davegardnerisme

That’s a really nice idea (finish off scene to suggest a larger private railway). Someone earlier in the thread suggested a Ruston 48DS. https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/ruston-hornsby-ltd-r-h-48ds-0-4-0-no-269595-era-4.html Will have a play with that idea.

So I laid it out. The station seems very long .. especially if I'm running 2 car DMUs into it mostly for passengers. I ended up moving the cross over (LHS below) and double slip (RHS below) nearer to each other, bringing the mainline Y split in a bit. This reduces the run around loop length, but I think I need the extra room to model the bridge. The goal is the bridge fits on the middle board completely. It also pushes the yard points onto the near board, reducing the overall siding length. Ignore the random piece of track on the far left front which won't be there. I included the idea of having one of the yard sidings run right to the end, and into the end of an old stone warehouse. I've ordered the missing pieces so hopefully this weekend will get the track cut and see how it looks then.

Thank you. I agree to keep things varied/interesting having the odd difference makes sense. Eg DMU most of the time, but then the occasional loco hauled passenger train. Perhaps the DMU was out of action on that day?

Ok interesting .. so something like: https://www.oliviastrains.com/trains/mt/Bachmann-diesel/Bachmann-derby-lightweight-dmu/Bachmann-32-515a-derby-lightweight-2-car-dmu-in-br-green-livery-with-half-yellow-ends/ ?

So in terms of stock, I'm thinking it would be reasonable to see passenger coaches a-la: https://www.hattons.co.uk/484413/hornby_r4234b_po_ex_lms_stanier_p3_corridor_first_m1080m_in_br_maroon_pre_owned_like_new/stockdetail.aspx https://www.hattons.co.uk/484413/hornby_r4234b_po_ex_lms_stanier_p3_corridor_first_m1080m_in_br_maroon_pre_owned_like_new/stockdetail.aspx For shunting, I'm thinking a Class 31 seems a reasonable fit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_31 My personal preference here is probably to run stock that makes sense for the layout if possible, but I'm not obsessive about it. My railway knowledge is poor, although I am keen to learn more. Suggestions gratefully accepted!

Adjusted to remove all small radius points, and to swap for the fine scale long crossing (rather than double slip). A beginner question .. what is the difference here? I had been designing in the Pico 100 range, not the fine scale. Is it an interesting detail to have the main line be fine scale? What would this indicate in terms of tying it back to some kind of reality?

Thanks for this ... it's great information to help me tune the layout operations and make it all more "right". I'm pretty much starting out with the railway, so I can, over time, add a few more locos to my collection and will research the options you mention.

I'm not sure either. I think these are the two options. Next I'll probably mock them up again on the boards to see what they look like. The decision might also be based on how much existing track elements can be used (vs having to buy lots more). This will probably have to wait until next weekend.

Nice idea! I want to make sure there's some dilapidation in the layout.

Take 7, I think. I had to lose the diamond crossings to make the angles work. Missing (from original) a place for the diesels to refuel .. would a branchline terminus have that? I'm thinking maybe it makes sense to have a goods shed somewhere? Any other additions needed?

Not yet, no. My knowledge at the beginning of this exercise was close to zero, and now I find myself reading "The Railway Goods Shed and Warehouse in England" to try to understand more about railways and their use! https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/railway-goods-shed-and-warehouse-in-england/the-railway-goods-shed-and-warehouse/

Thanks for taking the time to put this together. It's certainly making me think. My immediate observation is that it's much less compressed, which probably matches reality more closely, but pushes everything quite a way to the right and onto the third board. My original idea was to have this just the mainline winding its way through this board to give some sense of arriving from somewhere, and to give space to change the terrain height (so the scene could disappear into a tunnel). No particular need to keep that though.

I am going to see if I can squeeze in that height difference between the bridges. And a great idea to have the bridges very different in style / restrictions!

Nice ideas .. will definitely help lose the river. Ok so with minor tweaks we end up with longer sidings all round:

Ok .. I’ll try same but with the extra bridge and longer coal siding. Thanks!

Ok .. I’ll try same but with the extra bridge and longer coal siding. Thanks!

Thank you everyone for suggestions and feedback. On the less is more theme, and incorporating ideas from multiple posts, here's another version. Try to make sidings longer and simplify (fewer sidings) Make the station a bit longer, and get rid of the second track Move the disused cattle dock over to the second line (which will double up as a head shunt for accessing mill) One thing to note: I'm trying to avoid points/crossings on the joins. I will need to be able to dismantle the thing for storage. The 1m boards are so I can work on one at at a time for some of the scenery. This means that whilst I managed to squeeze an inch by moving everything to the right a bit, I can't really move it any more unless I move it a lot. I will have a think about the station position, but I think the viewing will probably be OK because the platform is mostly just a flat low structure. And I quite like the flowing S of the main line all the way from tunnel towards the back of the layout, and then through to the station at the front. I think the mill + warehouses make more sense in one place. I'm imagining they're all part of the same complex, and looking at aerial photos they are huge in real life. So having the mill over the other side of the river (even though I loved the two bridge idea) I'm thinking makes less sense.

I ended up with a new thread in the layout advice area of the forum. Thanks for the pointers .. it led to lots more research!

The base board frames don't have the ply on yet. My plan is to build another frame and raise the whole thing ~10cm or so to give me room for the river to be landscaped below the track level. On the right hand board the ground level will continually rise from the river. The railway will be embanked initially (near river), moving into level ground, and finally into a tunnel. For bridge I have the WILLS SS49 OO SCALE DECKED GIRDER BRIDGE. I tried out your suggestion to move the mill. I agree that the double bridge could be interesting, and maybe it would make more sense to have the mainline go over something more substantial than the girder bridge, perhaps the WILLS SS82 OO SCALE RIVER/CANAL BRIDGE. This is the updated plan, which results in a head shunt length of just over 70cm (27.5 inches). This removes the double slip. It also adds in a coal siding. The diamond crossing is just because I want one more than anything!

Agreed - I'm going to stick with it. Some more research suggests that mills moved to electric looms after the Second World War https://kwvr.co.uk/explore/the-local-area/ So I can either leave out the coal siding, or I could have it disused/in disrepair. I also found some fascinating aerial pictures of northern mills which show how large they are: Rural mill, 1947, still burning coal https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EAW005624 Great shot that gives some ideas for scenic elements https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EAW009178 One next to a railway https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW024335 I have spent far too many hours on Britain from Above now!

Location is Yorkshire Dales. Green hills, dry stone walls, hill farming. The mill is a woollen mill. I’m imagining it will need deliveries of wool bales, and then will send out woven material by rail. Good question about coal. I think I need to do a bit more research about eras. The mill would have needed coal at one point in its life. Whether it would have been coal powered in 60s I’m less sure. Perhaps I need to step back in time a bit to make it more coherent.

These all sound excellent suggestions. Thanks Nearholmer.

I realised this right at the end, and added the double slip and the second siding. My thinking was this could be the head shunt for accessing the mill. I have a class 08 for shunting, so the thinking was that the 47 would be pulling the trains in, and then the 08 would be putting the wagons where they need to go for industry.

I'm imagining a scene that has evolved over some time - with the mill really approaching the end of its useful life at this point (I'm probably stretching this). I was considering trying to include a shadow-model of older workings; perhaps a hint at where steam-era fixtures would have been placed. Thanks for the comments - they resonate with me.

The 47 is early sixties .. so I think I’m heading for that.