A Garage-sized Layout

[DCB]

On 14/04/2022 at 11:22, Lacathedrale said:

 

 

 

That is a very well balanced layout, Clockwork made shunting challenging so goods sidings are a bit on the scarce side, but you can run round the continuous run, more than once even, if you can afford a Bassett Lowke Steam Mogul,    The two terminal stations have similar capacities so you can shuttle trains backwards and forwards, it's a modern image layout made by copying what the manufacturer could see by visiting their local stations instead of  relying on photographs and reminiscences.   Terminus to Terminus or Terminus to Fiddle yard running works well where the capacity at both ends is similar, Terminus to through station while probably the most common services on the GWR for instance has a different dynamic, and quite often that through station has its own Fiddle yard, Carriage sidings.

[Harlequin]

@Lacathedrale, I see constant tension between your desire to get something running quickly and your apparent dislike of the OO gauge compromise. (3mm scale does not meet the "quick" requirement!)

You could fit an EM layout into the garage space that would allow you to get something running relatively quickly. Obviously 4mm scale is hugely supported and would provide all the bits to create something without any holdups. RTL EM track parts are becoming more readily available and I'm sure you'd relish converting RTR OO vehicles to EM.

 

The track plan would have to be largely curving throughout and make use of the spaces outside those curves for a large proportion of the station infrastructure. (The double junction would probably have to go...)

 

If that doesn't work, and you still can't fit something that satisfies you in the garage, then how about a purpose-built shed in the garden? Then there would be no more struggles with trying to fit layouts into existing awkward rooms!

 

Edited April 22, 2022 by Harlequin

[RobinofLoxley]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

@Lacathedrale, I see constant tension between your desire to get something running quickly and your apparent dislike of the OO gauge compromise. (3mm scale does not fit the "quick" requirement!)

You could fit an EM layout into the garage space that would allow you to get something running relatively quickly. Obviously 4mm scale is hugely supported and would provide all the bits to create something without any holdups. RTL EM track parts are becoming more readily available and I'm sure you'd relish converting RTR OO vehicles to EM.

 

The track plan would have to be largely curving throughout and make use of the spaces outside those curves for a large proportion of the station infrastructure. (The double junction would probably have to go...)

 

If that doesn't work, and you still can't fit something that satisfies you in the garage, then how about a purpose-built shed in the garden? Then there would be no more struggles with trying to fit layouts into existing awkward rooms!

 

I often thought about doing this. Then I realised my garden wasnt big enough....

[Lacathedrale]

Phil/Harlequin, we both enjoy plans too much to put them aside, I think! No chance of a dedicated unit - it's 5' x 1' on my cupboard in my office, 11' x 7' in what is currently my model engineering workshop - or 14' x 9' atop garage general-storage.

 

re: desire for getting something running - I have been on holiday for the last week or so in North Wales and spent a good time pondering, as well as reading David Jenkinson's "Historical Railway Modelling" .

 

Ultimately I think I am willing to compromise on my need to get things running quickly, in order to satisfy that other desire (fidelity) and gain that enjoyment of items thus created. As I'm sure you're aware from our fellowship that I have tinkered with every scale (bar Z) under the sun, and so I took the Jenkinsonian precepts of determining your scale/gauge irrelevant requirements upfront and working backwards. 

 

For me, at this point roughly lay out like follows (in no particular order):

1. I want to operate a (portion of a) railway realistically,rather than a single aspect thereof.
2. As near-as-damnit track layout and fidelity
3. Working Signals - trending towards interlocking and block working eventually
4. Should include a Double track terminus
5. Should include a Double track through-station
6. Set in the late pre-group to early grouping era.
7. No larger than 14'  x 8' , portable but not exhibitable by design (OK if by accident/tweak)
8. Can be built in stages

Point 1, 4, and 5 drove my original post talking specifically of coarse scale 00 in order to leverage RTR while being able to fit into the space. The secondary benefit of getting things running I think in reality is less important than I gave it credence: I have realised that my proudest model railway objects are those which I have made with my own hands - the S-scale and P4 wagons, and the hand laid track. The RTR availability of 1980's N gauge did not magically enthuse me to build the N gauge layout on which they will run.

 

Point 2 pushes me towards finescale of some flavour - S7, S, P4, S3, 2mmFS. I found EM to be something of a cul-de-sac: neither as accesible as 00 nor as high fidelity as P4/S4. I know thoughts vary, but having tried both this is my (current!) opinion. I am of course constrained by point 7 - which rules out S7, S and P4.

