A Garage-sized Layout

[Chimer]

 

On 11/04/2022 at 00:03, Lacathedrale said:

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).

 

 

Well, it's certainly been a journey ....  😃

 

6 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

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.

 

[Lacathedrale]

Quite! I realised that even with a coarse approach I can't fit a system-layout in the space in 4mm - so if I'm relegated to an end-to-end terminus to FY it may as well be in finescale!

[Lacathedrale]

I am carrying on with the stock build in my workbench, but now I'm stuck in the office for the day - I figure I may as well jot down some further thoughts about the layout.

 

@Harlequin, @TJ52, @Keith Addenbrooke, @t-b-g have all been instrumental in helping form my ideas for what a terminus layout should be (Paddington-Seagood super-stylised approach aside) - and from the help provided I have generally gravitated towards one of two ideas:

 

Holborn Viaduct with an adaption of the circa 1874 track plan, or Caterham with some synthesis of the pre- and post-doubling eras. Time to sketch some ideas (EDIT incoming)

Edited April 27, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Lacathedrale]

Suburban (influenced by Caterham)

I've often thought that Caterham was an attractive layout subject; having gone through various layout plans of both the pre- and post-doubling of the route; however I'm starting to wonder if a 'might have been' interpretation would be a good starting point as a setting for my terminus. It is attractive for quite a few reasons:

• Bracketed on each side by a higher-level road, steep hillside, and signal gantry & power station.
• Carriage sidings, a branch-line loco shed, and a notoriously crowded goods yard (at least before doubling)
• Had a rail-connected livery yard in one era, and a power station in the other.
• Had the largest army barracks to-date built in 1877, so presumably troop movements neccesitating larger trains. A quote from Scots Guards during the Boer war: "It was a trying journey as each man had to carry all his belongings, the march up hill from Caterham Station being a stiff and particularly difficult one."

Unfortunately, the pre-doubling era while very compact is a single line terminus with little scope for complex operations; and after doubling the station ballooned to triple the length and double the width. A schematic of the post-doubling layout is shown below:

 

The length of the two crossovers on the throat are misleading, infact they are the full length of a train!

 

Urban (Holborn Viaduct)

At the other end of the line (somewhat literally) is my affection for Holborn Viaduct - all of the justifications for Minories apply, as well as my natural affinity for the station and the numerous plans I've sketch for it.

• Early plans show a pilot loco shed and coal/water, no need for turntable on-layout
• Arrival-only and Departure-only platforms with no runarounds
• Carriage dock for NPCS and short carriage siding.
• Historical precedent and plausibility for interesting stock: short top link expresses (half boat trains), CIWL orient express coaches, lots of newspaper and parcels traffic (nearby Fleet St. and Post Office HQ
• Historical precedent for LSWR, LNWR, stock and locomotive presence.

 

I have worked up a rough idea of how a 4 platform HV-inspired terminus might look in 2' x 9'. Some tweaks are no doubt required but for now I think this sketch is sufficient to illustrate the plan:

HV-1874-v1

 

 

Lines:

• Loco shed (top) hosts a station pilot.
• P1 (departure only)
• P2 & 3 (bidirectional)
• P4 (arrival only)
• Ash pit (bottom) hosts a turnover loco for 'jazz' services.

 

Operations:

• Boat trains:
  • must arrive into P4 (bottom).
  • station pilot shunts carriages into P1 to await departure.
  • station pilot shunts head/tail into P3 dock
  • train engine runs light off-scene down main to "Blackfriars" to be turned and serviced
  • train engine returns on up main, shunts into P1 and departs down main
• Cheap/Workmen's trains
  • must arrive into P4 (bottom).
  • station pilot shunts and potentially splits carriages between P2/P3
  • train engine couples up for return journey bunker-first and departs down main
  • in reverse, carriages in P2/P3 are joined to form outbound train in P1
• Inner Suburban trains
  • arrive into P2/P3
  • jazz service loco couples onto rear and departs down main
• Outer Suburban trains
  • arrive into P2/P3
  • station pilot shunts carriages into alternate bidirectional platform to await departure.
  • station pilot shunts head/tail into P3 dock (if required)
• Newspaper & Parcel trains
  • must arrive into P2/P4
  • station pilot shunts into P3

 

Essentially we have long trains being split, joined or shunted - and we have short trains being shunted or 'jazz serviced' .

