A Garage-sized Layout

[Lacathedrale]

I have a 1' x 5' N gauge terminus layout in the making, but I'm finding it very difficult indeed to foster the motivation for it. Certainly, that meagre footprint is the only space available to me in my house. However, with the forthcoming sale of my old car, I'm soon to have a fair bit of space available to me. No doubt this will need to co-habit with other things rather than being a dedicated space: but it does have the benefit of being not far shy of 14'6 x 8'6" and so I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect an 18" to 2' shelf around the perimeter for a railway to sit on at some point in the future.

 

This space isn't big enough for one of those ballroom O-gauge systems a-la Paddington to Seagood - but assuming a desire for prototypical operational interest and track design (forgoing large scenic development and scale lengths) - is it possible to get something worthwhile in that space in 00? (I say 00 specifically, rather than EM/P4/N/2mm, to emphasise the nature of the beast as an operational railway rather than a showcase of expensive museum pieces or or time consuming models).

 

A 4-6-0 with four coaches  - which I am considering my desired 'large' train length - is just shy of five feet. Combined with the use of 00 and the smaller curve radii (of which we will be inside, too) and despite eschewing up and under, helixes and storage yards, - it would appear there is however still a good deal of usable railway to be found, and a first broad attempt at this space is shown below. All place names are purely for demarcation. It is based on the southern section of the Brighton Mainline; in the Sussex weald:

 

 

 

The left side is the entrance to the garage with a fold over over - non-scenicked and a non-prototypical loop to permit continuous run. The northern boundary represents London, the southern boundary represents Brighton.

 

At the top of the plan is a passing terminus dubbed "Three Bridges" : trains can arrive from either direction and, be split and re-formed, have head and tail traffic added or removed. There is a small goods yard for market traffic: cattle mainly. The inner-left spur could potentially lead to a branch line siding on the 'entry board' to permit more meaningful stock shunting at the station.

 

On the right wall is Copyhold Jct - a double track flat junction leading straight south to Brighton, or alternatively inboard towards a nominal terminus.

 

Wickham Heath is a fairly standard double track terminus station, modelled loosely on Maybank and set roughly at the disconnected south end of the Bluebell railway, where the route from East Grinstead rejoined the BML. It has either three four platform faces, and room for a goods yard. Within station limits it has a pilot siding, a turntable, water and coaling facilities and a carriage siding

 

Without discrete staging, trains are stored and formed on-layout; as such there is ready access to 'play', particularly with a double-track continuous run.

 

Though the nature of the plan is very much a sketch than a detailed drawing, it would appear with some planning, an operating pattern consisting of overlapping train movements, ECS shunts, etc. could happily take place. The one way nature of Copyhold Jct would appear to be an obstacle for operation, as any southbound trains can only enter WH, and upon exit from WH trains can only proceed northbound- but the addition of the passing terminus at Three Bridges means these movements are not only possible, but add operational interest - WH to Brighton would need to run around and reverse out of Three bridges.

 

I would imagine the construction in stages - the double track loop, Three Bridges, the Junction, and WH. I would imagine there to be two operators to run trains in parallel, or being run in sequence solo. Turnout operation would be via mechanical lever frames. The layout really would support quite a few signal boxes: A Southern box, Copyhold Jct, Wickham Heath, Three Bridges and a Northern Box - but I think that may well be just abit too much admin for one operator lol.

 

I'd be interested in thoughts of plans of this style and size, for sure - please let me know.

 

[DCB]

I find assembling and dismantling trains more interesting than simply running them.  Running usually happens when I'm working on something else.  Operating is getting a loco onto empty stock creating a train and setting it in motion. Or terminating it and getting the stock off and sending the loco away for servicing.

The modern DCC protocol is one side scenic one side non scenic storage. You can get 11 storage roads into 2ft width.  Otherwise some form of dead end sidings or return loop to mirror the terminus station would help operation.   I operate from terminus to dead end sidings, engine 1 takes the train down, engine 2 brings it back while 1 turns, engine 3 takes it down while 2 turns, engine 1 brings it back while 3 turns etc.  In addition a pilot moves the train from arrival to departure platform.  