 

So, based on 1, 4, and 5 we are looking essentially at 2mmFS, 3mm or coarse 00. 

 

On the face of it, the availability of kits and RTR in N/2mm would push that to the forefront - but my struggles with 2mmFS have been already well elaborated but to suffice: the problem is all me and nothing to do with the stellar association and support network. I simply find it too much hard work to deal with such small components at the moment.

 

It would then appear to come down to 3mm or 00 - one allows me to buy a GWR King or a LBSCR Terrier and plonk it on the layout and get trains running, but has the compromise of track. The other lacks ability to get something RTR, but fulfills all other criteria.

 

I think it is worth considering.

Edited April 22, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Lacathedrale]

I quickly whipped this up in Templot in 3mm - the same layout albeit with C9 (all passenger roads) and B7 (goods roads). In laying out the turnouts I realise that the plan isn't perfect, particularly the slewed nature of the throat pushes the goods roads far further back than they need to be - but the principle of 3mm hand laid I think might work?

 

[DCB]

Its a major step sideways.  Still 2 litres into a pint pot ,the double track main line beside the terminus looks plain wrong, there were plenty of goods lines and dock lines beside termini but not main lines I would hide it behind a backscene. 

A head shunt or spur off the station approach on the inner line would make sidelong crashes less likely when shunting..  (See My doodle a) 

But until I see any way to send the trains back to the terminus after they have left except reversing in, or reversing out to go the other way.   I did a doodle with the diameter  of return loops added small ones 2nd radius larger 2ft rad.

Third doodle what I would do, probably, 2nd radius (or 3rd) return loop,  down grade to a return loop, up ramp about half the grade of the down ramp.   2 trains 3 maybe could stack down and up the grades and round the loop.  1 in 60 up should be achievable.  It isn't going to work as a portable layout.    Not unless you have the skill set of Crewlisle that is.

 

 

[Harlequin]

I'm worried that 3mm scale will just lead to another dead-end. It will take a lot of work and there will be a long wait before the layout can be operated as part of a railway system. Is the fire there to drive it through to completion?

 

Remember what Churchill said: “Perfection is the enemy of progress”. 

 

Why do you need both a terminus and a through station?

 

A through station can be operated to some degree like a terminus. That is to say:

• A goods yard is terminal and vehicles have to be placed, shuffled and extracted from one end only - so terminus-like operations.
• Passenger services can terminate at a through station and then have to be shunted from "arrival" to "departure" side.
• Some terminating passenger services may even justify their own bay platforms.

(Junctions to lines where terminal services might come from and go to don't have to be in the station or even in the layout - just in your imagination.)

 

Operating a single station in this combined way would help to compress the plan into the space and should still offer plenty of operational scope.

 

But, then there's the need for traffic to go somewhere else and a fiddle yard seems to be a better answer than another station - for all the familiar reasons: stock storage, stock exchange and turning via the "hand of god", headshunt. None of that prevents the station being operated realistically as a portion of a bigger system - in fact it helps!

 

 

Edited April 23, 2022 by Harlequin

[Lacathedrale]

Phil, didn't see your reply before writing the below - just heading out to walk the dogs and will review and reply shortly.

 

WARNING: somewhat rambling thoughts from here:

 

There was no tweaking in the layout plan, so definitely a sideways step in terms of layout (it definitely needs work and filling out) - but it rather pointedly shows how the same space and plan is essentially equivallent in coarse 4mm or fine 3mm, the latter having a benefit of higher siding and loop capacity.

 

For this sketch the running lines at the rear were always going to be hidden - but Templot doesn't easily provide the functionality to easily show that, as far as I know.

 

A dedicated headshunt is probably not a bad shout, but the WH signalbox will control the anticlockwise block from the station up to the junction and there's more than enough room for my maximum train length there.

 

I'm not sure I want to exhibit - my only finished layout was too small to exhibit, and then we had lockdown - but it would be nice. In keeping with one of the previous tenets, the OPTION to exhibit would be nice - maybe the terminus can fit directly into a FY or something, maybe even as a first stage of constructin (another tenet).

 

In the gap, I would imagine (although obviously, to be validated in due course) a passing terminus - three platform faces, a coach siding, etc. that we have nominally called "TB" to this point.