 

I can see the appeal of both. It essentially seems to be a decision based on whether I want green trees and freight, or viaducts and NPCS.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Harlequin]

Well, for what it's worth, I like the Influenced by Caterham idea.

 

That's partly personal, because I would prefer to escape to that kind of location more than a grimy city station (and models are about escapism), but also because I think it's an interesting time and place to model. The railways were extending out into the countryside and the semi-urban development that followed had not yet happened. So you get a more sparse, more rural landscape with the railway bringing new clean modern infrastructure into it.

(There's also that amazing original station building, which I love, as you know.)

 

You might still consider a single line approach because it would be a more comfortable fit for the period, it would simplify the build, open out the radius of the running line slightly, simplify the station throat and possibly simplify the fiddle yard. And then try to capture the spirit of the slightly quirky Victorian station plan.

 

But obviously you must go with where your heart is.

 

[Lacathedrale]

The reason I want a double track approach is due to the signalling and interlocking opportunities. Token working just doesn't have the same appeal and I know it's London-centric but anything less than a double-track doesn't feel like a real railway to me!  You're 100% correct about the station building, though!

 

I have found the Ricean layout Harestone which was inspired by Caterham:

 

 

Tony Gee made a great comment about how more platform faces doesn't neccesarily correlate with more captivating operation, particularly if it's just more of the same, hence his evangelisation of departure-only and arrival-only platforms, and in my case the inclusion of the carriage dock on the HV plan.

 

On the face of it, Harestone looks like a more simple layout, but it has the same pointwork plus an additional double slip compared to HV1874. From a prototypical operating perspective it has all it requires, with a (small)  siding on the runaround loop and a coal siding, but I think it may be too simplistic as drawn - an additional siding and a goods shed, and a shunting neck alongside the running lines might fill it out considerably.

 

I take your point regarding the setting - certainly the dappled shade of a tree lined valley and a horse waiting patiently alongside a coal dray conjures warmer feelings than the filth and detritous of Victorian London. It requires some thought!

[RobinofLoxley]

Im starting to wonder how many pages this thread is going to run to 😊

[t-b-g]

I am going to throw another idea into the mix. If your terminus is 9ft. long, which I think is a pretty good size for such a station, that leaves you with 5ft. 6ins. of length left. If you are happy with a traverser fiddle yard around 4ft. to 4ft 6ins. total length, then you have a good opportunity to advance the project in stages. First stage could be straight along one side of the garage, going directly from the station to the traverser.

 

2nd stage could be a 90 degree bend to form an L shape. A 4ft. along each side corner board plus the fiddle yard would go along your 8ft. 6ins. side, allowing curves of around 3ft. 3ins. to 3ft. 6ins. You could put a turntable in the corner, with a small loco servicing area.

 

3rd stage would be to add another scenic section, possible another station, around the rest of the curve and half way along the other side. Perhaps that could include some goods facilities that you don't have at the terminus but arranged so that a goods train has to work to the terminus to reverse so it is pointing the right way to shunt the yard.

 

The recently published book on Amberdale by Philip Harvey shows that the space available is suitable for a system type layout. He has put a very decent system into a room around 12ft. 6ins. long by 11ft. 6ins. wide, just going around the sides.

[TJ52]

I've been watching developments from a distance and enjoying all the thinking that has gone into a project where, if I'm correct, not a sleeper has yet been laid.

 

Sorry to muddy the waters. I seem to remember CJF introducing one of his monthly plans in the 60s with words to the effect that the only true backscene for a model train was smoky brickwork. 

 

I have to agree. Holborn v Caterham has only one winner! I'll look forward to seeing how this all pans out.

 

All the best, 

 

Terry

 

[Lacathedrale]

4 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Im starting to wonder how many pages this thread is going to run to 😊

😎 You can check out of layout planning threads, but you can never leave.

 

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 you have a good opportunity to advance the project in stages.

Fantastic idea and agreed wholeheartedly. No need to plan further despite the comment above :)

 

2 hours ago, TJ52 said:

the only true backscene for a model train was smoky brickwork. 

No sleepers laid unless you count the test turnout I made, but two scratchbuilt wagons - leave it to me, for now.