4 coaches with a 4-6-0 is a bit lame.  My 78" X 54"  6 and a bit X 4 and a bit takes a Pacific and 5 Mk1s , 6 at a pinch.   A lot of people say 5 looks right, the GWR ran quite a few 5 coach formations in the 1930s, I reckon 7 looks right, 4 doesn't, except suburbans,  3 is good if you like the MSWJR or Carmarthen - Aberystwyth with a Manor and 3 coaches, or the Penrith portion of the Lakes Express with a Duchess and 3 coaches.

With that size I would go for either two level with ramps or with a train lift.  I am planning a lift myself after realising am aluminium ladder up to 10 feet long, on its edge, can provide a nice stiff deck for a train lift, thing is I need an 8ft lift. But there is plenty of space here for an 8ft train lift, or a 6ft train lift ...

 

Best suggestion, Ask  #Harlequin

 

[AndyB]

In relation to the space available, I'd recommend you take a few inches off for damp proofing, insulation and dry lining the walls.

 

When I first de-camped to the garage it was definitely a Spring & Sumner hobby as I'd not insulated the space.

 

I lost one railway to mould.

 

At that point I put in a false floor and wall insulation and started again with new layouts. The space is smaller but I can use the space year round.

 

Don't underestimate how much clutter a garage will accumulate. Other people in the household may well want to store all sorts of unwieldy stuff, too.

 

My current layout is on 3 sides of the garage. The central area is becoming a dumping ground for various household detritus and a bike. 

 

I'm seriously considering scaling back my layout to fit down one side, say 12' x 2'3", and make the whole thing tidier and more enjoyable. 

 

James T Kirk may have believed that Space was the final frontier, but Aristotle could have told him that boxed up Christmas trees, kids bikes, tool chests, a freezer and a lockdown desk, computers and monitors sure do fill up a vacuum far quicker than a model railway!

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by AndyB

[RobinofLoxley]

This looks like a reasonable plan to me. However the arrangements in Three Bridges dont look quite right as drawn.

 

Its inevitable that roundy layouts will have much tighter curves than the mythical ideal layout. Even if the width was twice that available, third radius curved would still be in use, nothing to worry about.

[H2O]

If the garage is going to be used for other stuff, like 'life', I'd suggest putting the layout at chest height. This will allow bikes, lawnmowers, filing cabinets, a work bench or model bench etc. to fit in.  However don't be too accommodating or the room will soon fill up!

I agree that time and money spent now on insulating and damp proofing will be repaid many, many times over.

[Lacathedrale]

I would like this to be a fairly generic thread rather than my specific situation, but I have garage that is adjoining my kitchen with a pair of bedrooms above and a utility room behind. One would hope my internal kitchen wall wouldnt' need insulating from the garage-side though clearly, polystyrene/celotex and a draft excluder on the door end will make a huge difference!

 

I am also lucky enough to have a shed for garden tools, patio furniture, etc. and a utility room for small household consumables - but it most definitely would need to be up on cupboards for paint, tiles, bags of cement, etc. to have somewhere to go. I'm not thinking too high up - as I've got a little'un on the way and it would be nice to share the hobby even for the brief period where whatever age or long term interest, kids like things whizzing around.

 

It will definitely need to host at least two bikes, so I guess at least with clearance for those!

 

@DCB a return loop teardrop would take up quite a bit of space, where would you envisage it? I'm not interested in DCC or automated running and I'm taking a critical eye as to whether staging is required at all for a home layout. Why not send you train to another station and have it made up and broken down there instead of sent off to elsewhere?

 

I guess maybe that's a conceit of the ballroom layout, though...

[DCB]

The individual station plans work but not the Layout.