 

I do hear your point about the need for trains to return back to WH, even if those hidden mainlines had storage sidings adjacent queued up with clockwise trains, once that's exhausted then everything would need to be manually re-staged.

 

I see two options for this:

 

One, to include a garden variety fiddle yard - this would support the desire to exhibit

Were TB expanded to a larger facility, maybe in the opposite corner - with an MPD and carriage sidings - then it could essentially act as both a scenic part of the layout and the fiddle yard. Maybe with the addition of a couple of passing loops on the hidden mainlines?

 

I guess I need to elaorate a bit on how they might work - the latter still would have a relatively high proportion of clockwise trains terminating to become anticlockwise into the terminus.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[t-b-g]

Various other schemes have been presented, discussed, reached the stage of being ready to proceed and then abandoned, often because they needed a lot of work and would take too long to reach completion.

 

This one, if you go down the 3mm route, has a danger of being the same.

 

The size you have is more than adequate for a decent 4mm layout (almost Buckingham or Borchester sized and they have no lack of operational interest). I would put one of the many Minories inspired plans down one side and make a U shape with a fiddle yard on the other wall. Done with Peco Code 75 Bullhead points it could be up and running very quickly. 

 

You do seem to have a great desire to find a perfect layout plan. I did the same for many years. Trying to find it can be an absorbing way to follow the hobby but I eventually realised that I was spending lots of good modelling time trying to find something that doesn't exist. A plan only needs to be good enough. 

 

[Lacathedrale]

Hi @t-b-g Tony,

 

Your sage advise is always welcome. Your point (and that of @Harlequin re: work and time is well made. The desire to get things running is competing directly with the lived experience that I only seem to value the things I have built from scratch or kits myself. I understand that part is a judgement call only I can make.  I feel the need to defend my suggestion of 3mm  - I've not decided on it by a long shot; but rather investigating the option and finding that a coarse 4mm and a finescale 3mm layout occupy essentially the same space.

 

Maybe, whatever the scale or gauge, once decided the solution is to build the WH terminus (in whatever form - a Minories or Buckingham variant from the voluminous library of plans I've made lol). If it were made with overall length and some small curvature on the entry roads such that it COULD be arranged on the inside of a continuous run in future then I'm not boxing myself into a corner, but could start off with a normal fiddle-yard to get running sooner.

 

Re: your comment of adding Minories and a FY, I did  experiment with this (no doubt in a previous thread of similar provenance) and came up with something like the following for a SECR pre-group layout:

 

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

4 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Hi @t-b-g Tony,

 

Your sage advise is always welcome. Your point (and that of @Harlequin re: work and time is well made. The desire to get things running is competing directly with the lived experience that I only seem to value the things I have built from scratch or kits myself. I understand that part is a judgement call only I can make.  I feel the need to defend my suggestion of 3mm  - I've not decided on it by a long shot; but rather investigating the option and finding that a coarse 4mm and a finescale 3mm layout occupy essentially the same space.

 

Maybe, whatever the scale or gauge, once decided the solution is to build the WH terminus (in whatever form - a Minories or Buckingham variant from the voluminous library of plans I've made lol). If it were made with overall length and some small curvature on the entry roads such that it COULD be arranged on the inside of a continuous run in future then I'm not boxing myself into a corner, but could start off with a normal fiddle-yard to get running sooner.

 

Re: your comment of adding Minories and a FY, I did  experiment with this (no doubt in a previous thread of similar provenance) and came up with something like the following for a SECR pre-group layout:

 

 

 

 

 

There is a simple elegance to that that really does work for me, although I would extend the run into a full U shape to allow a longer run and some scenery between station and fiddle yard and a possible small through station or perhaps a loco shed scene before the fiddle yard as a future development.

 

When Malcolm Crawley and I worked together on his "Thompson's End" layout many years ago, it was designed as a terminus that by the removal of a short board (about 6-8 ins. long) containing the buffer stops could be converted into a through station with minimal alteration. That did indeed happen after a few years and it became first an L shape with a fiddle yard at each end.

 

Later still, we built a new "dead end" arrangement about 2 ft. 6 ins. long incorporating a small loco shed. That allowed us to exhibit it with just the two of us in one car again. The bigger version needed a crew of 4 and two cars. The last version used the L shape with the fiddle yards removed and new boards added to make a continuous run (for home use only). So by the time we had finished, we had a layout that could be put up in 4 different configurations.