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

Well, the car is gone, and the garage is mine!

 

New owner taking custody of "Bertie"

 

As per discussion the plan is to have a layout space initially along one wall. My thoughts are to reserve a horizontal "layer" in the garage along all three brick walls between the heights of 4' and 7', with the layout surface mounted at about 4'6". Racks and shelving above for lightweight objects, bicycle and tub/tin storage below for paints, power tools, etc.

 

Currently it's got light and power, but needs a good do over - I'm thinking that should be done before any layout work takes place.

 

- Fit some proper lighting

- Run some more power sockets around the room

- Repaint the walls and ceiling

- Do something with the oily, stained concrete floor? In my old place I had an epoxy coat poured but that was mega expensive...

[TJ52]

I put down carpet tiles on my concrete floor. All washable and not too expensive. 

 

Terry

[Lacathedrale]

No changes to the design, but tweaked a little to curve the other way at the throat and 'cup' the loco pocket a little better. Last time I  messed arund with curvature like this, I printed it off and pushed around my Lonestar locos on an N-scale template, so I think that's probably not a bad shout:

 

Same as before, set on two 4'6 x 2' boards. For the sake of experimentation, in Manchester EM rather than P4.

 

I keep wondering if HV as a prototype might be biting off more than I can chew - the track on a viaduct and many dozens of buildings to construct. Greenwich Park as inspiration would at least have a low retaining wall and embankment to eat up some of the space...

[Lacathedrale]

Here's my little garage as it now stands:

 

 

 

Clearly there's alot of work to be done, but I wonder how much needs to be done ahead of the model railway vs. general house improvement work over time? I guess the lighting (one single incandescent bulb) and running at least a couple more sockets in, and giving the thing a damned good clean is going to be first.  Any other thoughts?

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Some kind of batten / ridge / step-type thing / seal across the entrance at floor level to prevent water coming in under the door?

[Lacathedrale]

@Keith Addenbrooke there's already about a 2" sill where the door comes down?

[DCB]

On 16/05/2022 at 23:46, Lacathedrale said:

Well, the car is gone, and the garage is mine!

 

New owner taking custody of "Bertie"

Nice car,   

There seems to be an awful lot of clutter on the garage wall, the consumer unit is at a really awkward height and that reinforcing upright is awkward.   Raising the consumer unit to above eye level would be good as would moving the wiring up the wall and putting it intrunking. Actually I would put all the mains wiring in protective trunking and keep all but the vertical wiring to the below baseboard sockets up above baseboard and eye level.  Better than cutting the wrong wire and experiencing 220 volts while working on the layout..     The central heating (?) pipes couldn't be more awkward so get lowered when you fit a radiator, if they are just water I would still consider moving them towards floor level. and protecting them

Some strip lights will help immensely.   

The door is a bit of a PITA.   Have you checked how close the baseboard can come to the door as it swings down past baseboard height, could be 2ft away from the clearance between baseboard and door.  My father in law recently changed one of those up and over doors to a roller version which allows the baseboard to come to within a couple of inches of the door in all positions.  We stayed in a holiday let in Devon a few times which had a seemingly similar garage and door and the sealing or lack of it under the door made it draughty, and the concrete floor very cold.  I would consider removing the car size metal door and substituting wooden doors, Ideally one with a smaller  domestic or wheelchair access domestic door size centrally in the  opening, outward opening wooden doors would be better. They would allow a lifting section across the entry, rather than lift out ( A drop down would be novel)   Having the access through the window area would be more layout friendly Something else I would do is floor the garage with laminate flooring.   I have acquired quite a lot of second hand laminate over the years either dead cheap off eBay or for free from  Freecycle.   One thing we almost got right was having the consumer unit by the door so we could turn everything off as we left and on as we entered, then we hung the door the wrong way...

[AndyB]

The best thing you can do is either brick up the up abd over door and create a side entrance. Or make a partition part-way down the garage; bikes etc can go at the front and your layout area towards the rear will be protected from dirt, moisture etc drifting in. You lose a bit of layout space but the overall quality of that space is much better.

 

What I've done is damp proof, insulate and dry line the walls. Build a false floor and  insulate that too. Warm and comfortable.

 

I also built a loft space into the apex of the roof for storage. 

