, but the Pannier Tank is still my locomotive and the GW Branch Line my motif. I wouldn’t have known it then, but I think that loco livery was only introduced in 1942, by which time coach roofs would have been in wartime dark grey or black. I’ll play a “Rule 1” card here: I’m going to be flexible with my time period (approx 1915 to 1945), and I’m afraid my coaches will keep their white roofs. How long is my train? That’s easy: American layout designer Bernard Kempinski uses the term ‘design train length’ to ensure it all fits: three 57’ coaches and a small tender engine measure 40” in OO Gauge. My Given No. 2: a GWR Branch line with a maximum train length of 40”. Given No. 3: the space I have. I don’t have a permanent space for a layout, so am looking at something portable, for home use only. There’s space for me to set up a layout on high days and holidays in the middle of a room, and this gives a maximum layout space of 8’ x 4’. Access is needed round the edges for others to reach the rest of the room, and I have four 4’ x 2’ baseboards I built years ago ready to use. A word of warning. Although an 8’ x 4’ table can get train sets off the carpet - it isn’t easy to come up with plausible layouts. The tight curves, the difficulty reaching across a table and the absence of prototypes, all make it easy to see why many shudder at the thought of an 8’ x 4’ plan. On one board, it’s just about immovable. A good number of American Track Plan books do include designs for 8’ x 4’ layouts, and there are some well designed and sophisticated examples around, but they’re not for everybody. For me however, it is a positive choice, it has the support of other members of my household - and is a Given. 32 sq. ft. seems massive to me: I wouldn’t want to tackle anything bigger. Over the past 15 years I’ve designed a number of micro-layouts, working with a maximum design space of 4 sq. ft. And yes, it is possible to design an operating double track continuous run layout in HO scale in such a space - working with Carl Arendt, the much missed doyen of the micro-layout world, we did it a long time ago (though we had to use 15” curves). You can still find that plan on carendt.com My Given No. 3: an 8’ x 4’ layout on four portable 4’ x 2’ boards. My last Given is track. I have some good condition Code 100 OO Gauge Streamline and some long / medium points (the look of long points got me to graduate from Setrack). I’d like a minimum curve of 19” (UK 3rd radius) and I have Setrack curves if needed. I need to get something up and running quickly and easily (so I don’t lose interest), so I’ll use what I’ve got. I can use a Setrack Y-point as their radius is generous. Given No. 4: 3rd rad. curves and medium / long points. Control is DC. A very long post (sorry), but my Givens won’t be for everyone, so I set them out carefully: No. 1: A continuous run. No. 2: A GWR branch line with 3 coach trains (40”). No. 3: An 8’ x 4’ layout using four 4’ x 2’ portable baseboards. No. 4: Code 100 OO Gauge with large / medium points, 3rd radius curves. DC.

In a city not far from here, I’m told there once stood a magnificent building, the biggest structure ever built by starting at the top with the roof, then working down through the different floors and hallways to get to ground level, before construction finished by digging the foundations. Well, perhaps not (although I’m sure it is technically possible). But I start with this to explain the idea of this thread, else it’ll look like I’m working from an end point. I’ve been working on a layout design for a single track Great Western branch line and, having come up with something that ticked all the boxes for me, I thought it’d be good to work out how to signal it. Knowing very little about signalling and suspecting I may have come up with ‘a complex nightmare’ out of keeping with the atmosphere I was after, I shared a schematic in the Permanent Way, Signalling and Infrastructure Forum - and was quickly proved right. I learnt some useful things through the conversation, but various contributors to the thread, including myself, suggested it might be good to have a look at the plan here in the Layout & Track Design Forum. Having already worked through a detailed design process, I’ve separated my thinking into different areas, which I hope it’s OK to post separately, leading up to the plan itself and some alternatives: 1. The principles I’ve adopted - what I want to achieve (and why). These underpin what American track planning guru John Armstrong used to call his “Givens” - those constraints that can be stated as non-negotiable for this project. Mine are quite personal to me in many ways, so I’ll explain why. 2. Next, what Armstrong called his “Druthers” - basically an American term I see as ‘my preferences.’ It can be tempting to treat everything as a given: “I want it all (and I want it now),” but all layout planning involves compromise - reading threads on this Forum will show how seeing some things as tradeable can free up new solutions. 3. I’ll post the plan I came up with when I put it all together (of course it was something like my 20th iteration, but you’ll see how I got there). I’ll also post some alternative designs and variations. All design drawings have been prepared to scale using Anyrail. I hope this is OK. Keith.