 

Designing a modular type design is no bad thing, allowing for construction in achievable stages and future expansion without having to discard what has already been built.

 

It really comes down to what you want from your layout. I am like you, I would much rather have things I have made rather than things I have purchased and I am the first to admit that my progress is so slow nowadays that anything too ambitious is likely to stall due to frustration at the finishing line always seeming to be too far away. If I was in your shoes, I would be looking to do something not too ambitious to start with, in EM gauge.

 

My current interests revolve around trying to see how much operational and visual interest I can build into small layouts. I seem to have settled on an 8ft scenic section as my "go to" size, as fitting 2 x 4ft boards into the car, plus a fiddle yard, will allow any layout to be a "two people/one car" prospect for exhibiting.

Edited April 23, 2022 by t-b-g
Spelling

[Lacathedrale]

Fine 4mm is achievable in the space with the assumption I can use 3'6" radii - anything wider than that and I start pushing right out into the far corners of the layout space for entry and exit and I think it looks a bit naff. The plan above is using Peco turnouts and 3' radius curves. Using hand laid B7's and a 3'6" curve yields roughly this:

 

Despite my vacillation on these matters I have been reading the Historical Railway Modelling book (speaking of which, surely you're in a prime position for a follow-up to Buckingham Branch Lines, @t-b-g?) - David Jenkinson cautions against too much planning:

 

And another on finding your niche:

 

 

The antidote to both appears to be to establish what you really want. I feel like I know the answer to that, but clearly it's not as easy to figure out as I thought....

 

[t-b-g]

2 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Fine 4mm is achievable in the space with the assumption I can use 3'6" radii - anything wider than that and I start pushing right out into the far corners of the layout space for entry and exit and I think it looks a bit naff. The plan above is using Peco turnouts and 3' radius curves. Using hand laid B7's and a 3'6" curve yields roughly this:

 

Despite my vacillation on these matters I have been reading the Historical Railway Modelling book (speaking of which, surely you're in a prime position for a follow-up to Buckingham Branch Lines, @t-b-g?) - David Jenkinson cautions against too much planning:

 

And another on finding your niche:

 

 

The antidote to both appears to be to establish what you really want. I feel like I know the answer to that, but clearly it's not as easy to figure out as I thought....

 

 

Deciding just what you want can be the hardest part of starting a project.

 

There are a few basic questions. Period? Company or Companies? Type of operation - end to end/continuous or some of each? Type of stock passenger/goods/both? Model a real location or a fictional one? Size of layout? Portable/exhibitable or fixed? Once those are decided, it gets easier!

 

I can spend many months or years nailing it down and I content myself with building locos or stock, or perhaps helping friends with their layouts, while the layout plans go round and round in my head. I can come up with a decent plan or idea and spend ages trying to refine it, only to end up back where I started. At least I know all mine will be pre WW1 either GCR, MR or GNR so I can build appropriate models knowing they will get used.

 

If I had something new to say about Buckingham I might put pen to paper but I find it tricky coming up with a new angle when the builder has described most aspects of it so well.

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

A wish-list of all the things, with no order of importance:

 

Space & Scale

Curve Radii - not below 3' in whatever scale, even if hidden

Max train length of 4 or 5 bogie coaches and a ten-wheeler tender loco.

A train-length of plain main line with no stations/etc.

Station/s to be visually separated

 

Modelling Standards

Consistent standards throughout

Internal locus of value i.e. no comparison with the greats of our time

 

Believability

Not a specific prototype, but plausible.

A convincing backstory, and a convincing story being told with the layout.

As nearly as possible, correct appearance of track and track layout.

 

Period & Geographic Choice

Edwardian scenic setting

• Victorian LCDR/SER -  (base interest seems to persist whatever else, but I've gone right off the Edwardian period completely with the SECR and so it will require almost everything to be kit or scratchbuilt even in 4mm.) Strong desire for finescale here.
• Edwardian GCR/LNWR - (pulling a 'Denny' and looking at something which is greatly appealing on the surface level but which I have no deep association with, i.e. for the former, the mixture of GWR style brown and cream stock, teak stock, the SECR-style green and red passenger liveries, etc. appeal greatly, particularly in contrast to LNWR stock which I find regal and interesting. Neccesarily more impressionistic and so less of a finescale factor.