 

I insulated my up and over door with a refletive bubble-wrap type product and put draft proofing brushes down the sides.

 

Even with all this it does get cold and breezy. So I may add a thick curtain across the main door before next winter. 

 

Hope this helps.

Andy

[RJS1977]

On 27/04/2022 at 19:06, t-b-g said:

 

3rd stage would be to add another scenic section, possible another station, around the rest of the curve and half way along the other side. Perhaps that could include some goods facilities that you don't have at the terminus but arranged so that a goods train has to work to the terminus to reverse so it is pointing the right way to shunt the yard.

 

 

Or alternatively, a private siding of some sort that is worked out-and-back from the goods yard at the terminus. For example, Aberystwyth gas works was served by a siding in the Up direction from the Up Main. Since this was facing the wrong way to be shunted by an Up goods train, and on the wrong line to be shunted by a Down goods train, coal was propelled up the Up line from Aberystwyth and empties worked back wrong line.

 

There was also a pumping station adjacent to the Down Line which I believe had coal delivered in an out-and-back working from Abersytwyth via Llanbadarn during a quiet period when coal could be unloaded directly from the main line.

[Lacathedrale]

In my own part of the world the Caterham branch had numerous examples of stations with  'ahead' sidings and no runarounds - an electric power station and gasworks spring to mind. I think like any red-blooded englishman I enjoy freight wagons, particularly odd 19th century ones - but realistically I think that mandates something other than the 'compact, passenger oriented terminus' theme I've been working to, so far.

 

The layout theme of intensive passenger operations has always been at the forefront, and the general plan for "Belle Sauvage" (i.e. my interpretation of Holborn Viaduct in around 1899) has always realistically been set around the turn of the 20th century. With its central location it can host SER and LCDR urban, suburban, coastal and boat trains - but also NPCS, cattle, fish and perishables from half a dozen pre-group companies that exchanged stock there.

 

Maybe I am mistaken - I shall ask in the pre-group thread...

[DCB]

On 19/05/2022 at 09:00, RJS1977 said:

For example, Aberystwyth gas works was served by a siding in the Up direction from the Up Main. Since this was facing the wrong way to be shunted by an Up goods train, and on the wrong line to be shunted by a Down goods train, coal was propelled up the Up line from Aberystwyth and empties worked back wrong line.

The siding was originally on single line but when the GW doubled the track for a short distance post WW1 up as far as a level crossing box it became the Up line.  It sounds like an accident waiting to happen, but it was an awful long way from Paddington so I doubt anyone was unduly worried.

[Lacathedrale]

Happily my 0.8mm check rail chairs have arrived, and I've knocked up some EM-SF "gauges" too, so I'm ready to rock and roll. I already have an ultrascale-equipped EM gauge Lima 33 so I already have some stock to test on any pointwork I make. Huzzah! However, I want to get started with the actual layout pointwork instead of interminable 'test runs' - so that needs to get firmed up imminently.

 

Just lost a big edit of this post so to suffice, I am a little leery of being so definitely pegged to the 1890's incase my efforts at stock and loco scratchbuilding fall short, so I have  explored my options for tweaking the plan previously settled upon to support a slightly wider time period without looking completely anachronistic - and so have knocked up a plan that I think captures the essential essence but with some tweaks:

"Fakewich Park"

 

Notionally inspired by Greenwich Park's setting (if not the track plan) with the station building capping a rectangular cutting. Not pictured is a road bridge across the throat. The Parcels or Goods depot would need to be shifted left to accomodate.

 

Though it might look significantly different, there are precious few changes from the plan previously settled upon:

• P4 omitted
• Runaround and goods sidings added to P3

 

"Fakerham" in XtrkCAD

 

"Fakerham" in Templot

 

To continue with the theme of Caterham, I've adapted the above plan with no trackplan changes to better mimick some of the salient features of Caterham, vis:

• Station is in a cutting, Station building is at road level with a covered walkway down to the platforms
• Engine shed and ash pit at the end of the platform as per 1860's station - probably just an ash-pit by the 1930's.
• Coal siding alongside down main
• Loading bank on the goods headshunt opposite P3

 

There are some differences from the prototype, but I do think it captures the essential character of an optimistic mid-sized terminus in the South fairly well.