Just had a read through this thread: an interesting discussion. Cost has been mentioned, and one option if you need to phase the budget can be to get something up and running as a single track line with simplified stations as phase 1, but with the roadbed for the second line and the final station layouts planned in from the start. One idea sometimes used with fiddle yards is to hide them behind a narrow sceniced feature and a scenic divide - this can be worth considering for a room with other uses depending on where the door is (ie: what is the first thing you want people to see when entering the room?). With that approach it’s important to make sure operator access to the hidden sidings is still possible, especially when the fiddle yard is against a wall, and that you can see where the trains are in the fiddle yard when operating. From memory, a common feature on Cyril Freezer’s plans was to have either a thin branch line terminus in front of the fiddle yard (as an alternative destination), or a dockside scene, although these ideas wouldn’t fit the heritage line theme. A carriage siding or two could be made to look relevant next to Zomboid’s rather nice Great Central style Station, but there’d need to be some kind of crossover or headshunt to avoid facing points from the main running line.

Hi Shantyjohn, have you picked up on the work of Lance Mindheim - his ideas on industrial layouts and shelf layouts may help? Keith.

The same can apply to some Goods Traffic - loaded coal wagons may one way, with empties returning the other. Perhaps one consideration is which of three things the operator is visually most interested in: watching / following engines heading trains, in which case the reversing loop idea would seem to have great appeal, or: watching trains - paying more attention to coach formations and wagon loads, which might favour an oval, or: watching the procession of trains past a fixed point - the scenic section - in which case a long wait between appearances may get boring. Just a thought.

Hi Adwoot, welcome aboard! I can’t comment on DCC or wiring, but two points of advice I’ve found helpful, so pass on: As barrymx5 says, older rolling stock may assume you have Code 100 track (Code basically refers to rail height - Code 100 is the biggest, so can cope with the widest wheels and biggest flanges - it is also used for Setrack, making Setrack and Flexitrack interchangeable), so you may save yourself a lot of grief sticking to it: it sounds like it will fit your needs. 17’ x 24’ is a big space. As others have indicated above already, there’s much wisdom in starting with something small to get something running, learn what works best for you and find out which bits of modelling you enjoy most. One way to do this which I don’t think has been suggested above, but I’ve seen in American track plan books over the years is to build what is effectively a small layout in part of your space - and then expand it. Back in the day, the Gorre and Daphetid of John Allen - an amazing basement railroad from about the 1960s, had done just that.

Fantastic, a brilliant model!

It’s been a while since I posted on this thread - which perhaps tells its own story. Last summer I began the task of tiling the roof of a Metcalfe Coaching Inn model. Progress has been rather slow - probably what a real building would look like if I was asked to do the roof! Some parts are quite rough, and of course the photos highlight those bits in particular, but for a supposedly older coaching inn, it’s not something I’m worrying about. I’m not sure I’ll rush to try individual tiling again: though I have full respect for those with the patience and persistence to model to this standard consistently. For me: other kits have overtaken this one. What about Short-Edge as a project? I mentioned in an earlier post last Summer that the bookcase I’d been planning to store / display micro-layouts had been repurposed for other use at home, which has led me to a rethink. I still like the concept: the idea could produce a nice micro-layout, and I was greatly encouraged by the positive comments when I launched the thread a year ago (Thank you all). Developing the idea has been fun in itself, but I’m looking at other plans now where I might apply at least some of the modelling steps I identified when I began. I suspect therefore that the Beeching Axe has fallen on this particular branch line, to make way for other ideas instead. Keith.

As has been suggested, the loco shed takes up a lot of space. One option could be to model it in low relief, thereby retaining the concealed entry / exit, and the front of the engine shed (always a popular place for photographs). It partly depends on how you’ll be modelling - if you have an engine shed you want to include then you may not want to cut it up (and if it’s a resin model, do take appropriate safety precautions), but as the design says “Custom Engine Shed” I wonder if the option to build it differently is there? Just a thought, Keith.