A Garage-sized Layout

[t-b-g]

To my eyes, the addition of the goods sidings and the run round detracts more than it adds. It is very awkward to use as drawn and I can't see how it could be shunted without major difficulty other than with a very short train. The earlier plan without them looked convincing and had a flow and elegance. The new one looks like a rather contrived model railway where too much has been crammed in to the space.

 

If you are losing 12" due to shorter baseboards, the earlier plan would still fit and work well on 9ft. The new one would not. If you want some goods facilities, I would add length to the loco spur and make that the goods siding. The loco spur could then be added as a short kick back from Platform 4, which is long enough to get a shunter in and out even if the platform is occupied.

 

That is pretty much the arrangement on my layout and was settled on after looking in to many alternatives.

[Lacathedrale]

You're very right Tony! Thank you - after a moment of madness I'm back to my original plan.

 

Here's the plan properly laid out on 4'6 x 18" boards - I think it fits quite well?

"Norton Fakegate"

 

I feel very blessed my thoughts on making the HV plan a little more suburban are aligned with yours, given your experience, i.e.

• the loco spur as drawn being extended to a carriage siding (given we are moving to a suburban-like setting) behind the platform (pink) a-la Greenwich Park and Caterham.
• a new loco spur in the bottom right (green). I had wondered whether it'd be a good idea off P4 (arrivals-only) shown in orange, or via P3 with a diamond/slip over P4 shown in blue? This arrangement was definitely in place in the 1874 plan for HV, but I don't know if it looks TOO busy.

"Norton Fakegate" with carriage siding and loco pocket

 

Thoughts on a postcard?

[Harlequin]

Let me play devil's advocate: You've got an entire empty garage so why are you drawing Minories variants crammed into 9ft6in by 1ft6in with no scope for any non-railway scenery?

 

If you eschewed exhibiting couldn't you make something that is a bit more expansive, that fills the space better and that is designed to please you, not a notional exhibition audience? (Instead of exhibiting you could take photos, have visitors, run a blog, publish articles, etc.)

 

A permanent layout in the garage space could surely have a wider station, longer platforms, and a scenic curve around to the fiddle yard...

 

Sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick here but it's very frustrating watching you wrestle endlessly with this!

 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

You're very right Tony! Thank you - after a moment of madness I'm back to my original plan.

 

Here's the plan properly laid out on 4'6 x 18" boards - I think it fits quite well?

"Norton Fakegate"

 

I feel very blessed my thoughts on making the HV plan a little more suburban are aligned with yours, given your experience, i.e.

• the loco spur as drawn being extended to a carriage siding (given we are moving to a suburban-like setting) behind the platform (pink) a-la Greenwich Park and Caterham.
• a new loco spur in the bottom right (green). I had wondered whether it'd be a good idea off P4 (arrivals-only) shown in orange, or via P3 with a diamond/slip over P4 shown in blue? This arrangement was definitely in place in the 1874 plan for HV, but I don't know if it looks TOO busy.

"Norton Fakegate" with carriage siding and loco pocket

 

Thoughts on a postcard?

 

I am reminded of the military fellow who said something about the worst enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect one.

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

Yep. I think actually the P4 loco pocket works fine, since that's the platform that expresses will arrive in which will need the shunter to actually do the work for. Actually, with the simpler "early" throat, each road has a clear platform capacity of 350' - including the pointwork for the additional loco siding off the bottom of P4 and space for a tank loco to reverse out into the platform from it while a train is occupying the platform road.

 

That gives me capacity for some fairly large modern trains (Lord Nelson + 4 Mk1's + Van) on each platform.

 

Track plan finalised.

 

@Harlequin my problem is that I am very good of thinking myself out of doing anything and resorting to yet more planning. If the layout is exhibitable then it has a 'reason' beyond simply existing for the sake of itself. That's not neccesary, but it means that there is a foreseeable motivation to keep it upon completion, etc.

 

The reason I'm deliberately limiting myself to 4'6" lengths is so that three of them can fit comfortably along one wall, and it has the secondary option of making that exhibition participation a possibility. There is no reason why I can't add a corner piece when the 'straight along' orientation is complete, i.e.

 

I was quite unimpressed with the huge scenic vistas on show at ExpoEM - it was 'boring' to my eye - but another few inches might help. I'll see if I can figure that out when I get back from today's BBQ. Maybe the traverser could be loaded on edge rather than flat - I’m not sure of the maximum height (thus , width of traverser) that I can fit in the car boot.