You need to do a run through with your finger on the plan.   Train leaves Wickham heath and runs round the inner main line until you get bored of watching it. . You take the engine off the track and put it on the other end of the train and run it the wrong road to Three Bridges where you regain the correct road and then you can run it round till you get bored while sending a second train from Wickham Heath round the inner main line. The train on the outer can then be sent to Wickham Heath and remarshalled.  I expect the loops at Three Bridges are for goods but if not you could run 2 trains from Wickham Heath  using the inner loop before reversing one or two across to the outer loops.

Basically in 00 with rubbish tension lock couplings you will end up with a lot of damaged 21st century RTR, the N couplings you are used to disengage vertically, 00 need a twist so only the end vehicle can be extracted without uncoupling first.  I use Peco couplings to avoid this hassle. 

I designed father in Laws layout for 4 platforms and two goods roads to feed 6 dead end reversing sidings, plus a continuous run which has worked for years, except when too many trains are on the layout.   

As a minimum I would replace the single crossover at Three Bridges with a pair of crossovers to allow a loco to run round its train there.  But I suggest a more radical rethink

[RobinofLoxley]

@DCB thats an improvement but the stated train length of 4 + loco still doesnt appear to fit through three bridges without fouling points at one or both ends and thereby preventing the switching movements required to get trains in and out of the terminus. I think a slip can be employed at the right hand end but not at the left; plus the platform space hasnt been included and this will compromise the station operations as well. Not quite a complete redesign, the problems we can see exist in all loop plus terminus plans I have seen.

 

@lacathedrale - your only open scenic section is the garage entrance side, which is short enough that the specification train length will not be straight at any point. Are you Ok with this? Its really tricky if the naswer is no but Im just checking......

[Chimer]

Top-of-head thoughts really .....

 

The two trailing crossovers DCB has shown in red are absolutely essential to operation as you envisage it, enabling TB to function as a  "passing terminus" and get trains back to WH.  They could both use double slips to save a bit of space accessing the loops.  You'll find you lose a lot of space putting in platforms if they're to be a reasonable width.  I'm assuming you're thinking 4 platform faces at TB?

 

The sidings top left trail off the outer circuit loop so are OK for a mini goods yard, though I'd try to fit in a third siding to increase shunting puzzle interest.  I think freight ops would need to be limited to a trip freight doing occasional runs round the outer circuit, so you would need somewhere to lose it the rest of the time.  Maybe a lie-by siding trailing off the main along the bottom edge?  Can't see any way of fitting in freight ops at WH.

 

I think I might trail the MPD off the inner circuit loop at TB and run locos light engine to/from WH when necessary, rather than have WH MPD sitting on TB's station boundary.  A you have it, there's a nasty (albeit very short) bit of wrong-line running required to get to WH station from the MPD.  And I think 2 platform faces at WH would be plenty, though a couple of carriage sidings there would help keep a variety of stock in play.

[Lacathedrale]

I'm happy with radical re-thinks to the plan - I think a through station on one long side, a terminus staton on the other and a plain lift-out section on the left side and a double junction on the right is roughly the schematic I was going for. Those corners are going to look awful at any radius I can fit into this space, realistically - particularly if I'm using RTP track from Peco/etc. - so I may as well go with a 2' radius and give myself as much clear space as possible.

 

@DCB the reason for the middle crossover is to reduce the size of the signalbox area for that station - but I see your point about it being unable to facilitate runaround moves.

 

@RobinofLoxley I'm not considering the entrance side a scenic section - in particular this is a very compressed 'diagram'-type layout which is mostly to faciliate train operation than scenic excellence.

 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

I had a quick doodle at the Three Bridges section. It shows an approx ten feet long secton with slips at each end. The problem I saw with the slip at the left hand end, that is would force trains to make a reverse curve across the slip, is avoided. The access to the sidings doesn't look as neat as the original, however the original didnt cater for platforms. As drawn three platforms can hold a 1.5M train but the top line with the sidings can hold only 1.2M while leaving the point uncovered, although in a way it doesnt matter as no movement from the sidings is possible with anything much more than a loose engine standing in the platform.

