MiltonF

55 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

That sure is an awkward space. I did a doodle and figured track over the bed was not ideal.  Next i thought shift the bed away from the long wall maybe a foot so track can go behind it  and use the full 11ft. that gives 7ft scenic plus 4ft FY. or 4ft cassettes.

Then I thought have a cassete yard in front of the closet which is put away eac session, maybe along the bottom wall, which either fills the room or has very tight curves which maybe need hiding so I compromised with a long station which goes behind the bed, gentle curves, small goods yard and again cassettes.   Then off plan what if the cassette table was on wheels, clipped to the closet doors and was an elevating table a la Nellyvator so trains came on and were lowered to a cassette yard or FY under the layout.  The table could be stored agaist that bottom wall. 5/6ft cassettes 4 coach / 15 wagon trains.  Might be worth working up in Anyrail if you're interested  

 

 

That's a pretty neat way to use that space. Having the scenic section be curved is a neat way to use the space. Although it occurs to me that with that much space taken up, it might just be more effective to build a freezer style roundy layout in the same space. I've been looking at a plan called coldean, which fits into a 6'6" x 4'9" space, and it can be easily converted to something of a coiled up end to end layout by eliminating the factory connecting to the fiddle yard, or just not running trains through it. It's a little small though, so maybe extending it out to an 8 x 5'9 would make it look nicer.

On 25/05/2021 at 06:55, Harlequin said:

How about using the 11ft wall almost exclusively for the scenic part, turning the corner and having a removable fiddle yard of some form (fold down, cassettes, fiddle sticks, whatever), along the 7ft 6in wall?

The FY may be all or partly above the bed, depending on how you orient it, and if it's not too annoying you could probably leave it set up for long periods.

 

My biggest concern about putting it so close to the bed is not discomfort, but rather my unbelievably bad clumsiness. I'm certain I'll one day bump into it and fall onto it or into it.

3 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

Do you have some dimensions for the room?

Apologies for the cryptic post. Each square represents 1 imperial foot, while the room is larger than this the area beyond is just not suited for model railways, with a closet to one side and a bathroom door to the other. The only remaining open space is a 6 foot by 2 foot corner between the bathroom door and the entrance to the room. I've drawn it more logically here. Seemingly ample room, but tragically I must sleep somewhere and a 2 foot wide pallet just isn't enough for me.

I've spent the last week thinking over this layout, and being very frustrated with the strange shape of the room. It doesn't lend itself well to model railways I think. The long wall is all in the wrong place! Or maybe I'm not thinking about it the right way.

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

As it isn't far from a running shed the spur won't need much, if anything, in the way of facilioties = perhaps a small cabin for enginemen and maybe a pit for oiling or ash but that is about it unless you can't fit in a water crane anywhere else.

Essentially just a small track to perform basic utilities on without getting in the way of anything, huh? Sounds good enough to me.

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Don't forget that you need the loco spur, or a shortened version of it, to actas a trap point although you could do that another way

I haven't decided if I keep the spur or just get rid of it altogether so I haven't placed the trap point yet. I don't even know how far up or down the coal siding I want the turnout. One problem to me is that the loco spur itself will be struggling for space for any decent looking facilities, but I don't want to make it so far down that the entire coal siding needs to be cleared just to take on water.

14 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

-snip-

 

Out of curiosity, and for the sake of exploring alternate routes, do you have any specific operating plan for your minories partner layout, Seironim?

3 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

You've gone back to the "less rational" plan with it's short run round...?

 

There may be some optical illusion going on here, as the runaround length has never changed on this particular plan. It's a strange approach that definitely works better in real life due to rtr point lengths and space constraints, but I'm still hoping I can fix the horwich inspired plan. You see, with a "flipped" version of the plan with the platform on the approach, you lose the movement of crossing over the approach from the departure to the goods siding, which to me is an essential element of this layout. Even though it is somewhat illogical, it's something that I really like about the real location. I'm still working on other different designs in the background of this which offer perhaps a more traditional approach to the BLT scheme, but I'm hoping that if I can get this to work, it can be built.

While single track running and more logically placed goods sidings would simplify the layout a lot, it wouldn't be as interesting in my opinion.

And just as an added thought, here's that same plan with the loco spur reintroduced

On third thought, maybe the best possible way to incorporate engine servicing into this layout is to simply have the engine go "off scene" to be coaled and watered, then turned by a wobbly 0-5-0

I've incorporated a couple changes, don't worry too much about the private kickback as it's just me messing around trying to figure it out still. I do have to say that I miss the sort of lopsided mirrored effect of horwich as a visual design element. I've added two objects the same dimensions as ten inchers for scale.

And wow, you're right, having looked at the old and new sidings side by side they really were incredibly stubby.

1 hour ago, DavidCBroad said:

You need to think outside the tin.  My spare bedroom was around 11ft  X 11ft and had a layout 60" above floor level.