Operational Factors

Prototypical working in all aspects (end-to-end operational philosophy)

Not multi-level without overriding reason

Scheme should support a gradual build-up

Adequate storage for all 'in use' vehicles on the layout (either actively or in a FY)

A branch line/junction for visual splitting of train destinations on-layout

Edited April 24, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[RobinofLoxley]

Im sorry to say I think you need to acquire a bit of pragmatism from somewhere. You have a long wish list prefaced by the following :- A wish-list of all the things, with no order of importance:

 

This is where you are going wrong. You cannot avoid compromises and you will have to choose. This is the road from prototype, which can never be reproduced due to scaling, to plausibility.

 

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

10 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

A wish-list of all the things, with no order of importance:

 

Space & Scale

Curve Radii - not below 3' in whatever scale, even if hidden

Max train length of 4 or 5 bogie coaches and a ten-wheeler tender loco.

A train-length of plain main line with no stations/etc.

Station/s to be visually separated

 

Modelling Standards

Consistent standards throughout

Internal locus of value i.e. no comparison with the greats of our time

 

Believability

Not a specific prototype, but plausible.

A convincing backstory, and a convincing story being told with the layout.

As nearly as possible, correct appearance of track and track layout.

 

Period & Geographic Choice

Edwardian scenic setting

• Victorian LCDR/SER -  (base interest seems to persist whatever else, but I've gone right off the Edwardian period completely with the SECR and so it will require almost everything to be kit or scratchbuilt even in 4mm.) Strong desire for finescale here.
• Edwardian GCR/LNWR - (pulling a 'Denny' and looking at something which is greatly appealing on the surface level but which I have no deep association with, i.e. for the former, the mixture of GWR style brown and cream stock, teak stock, the SECR-style green and red passenger liveries, etc. appeal greatly, particularly in contrast to LNWR stock which I find regal and interesting. Neccesarily more impressionistic and so less of a finescale factor.

Operational Factors

Prototypical working in all aspects (end-to-end operational philosophy)

Not multi-level without overriding reason

Scheme should support a gradual build-up

Adequate storage for all 'in use' vehicles on the layout (either actively or in a FY)

A branch line/junction for visual splitting of train destinations on-layout

 

It’s an interesting list and an interesting conversation.  I think I’ve read somewhere on RMweb previously you also have an interest in model engineering?  If I’ve recalled that correctly, it fits with wanting to create (rather than buy) and quite likely the skills and tools to scratchbuild everything too.

 

My earlier suggestion was to aim for something that can be up and running quite quickly (or at least a section of it), and the Minories-style U-shape Terminus to Fiddle Yard design could perhaps achieve that - I do like the balance and feel of that track plan (I also liked a U-shaped Terminus to Fiddle Yard Scheme discussed previously, which I think was in 2mm and pre-dated a house move?).

 

Having re-read the conversation and the updated list of requirements quoted here in particular, I think I’d modify my suggestion to one which says why not start by building something - a locomotive, set of carriages or a train, and a photo plank or test track for them to go on first, in a scale you’d like to try (noting the frustrations with 2mm at the start of the thread)?  In other words: get started with something for a layout, and then return to track planning later, the idea being the motivation then comes from building a layout for the train to run, not the other way round.

 

Does that make sense?  Just a thought, Keith. 

Edited April 24, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Lacathedrale]

I appear to have lost my reply - damn! - @Keith Addenbrooke, you're quite right - my car is due for sale (a '72 MGB GT) and so it's only when that's gone and the garage made a bit more habitable that the layout can take shape - I wanted to expore this first though, in order to have pointed and directed modelling efforts rather than the aimless wandering to-date.

 

Maybe a combination of your advice and that of @t-b-g of building the terminus first in a modest space with a link to a FY would be more appropriate for a finescale effort. Build in such a way permitting it to slot into a continuous run or more complex layout in future as appropriate. Given my long term and deep fondness for the LCDR/SER and SECR - and my two scratchbuild wagons - maybe it is prudent to focus on those companies. Roxey do a huge range of suitable wagon and carriage kits! I already have  3D printed SER R-class body (to fit a Hornby Jinty chassis - i.e. High Level?) so that seems like a reasonable first next step?

 

I think from what we've come up with is that a no-fiddleyard layout can work in N or 00 when the curve radius and point geometry can be tight enough to allow many elements, but less practical for finescale - and if I had to choose between the two I'd choose finescale track I think! An accessible traverser fiddle yard (rather than in the past, one right down the way (over a bloody roof joist) that only requires me to turn around in my operating position to adjust, seems a good plan - at least for the first iteration.