 

I'm quite aware that I have had lots of good layout ideas and it's really about getting down and building (one of) them - but I think I might have struck gold on this one (with the help of @Pacific231G in a completely unrelated discussion). Ignoring the third rail, this layout could exist more or less at any period from the adoption of modern station design (1880's?) up until the demise of Speedlink - so I'm happy to push forward regardless of the specifics of precise prototype and time period.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Chimer]

After shunting the two kickback sidings, there doesn't look to be room to run round the wagons you want to take away, so you will have to propel them into the throat then setback into P3 to be able to run round (and still only round a 3 or 4 wagon train).  Or am I missing something?

[Pacific231G]

4 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Happily my 0.8mm check rail chairs have arrived, and I've knocked up some EM-SF "gauges" too, so I'm ready to rock and roll. I already have an ultrascale-equipped EM gauge Lima 33 so I already have some stock to test on any pointwork I make. Huzzah! However, I want to get started with the actual layout pointwork instead of interminable 'test runs' - so that needs to get firmed up imminently.

 

Just lost a big edit of this post so to suffice, I am a little leery of being so definitely pegged to the 1890's incase my efforts at stock and loco scratchbuilding fall short, so I have  explored my options for tweaking the plan previously settled upon to support a slightly wider time period without looking completely anachronistic - and so have knocked up a plan that I think captures the essential essence but with some tweaks:

"Fakewich Park"

 

Notionally inspired by Greenwich Park's setting (if not the track plan) with the station building capping a rectangular cutting. Not pictured is a road bridge across the throat. The Parcels or Goods depot would need to be shifted left to accomodate.

 

Though it might look significantly different, there are precious few changes from the plan previously settled upon:

• P4 omitted
• Runaround and goods sidings added to P3

 

"Fakerham" in XtrkCAD

 

"Fakerham" in Templot

 

To continue with the theme of Caterham, I've adapted the above plan with no trackplan changes to better mimick some of the salient features of Caterham, vis:

• Station is in a cutting, Station building is at road level with a covered walkway down to the platforms
• Engine shed and ash pit at the end of the platform as per 1860's station - probably just an ash-pit by the 1930's.
• Coal siding alongside down main
• Loading bank on the goods headshunt opposite P3

 

There are some differences from the prototype, but I do think it captures the essential character of an optimistic mid-sized terminus in the South fairly well.

 

I'm quite aware that I have had lots of good layout ideas and it's really about getting down and building (one of) them - but I think I might have struck gold on this one (with the help of @Pacific231G in a completely unrelated discussion). Ignoring the third rail, this layout could exist more or less at any period from the adoption of modern station design (1880's?) up until the demise of Speedlink - so I'm happy to push forward regardless of the specifics of precise prototype and time period.

I'm not sure about the coal bins alongside te main line as where would the merchants access them from?  There was a yard at Richmond (LSWR) where the coal bins were on the nearside (i.e on the non railway side of the sidings) and a goods warehouse roughly where the multistory car park is now.

I agree with Chimer about the orientation of the releasing crossover and you could probably get away with shorter turnouts (B6 rather than B7) for that and for the goods yard. 

 

[Lacathedrale]

And if you can believe it, I was actually on my way down to the builders merchant for timber before I did a final measure-up and the boot of my car is just over 3' wide and the room from the end of the boot to the back of the seat is only sufficient for a 4'6" board - so in theory with capacity for four 4'6" x 18" boards at maximum - rather than the 5' + 5' x 20" depicted above.

 

Re; the runaround you're quite right and that's bloody annoying!  A quick sketch shows a connection to the down main for a runaround might help but generally, it's starting to look like someone has dumped a crate of track onto a baseboard rather than a railway layout and I don't really like it at all...

 

Re: goods area - Caterham very much did have a set of coal bins right between the siding and the running line, as shown in the top-right of this photo - the coal merchants were at the entrance of the yard.

 

 

However I do wonder if that 'goods' area might better be just a simple parcels dock and carriage siding, to keep the theme strong...

 

Either way it looks like the accomodation of 60' carriage stock is a complete non-starter unless I'm happy with 3 coach trains (I'm not) - so if that's the case I may as well stick with my original plan of Victorian pre-group and enjoy the idiosyncrasises of the settled-upon plan above...

Edited May 28, 2022 by Lacathedrale