Now if you keep the framing thin, mine was only 2" in places, the layout can go above the bed.

Having said that you are more squeezing until the pips explode rather than compressing and 8 or ten coach trains become 3 coaches.   It doesn't work.   The classic BLT is probably the optimum.  Buffers against the wall, first point, the loop point, at the FY end.   Its been thrashed to death and every convolution has been tried but its still pretty good.   For urban try Minories.

For works shunters wandering in and out, maybe freshly overhauled express locos on local trains maybe consider Horwich, but look at it in context, there were carriage sidings and a huge loco works just beyond the overbridge.    see NLS Map

 

There's a reason I referred to it as compression gone too far. As for minories I fiddled about with it but I just don't like it too much. Not a huge fan of dedicated urban passenger traffic and the goods yard versions feel like an afterthought.

6 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Very similar to Holmfirth (L&YR) (map). 

 

Do you plan to shunt using the outbound main (i.e. using the fiddle stick)? 

 

That's kind of inevitable on a layout like this. I want to maximise as much visible shunting space as possible, hence the headshunt, but it will require using the fiddle stick even if extended to 7.5 feet.

Just now, Harlequin said:

Sounds like a small sacrifice to get a much improved layout! (You've got to get your priorities right...) Maybe you'd have room for a bit more width as well?

 

Split the difference?: 7ft6in scenic plus 3ft6in FY?

 

That sounds just about right to me! And width could definitely be added, I just used the skinny plank to restrict myself when figuring out the design. I figure it's best to start with what you know can fit and then take that design and add a few pounds in length and width to avoid cramming too much track in too little space. When you find yourself compressing, say a C.J. freezer design, you know you've done something wrong.

2 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I like it. It's simpler and rather more rational than the prototype that inspired it (with inbound direct into the platform and goods connected to the run round / outbound line).

 

Could you use the 8ft free space in your room (under the window I assume) with the fiddle stick over the bed? That might allow your simplified plan a bit more room to breathe.

 

And/or could the bed be turned 90° (head near the shower room, foot near the closet) to make the full ~11ft wall fully accessible?

 

It could just about be done. I'm not sure I really want my head that close to the bathroom when sleeping but, if it means more layout space, it's a sacrifice I could make. A 4 ft fiddle yard and 7 foot layout sounds just about right. I always wished that a fiddle yard could have a proportion to a layout of no more than 1:2 in order that the layout itself dominate the space, but it doesn't seem to be possible for small layouts with any train that doesn't used 3 inch 4 wheelers. But, maybe, 8 ft and 3ft fiddle yard... too greedy?

For something completely different, I fiddled around to come up with a minimum size BLT along the same design philosophy. Only the goods yard, headshunt, and station remain in this setup. In order to add a little bit of visual interest, and provide more room for a traverser, the entire thing takes a gentle curve across the board. I can't find anything operationally out of place, but maybe I could be shown where it is. As an added bonus this would be small enough to fit in the space between my bathroom and my door, and a fiddle stick or lightly built traverser could be popped onto the end for operating sessions without having to setup anything else. It's almost boring, but I'd rather make something operationally sound and decently roomy than something compressed to all hell and awkward to operate.

It's such a simple plan that there should be no need to even try to explain the diagram.

Without changing the overall size of the layout, I've found a way to fit in a second coal siding and something of a short headshunt for it. Sadly, it's lost any sense of curvature by now. As it's so compressed already for operational purposes that may not have changed much about it's visual decline, but it's just so nice to see trains take a shallow curve.

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

 

 

If the coal was worked separately, then with a pair of coal sidings you could make up the outbound coal train and still permit a passenger to arrive and run round.  I'm not convinced this is an issue for a home layout with a single operator who will be busy enough with the goods not to worry about other workings.

 

 

I don't intend to operate more than one engine at a time on the layout regardless.

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

With just one coal siding on the south side, you could use the Up main as the shunting neck, as Simon says, but to avoid using the platform line while sorting wagons, and because of the way the crossovers are set up, you'd have to cross into the goods yard.

 

So maybe this is a compression too far? If you retained two coal sidings then you would be able to shunt them entirely on that side of the station.

 

I notice that the usable platform length is very short - maybe 1.5 coach lengths clearance inside the run round loop? How much size is available for the layout?

 

The platform is slightly larger than it looks, point to point the runaround is the length of two points and two coaches not including the closing points. I'm fairly certain you could just squeeze 3 57 foot coaches in if you had perfect uncoupling precision, something I have no plans of doing. The entire layout is 7 by 18 inches, because there is very little space. The main restricting factor is the space in which it can be set up, normally it would be stored somewhere in its full length with the fiddle yard removed. There is no open space more than 10 feet in length available for setting up a layout, due in part to a strange room design and in part to the cluttered state this house is in. This diagram of my room might explain what words cannot for me.