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Chimer]

The only thing I don't understand in your wishlist is your aversion to using tighter radii where this can be hidden.  Thinking 00, you (obviously) gain a foot of visible usable "straight" by hiding 1 corner and using 2' radius curves there as opposed to your 3' minimum.  That's surely got to be valuable, especially if you're going to be using finescale pointwork which eats space.  Or hide 60 degrees of sharp curve at each end of a "straight" and join them with 60 degrees of really gently curved mainline.  Or hide opposite corners of a roundy-roundy and build your station area between them round a gentle 90 degree curve (with an emergency access manhole in the corner!)  Or .... or ....

[Lacathedrale]

I was thinking primarily of finescale (either 3mmFS/EM/P4) when I mentioned the limitation around radius - i.e. I don't want to flirt with danger unless it really cannot be avoided.  Certainly less of a factor in 00! David J. suggests a layout tracing a bulbous right-angle triangle instead of a curved rectangle is the best utilisation of space in a garage-type environment because you then your scenic scection can span the hypotenuse instead of just the top edge.

 

It's much of a muchness with EM/P4 however, as the curve radii required essentially span my entire available width. The only option for more space is to go multi-level. Assuming the intermediate station is a halt or with only very meagre services, then I can regain mainline track space at the sacrifice of going multi-level for storage. It would require around a 3% grade around 3' radius curves to gain even a modest 6" clearance from railhead to railhead - so I think it's a bit of a non-starter

 

[Harlequin]

The "bulbous triangle" works very well for maximising the length of a scenic run, either landscape or station. I've used the technique a lot in my designs. It's best to place the "long side" opposite the access point into the operating well, of course, and wouldn't the "long side" be best location for your "main station"? With the secondary station or FY on one of the short sides?

 

IMHO, completely hidden fiddle yards or yards with fixed covering layer and side access should be avoided. Covered fiddle yards only really work when the level above can be easily lifted for access. It's a pain if there's track work on the level above that needs to be aligned and stock/scenery that has to be removed.

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by Harlequin

[t-b-g]

So from my list of basic requirements that need to be established, about the only ones really settled are that end to end operation and pregrouping period.

 

There was one vital question I left off my list! What scale/gauge will it be? Planning a layout first then choosing a scale to work in makes little sense to me. The scale is such a vital part of the planning process when deciding what fits where in a given space.

 

Another vital question is "How quickly do I want to proceed?". Is it a layout that you want to be constructing for some considerable time, making everything yourself, or do you worry about losing interest if it takes too long? That impacts on the ambition and the scale/gauge.

 

Over the time you have been offering up your ideas on layouts, you have, from time to time, come up with some plans that I thought were really good but each time, when you have got to that stage, you have gone back to re-thinking your ideas. 

 

This hobby can be as simple or as difficult as any of us wishes to make it.

 

A good friend of mine once said that building a layout is dead easy. There are only two parts to the process. Decide what you want then build it. If we go round in circles for ever on the first bit, the second bit will never happen.

[RobinofLoxley]

This business about triangles surprises me. While it may be theroretically true that the longest line inside a rectangle is the diagonal, there are extra curves at each end to get the alignment. If the space was relatively long it would be better, but I would imagine at least a 2.5:1 ratio with the short side dimension over a certain value with respect to the scale being modelled. However the rectangle format has its own limitations with very few really different configurations being possible.

[Lacathedrale]

Design

@RobinofLoxley I think the argument is that you then have a longer straight without a 90 degree curve in the middle and lose a mostly useless short-edge, even if that straight is only marginally longer.

 

@Harlequin I agree re hidden track in principle and I think in this case with the sharp curves and gradient it's just a non-starter. Better to have a traverser bottom-left and station building upper-right to get me that length of run, I think.

 

With 4' train lengths (see Period, below), I think that would give me enough lee-way for a halt, MPD or private siding after the 90 degree curve. I wonder what provisions I will need to take the minimum viable layout (i.e. the station boards + fiddle yard, hopefully something I can fit into 14') versus the main line approach with the 180 degree curve...