 

As for Wickham Heath, while you can avoid the wrong line running by relocating the access point a lot of operating flexibility goes with it. @Chimer, do you think the wrong way running is a problem if the turntable access and sidings is considered part of the station? Personally I wonder if a a 4-road station is needed unless its seen as a way of storing stock on the layout - something I can identify with!!

[Lacathedrale]

Interesting Robin, I'll work that in the XtrkCAD plan when I have a moment. In the meantime, I've finished reading this fantastic book:

 

 

It has a layout which really impacted my approach to 'functional' layout design. The apogee of Mr. Thomas'  layout plan is as below, approimately 25' x 20' in clockwork 0 gauge:

 

 

Clearly (unless in Z) this is far beyond the scope of what I could hope for, but follows broadly the following tenets which I hope could be applied.

• Designed to represent the portion of a real railway system
• Fills the available space
• Makes no bones about being unscenicked - not even ballast!
• Authentic track design, without copying anything fastidiously
• Supporting continuous running, but not designed around it
• Track can be shared between layout design elements (i.e. the Goods Shunting Line at the top of the plan is used by both through stations on the loop)
• Stations have crossovers and coach sidings, and termini platforms relatively easy access to a turntable, coal, water.
• Goods yards if present have arrivals lines and runarounds
• Anciliary track formations such as the above can spread in the space between LDEs

I don't believe the track plan is purely to-scale, but he makes note that the through station platforms are 6', and the termini 7' - in 0 gauge! Admittedly on a standard-diet of Exley "shortie" coaches and Bassett-Lowke "interprative" locomotives. Maybe I should consider the use of shorter bogie coaches and smaller locomotives to achieve my goals too: four clerestory coaches and a Midland Compound is only 3'3" instead of the 4'2" required for four Mk1's and a 4-6-0.

 

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

One thing I feel I should also note, is that the ceiling for the garage is inordinately high - around 10'6" - so fold up sections (a peninsular?!) may be potentially workable.

[Chimer]

On 13/04/2022 at 15:40, RobinofLoxley said:

IAs for Wickham Heath, while you can avoid the wrong line running by relocating the access point a lot of operating flexibility goes with it. @Chimer, do you think the wrong way running is a problem if the turntable access and sidings is considered part of the station?

 

It just feels wrong to me.   If the the point accessing the MPD was a curved left immediately to the right of the WH throat, instead of 45 degrees further round the bend towards Copyhold Jct, the problem (real or imaginary) goes away.  But I think the MPD at TB and carriage sidings at WH would be a better looking option.  Plan to follow .....

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Maybe I should consider the use of shorter bogie coaches and smaller locomotives to achieve my goals too: four clerestory coaches and a Midland Compound is only 3'3" instead of the 4'2" required for four Mk1's and a 4-6-0.

 

If you want to stick to the Southern theme, designing round 4-4-0s and shorter carriages is possible rtr (along with 2 and 4 car EMUs if that's your thing).

 

[RobinofLoxley]

5 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Interesting Robin, I'll work that in the XtrkCAD plan when I have a moment. In the meantime, I've finished reading this fantastic book:

 

 

 

It has a layout which really impacted my approach to 'functional' layout design. The apogee of Mr. Thomas'  layout plan is as below, approimately 25' x 20' in clockwork 0 gauge:

 

 

 

Clearly (unless in Z) this is far beyond the scope of what I could hope for, but follows broadly the following tenets which I hope could be applied.

• Designed to represent the portion of a real railway system
• Fills the available space
• Makes no bones about being unscenicked - not even ballast!
• Authentic track design, without copying anything fastidiously
• Supporting continuous running, but not designed around it
• Track can be shared between layout design elements (i.e. the Goods Shunting Line at the top of the plan is used by both through stations on the loop)
• Stations have crossovers and coach sidings, and termini platforms relatively easy access to a turntable, coal, water.
• Goods yards if present have arrivals lines and runarounds
• Anciliary track formations such as the above can spread in the space between LDEs

I don't believe the track plan is purely to-scale, but he makes note that the through station platforms are 6', and the termini 7' - in 0 gauge! Admittedly on a standard-diet of Exley "shortie" coaches and Bassett-Lowke "interprative" locomotives. Maybe I should consider the use of shorter bogie coaches and smaller locomotives to achieve my goals too: four clerestory coaches and a Midland Compound is only 3'3" instead of the 4'2" required for four Mk1's and a 4-6-0.