As you can see the actual space for a layout is limited. The room in total is about 11 by 11 feet but the available space is much less. My beds position is dictated by the fact that the 6 foot wall is too small a space for even my minimum width bed to fit.

5 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Looking at your revised plan, I'm wondering what the siding at the bottom is for? 

It's the vestigial remains of the coal siding. I was wondering if I might remove it.

7 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

-snip-

Thank you for the detailed responses. Having thought about if further it does make a lot more sense for a single slip in place of a crossover. Not sure what I was thinking when I determined it wouldn't work. Looking at the map there doesn't seem to be any conflict here. I tried a couple ways of moving the goods entrance around but there just doesn't seem to be room for it in such a small space -which means either that I have to accept the visual compromise in the hopes there isn't any buffer interlocking, or otherwise I have to make the plan substantially larger.

A view of a 1966 map seems to confirm the existence of a single slip, or very poor linework. I should have done a little more research before scratching my head I guess. It also lost the turntable by 1950, which tells me it isn't important enough to retain on such a small plan. Well, considering it isn't really meant to be a replica of Horwich, it's fine to me if it goes anyhow. With the goods entrance pressed up so close to the bridge I think I could fit in the medium points anyway. Initially I didn't think it would look good and I don't like the idea of always having trains going "off-stage" for shunting movements, but if it's prototypical then I can't really worry too hard about it.

I've shown the considered changes here, I do wonder if the coal siding might be getting on a bit in length relative to the rest of the layout. It's beginning to look a little bit stretched thin. It's still an awkward looking move to approach the platform but with single (and occasionally double) coach trains it shouldn't be too bad. With the vestigial turntable siding removed, I think there might be some room for a signal cabin although I'm concerned it could act as too much of a visual obstruction to what will be the main location for shunting movements on the layout.

I'm just going to keep this to a single thread to avoid spamming, I've got several questions regarding mainly the operation of the ex-L&YR branch line terminus Horwich. I'm thinking of building a layout loosely based on a compressed version of it and I want to get a good idea of how you would operate it in a few fine details just to avoid major model railway-isms like, for example having three or more locomotives in steam on a low traffic volume location.

1. this may just be up to modellers preference, but if it isn't, how would the private industrial sidings to the south east of the goods ayrd be shunted to/from? Would it make sense for whatever locomotive was there at the time they were ready to be made up into the goods train to shunt them out, run around them, and drop them off in their place? Or would it make more sense for the goods locomotive itself to perform the shunting duties?

2. as the station is a hair away from the loco and carriage works, I thought some operation involving coaches in need of maintenance might be interesting. If, say, a train found one or more coaches to be unusable for the departing journey, where would they leave them assuming they had no time to take them to the works? Would they use the goods yard, or would they leave them at the station platform, or something like that?

3. even though I cannot see well enough on the map, I have assumed that the goods siding crosses the arriving line and nothing more, no slips of any kind, according to the regular practice. However strange outliers are known to exist so I want to be sure this is correct, I don't see why it wouldn't be.

4. on my own layout, the coal yard has been reduced to a single line. This would make it impossible to shunt without clearing the main line but I feel it would be a shame to just discard it completely. Is it reasonable to have a coal siding that requires using the main platform to shunt?

5. Lastly, I'm wondering just how much of the content of my layout is vestigial and if/how different parts should be edited/removed. I can definitely see how the engine spur is vestigial enough that it should be done away with but it's one of those things that doesn't feel right not to have. I'm concerned about the short points for the platform arrival but it just cannot take medium or longer points without increasing the overall length or decreasing the runaround to unusable length. This is essentially my first real layout aside from some micro dabbling so keep in mind that I might come across as a bit slow.

No more pre-order listing of SL-E92 on hattons? How on earth am I going to make my unrealistically short BLT now?

Here I've shown an industrial junction from Cotehill station along the settle-carlisle route. Obviously the gypsum would have been brought out of this private line down to the mainline, but I have no idea how exactly it would be operated. Does a private loco bring the wagons down to a reserved siding at the station? Is it dropped off in the goods yard? Would mainline locos be allowed on the private line to bring them out and do the shunting themselves? I admit I don't have a lot of knowledge of prototype operations besides the basic mainline services, so I don't know how this would fit in. I want to have a similar arrangement on a somewhat generic BLT that I'm planning and I just don't know enough about this aspect of railway operation. I apologise if this subject has been discussed elsewhere or if it's very simple and entry level knowledge.

Out of curiosity, has anyone bashed the Dapol pug kit with the Dapol/Hornby rtr? I can see it being "useful" if someone wanted the original buffers and exposed crossheads.

I know this is a bit of a cop-out answer, but in any property which had a sizeable yard I'd just build an element-proof shed. Perhaps a trailer on wheels, if we're going with the idea that it can't be a permanent fixture that cannot be repurposed.