 

@martin_wynne has put together an egg shaped transition curve which extends the visible section, bulbous-triangle-style for a bit longer and is fine for P4:

 

Scale

@t-b-g I disagree re: choosing scale first - I have a space (which I can't change) and what I want to achieve (which is somewhat mutable), so overlaying each t's a combination of what I want to achieve against what is possible in a given scale which will determine the scale, I think. it's only ever really been a race between 4mm and 3mm at a distant second place. Though I'm still interested in fiddling with 3mm and maybe 'the next one' would be done in 1/100 - but I think you, Phil, Keith, etc. are correct that 4mm (even with prodigious amounts of scratchbuilding) is an order of magnitude more straight forward and with less inertia.

 

Gauge

I'm a member of S4S and EMGS, and honestly I prefer what I see and have done in P4. However, I also appreciate that I've yet to feel the full force of what P4 demands having built only a couple of wagons and a turnout. So I think I'm going to aim at P4, with the understanding that if adversity strikes I'll fall back to EM and then in theory back to 00. I do know that I can get Peco EMGS points but I want to lay my own so that's not a deciding factor.

 

Period

Having settled on LCDR/SER/etc. in 1900 as the period, does have an implication for layout planning that bogie coaches were no longer than 45' or so. A five coach rake being pulled by a 2-4-0 or mid-Victorian 4-4-0 scales down to about 18" shorter than the equivalent train with 60' stock and a 4-6-0:

 

 

 

 

Getting Started...

I stand by @Keith Addenbrooke's recommendation of getting some stock built while the layout design percolates - which I am getting stuck into with a London Road Models LNWR Horsebox as we speak.

 

 

[t-b-g]

We will have to agree to disagree. I wouldn't dream of planning a project without knowing what scale or gauge it was going to be. Neither would I start a layout with the idea that I might change gauges part way through if the going gets tough. If I was going to build a P4 layout, I would do a test build of a point, a loco and some rolling stock, decide if I could get it to work then start.

 

I can see the argument for considering different scales and gauges because you can fit different layouts into a given space. If I had 14ft in 4mm scale, my layout design would not be the same as if I had 14ft in 3mm scale.

 

I just don't see the logic of coming up with a plan that works well in 4mm scale, then deciding to build it in 3mm.

 

Even in 4mm, a particular item of pointwork in, say, OO has a different geometry to the same track in P4 or EM. If space is critical and a difference of an inch or two can make the difference between a 4 coach or a 5 coach train, a slightly longer crossover can make all the difference.

 

I recall reading about the problems encountered altering Dunwich from EM to P4. The new pointwork couldn't just be laid on the original track alignment as the geometry was different. Point lengths and crossing angles needed to be altered.

 

As for train lengths, I always use the longest train on Buckingham as my "yardstick". 5 bogie carriages plus a 4-6-0 works out at 4ft 3ins.

 

in your OP you mentioned a length of 14ft. 6ins. but the latest plan seems designed for 16ft. The width has changed too, from 8ft. 6ins. to 8ft. I am guessing that you have double checked and the later plans match the actual size of the garage.

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

Hi Tony, the latest image is actually courtesy of Martin and not of my own making - so good spot on the dimensions and thank you - but it's only intent was to show the use of transition curves to get a longer usable space and easier running through the chicane of that 180 degree return. I will trawl through my 'moderately sized terminii' plan history and plug them into the space. I actually quite like your idea of using 4'ish x 18"ish boards so if I can constrain myself to around 9' maximum, then I should have room for both an linear end-on FY or wide curved mainline run around to a FY opposite the station.

 

I think we essentially agree about scale and geometry, honestly! My aim was to start this thread with a broad idea and (eventually) some specific desires of what kind of layout I could build in the space I've available - as you've said it would be very different in 2mm or S7. I was really looking at this from the end result - and I wasn't hung up on which particular scale if it got me the railway model I wanted - and it was only after airing those ideas later, i.e. though it seems that 3mm may well be the goldilocks size for a layout - it's less than ideal for practical production of rolling stock!

 

I have already built pointwork and stock in P4, and I have a 3D printed body awaiting a high-level chassis - so hopefully the three will cover your (quite right!) prerequisites for settling on a given gauge. I've also built pointwork, a loco conversion and stock in EM in the past and found it enjoyable too - but I think I have found P4 more enjoyable and rewarding SO FAR - with a caveat that I've not built a loco yet! I think I'll have a fair idea of whether P4 is feasible for me well before I'm too deep in to back out of it and across into EM or fully reassessed.