 

Difficult to believe that can be achieved. I recall from my childhood having a clockwork railway that the curves were relatively tight but the points not. Anyway, without flexitrack how can you have five tracks of corresponding radius?

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

He commissioned much of it from Bassett Lowke apparently, and there are photographs to prove it! Anyway, here's a rough interpretation of the through station taking your point to heart about multiple platforms and platform width...

 

Here we have P1 as an up through platform, P2 (and the adjacent middle track of the trio) as bidirectional and P3 as a down through platform.

 

I'm not wholly happy with the relatively simple goods setup and would prefer another siding - but it is effective. Down goods trains can cross P2 into the middle road, runaround via P2 and then shunt as required. Up goods can simply pull straight into the middle road and shunt as required there. 

 

I guess potentially we could omit P1 entirely, but I like the idea of up and down dedicated platforms and the interest of the diamond in the formation and it looks a good deal less stately!

 

I guess one could place the carriage siding/s on the inner-right and an MPD top-left? I'm quite taken with the design - quite apart from the terminus that was the original focus of this exercise, I think it's quite fetching indeed!

Edited April 14, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Lacathedrale]

 

The initial layout was purely speculative, but taking onboard your advice, I have taken to:

• Placing the carriage sidings behind the station, rather than in the foreground
• To include the turntable, coal, water and engine shed in the triangle created by the station approach lines and the main lines in the background.
• Adding some goods facilities to complement the through station and placing them in the foreground for some delicious shunting action.

More generally:

• The goods yard could easily extend around the corner towards the double-junction, but the runaround length is hewed in by the arrival line's sequence of turnouts.
• I've included a goods runaround so goods trains can be run independently of passenger operations completely, but included a loco pocket for a pilot to release main line trains.
• The inclusion of a loco servicing facility I think is instrumental in the play value of a terminus, as are the carriage sidings for our puffed out station pilot to fiddle with.

I'm quite pleased with this too, more particularly since I can build quite standard benchwork of 2' x 4' (or thereabouts) and without heavy scenic treatment can both get trains running quickly, and I can tweak and adjust as I go along.

 

Any thoughts?

[RobinofLoxley]

Curved points are really handy things. The over-curved setrack ones are a disaster but the importance of the streamline ones cannot be overstated! 

 

As you have drawn it, what are you planning operationally for the small goods trains - will there be somewhere they can 'go' on the other half of the layout? (You posted while I was typing, thereby answering the question).

 

Also, compared to the doodle, having a 3 road station at TB reduces the possibility for trains to pass each other.

 

There can be a lot going on, on this layout! The terminus can 'feed' more trains towards TB than TB can actually handle.

 

I also noted that having the goods operations on opposite sides of the tracks means that trains have to cross the passenger tracks for access. Now that seems OK at the terminus where the trains arrive via a single crossover, but at TB they have to land on P1 or the centre road depending which version you pick, and then shunt into the yard, not so good.

 

So Wickham Heath looks really good to me, really good proportions,  Three Bridges not so much.

[Lacathedrale]

Thank you! I can't take credit, it's my version of a double-track Seagood from aforementioned book with a bit of tweaking - as much as I'd like to say it sprang fully formed from the top of my head.

 

With regard to TB I'm interested primarily in the top plan with the centre road. There will obviously be blocking of P1 during a shunt move into the yard, but I wasn't expecting there to be shunting ACROSS P1 into the centre road except via arrival and departure. Hmmmm....

Edited April 14, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[RobinofLoxley]

In case you wondered what Im spending all my time doing, I happen to be suffering a bit (!) post covid so sitting at a desk is all I'm good for in the evenings, when I should be upstairs laying track!

 

I cant see any way to untangle TB goods access except by having the arrival line cross before the station. The result doesnt feel that good to me but here it is anyway.

 

I found a small improvement while staring into space, so the post has now been edited a couple of times, including a loco headshunt at the right hand side to pick up stock that is going out the way it came in to P3/4

 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by RobinofLoxley

[Chimer]

OK, a bit late in the day but here's my take on this one

Given up is clockwise, north is up, and TB platforms numbered from the top down ....

 

Freight - trip freight lives in up lie-by siding (southeast corner), when let out shunts TB goods yard from P1.  Down freight lives in down lie-by but when let out just does a couple of laps for variety, no shunting.

 

Passenger - basic routine is train departs WH, few circuits on down, terminates TB P3.  Either train loco runs round, or new loco comes off shed and attaches to rear.  Either way departs as up train via east crossover, few circuits then returns to WH.  whereupon either train loco runs round for next departure, or new loco (running light engine from TB shed, or hanging round WH after earlier arrival) either attaches for departure or shunts stock to carriage sidings.

 

Also possible for up train to terminate at TB P2, run round or change engines, and depart as down train via west crossover.  And there could be empty coaching stock movements between TB and WH carriage sidings.

 

I think trains of 5 Mk 1 coaches would fit everywhere necessary, though shunting the carriage sidings without fouling the main at CJ might be a bit tricky.

 

I haven't attempted to do a "proper" MPD with all the necessary facilities, what's there is just to show where I think it should go.

 

And I'm envisaging a creative high-level road layout helping to lose sight of the main line as it passes south and west of WH in the bottom left corner.

 

Whatever, that was fun to do.  And may give you some different ideas.  Good luck with whatever you settle on!

 

Cheers, Chris

 

[RobinofLoxley]

On 14/04/2022 at 19:11, Lacathedrale said:

 

The initial layout was purely speculative, but taking onboard your advice, I have taken to:

• Placing the carriage sidings behind the station, rather than in the foreground
• To include the turntable, coal, water and engine shed in the triangle created by the station approach lines and the main lines in the background.
• Adding some goods facilities to complement the through station and placing them in the foreground for some delicious shunting action.

More generally:

• The goods yard could easily extend around the corner towards the double-junction, but the runaround length is hewed in by the arrival line's sequence of turnouts.
• I've included a goods runaround so goods trains can be run independently of passenger operations completely, but included a loco pocket for a pilot to release main line trains.
• The inclusion of a loco servicing facility I think is instrumental in the play value of a terminus, as are the carriage sidings for our puffed out station pilot to fiddle with.

I'm quite pleased with this too, more particularly since I can build quite standard benchwork of 2' x 4' (or thereabouts) and without heavy scenic treatment can both get trains running quickly, and I can tweak and adjust as I go along.

 

Any thoughts?

One thing I just noticed, Im sure you are aware, arriving trains at WH for P1 have a reverse curve through the double slip. Cant be avoided.

[Lacathedrale]

Wondering how this would be able to be compressed with hand laid track, or maybe even in 3mm/ft…

[Keith Addenbrooke]

If I may add a comment as someone who’d be well qualified to contribute a Chapter or several to a book on “How to not build a model railway,” I do wonder if a response to the first sentence of the opening post (Re: motivation) would be to start with something very simple and quick to get up and running first - a design to be built in stages would be my suggestion for a project likely to see progress and perhaps last longer?  Just a thought. 

 

A bit of an aside, I also noted the passing reference to Z Gauge in the April 14th post (just below the track plan example).  It’s not very common, so I made sure to take a photo when I saw some recently - the locomotive at the top of the picture is European N Gauge (1:160):

 

 

I was impressed with the running qualities of the Z Gauge and the couplings seem better than the standard Arnold N Gauge, but with points at £30 a go and dust a bit of a monster problem at this size, I’m not sure I’d recommend it for a complex garage layout.  The loco is so small the exhibitor I was talking to had actually managed to lose it - until he remembered he’d left it in the glove box of his car…!  Apologies for the thread drift, but I was rather fascinated, Keith.