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Lacathedrale]

Well darn it - I have just re-measured up the car boot and it looks like if I'm to use that for transport I have a few gotchas assuming traditional 75mm x 20mm PSE and 9mm ply construction

• There is no permutation where the traverser can be longer than 4', which means my maximum train length must be a couple of inches shorter than that - no issue here really.
• Laying side-on, to achieve an 18" width the layout boards can only be 4' long due to the boot/seat angles, with an overall height of 15".
• Laying flat alongside each other, the boards could be 4'6" long (overall height around 12") but the fiddle yard would somehow need to sit ontop of them.

While the timber yard is closed, I'm sure I can figure this one out...

[Stephen Freeman]

Bigger car?😉

[t-b-g]

The fiddle yard doesn't need to be 18" wide as you can get 5 tracks, maybe 6 at close centres, on a 12" board. So the two scenic boards stacked face to face forming a box with the two backscenes making two sides of it, plus a fiddle yard standing on its edge, should go in and hopefully allow all three to be 4' 6" long. The thing with exhibiting is that you need to consider much more than just the baseboards. You need legs, possibly a lighting rig, stock boxes plus maybe overnight bags. So the more you can compact the baseboards, the more space you have for everything else.

 

I have always had hatchback types with folding rear seats, which does make it much easier.

[RobinofLoxley]

2 hours ago, Stephen Freeman said:

Bigger car?😉

Trailer

[RobinofLoxley]

I'm a bit puzzled about the priorities here, as per @Harlequin. Either you are building an exhibition layout specifically or not, because this might exhibit thing will cause the point of having a dedicated space with a layout designed around it to be lost. Lots of design compromises will be introduced that will mean neither objective being reached. My advice is sort the garage out and design a layout to fit inside it. You might find after completing the garage layout the vision to use some feature of it in an exhibition setting.

[Lacathedrale]

OK, I've had another re-measure of the car and realised that actually there's a bit more space than I thought - I had the passenger seat as far back as it's possible to push it. With it in a more reasonable position it looks like two boards of  4'6" x 20" and a combined height of less than 24" can fit quite comfortably behind the passenger seat.

 

Assuming as per @t-b-g's advice, f I am able to interlock the backscene of one board into the fascia of the other and vice-versa to create a layout cube, there will be more than enough space for the traverser, legs, stock, lighting, etc. should I ever want to exhibit it - and being interlocked rather than side by side they can be slightly wider, there's scope for a little more beyong the RoW as pointed out by @Harlequin:

 

 

@RobinofLoxley you're not wrong, but it looks like after a bit of poking around I've found a terminus station layout which will work very well in the garage with minimal compromises required to make it also exhibitable if I so desire. As per my reply to @Harlequin earlier in the garage setting I can easily imagine a nice sweeping curve leading into the station throat, rather than the traverser mounted end-on - but that's an extension that can happen at my leisure.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Harlequin]

A bit more devilish prodding:

1. If the station baseboards were ~750mm wide (say) there would be room to represent suburbia behind the station and have a decent goods yard alongside the passenger terminus.
2. If the curve around the end were treated as a fundamental part of the design, not an optional add on, parts of the station could be in the curve, most usefully the first crossover(s) of the throat pointwork. That would allow the station to be longer. It would also give room for some kickback sidings such as carriage sidings, gas works sidings or whatever.
3. If the fiddle yard were on the opposite wall of the garage the storage length (and width) would be less compromised and maybe there would be enough room for fixed trackwork - simpler than a traverser, also cheaper, quicker to get running, more reliable and easier to automate.

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Harlequin

[t-b-g]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

A bit more devilish prodding:

1. If the station baseboards were ~750mm wide (say) there would be room to represent suburbia behind the station and have a decent goods yard alongside the passenger terminus.
2. If the curve around the end were treated as a fundamental part of the design, not an optional add on, parts of the station could be in the curve, most usefully the first crossover(s) of the throat pointwork. That would allow the station to be longer. It would also give room for some kickback sidings such as carriage sidings, gas works sidings or whatever.
3. If the fiddle yard were on the opposite wall of the garage the storage length (and width) would be less compromised and maybe there would be enough room for fixed trackwork - simpler than a traverser, also cheaper, quicker to get running, more reliable and easier to automate.

 

 

Exceedingly devilish. Especially after the process that was gone through to reach a "final" plan.

 

It would be possible to build a much more ambitious layout in that space and that was discussed earlier, when it was established that something simpler and more achievable but capable of being extended later in stages was the way forward.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

10 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Exceedingly devilish. Especially after the process that was gone through to reach a "final" plan.

 

It would be possible to build a much more ambitious layout in that space and that was discussed earlier, when it was established that something simpler and more achievable but capable of being extended later in stages was the way forward.

 

 

I refer you back to the original post and the thread title, "A Garage-sized layout". The availability of a simple garage space seemed like a huge boon after previous wanderings around small rooms within the house with chimney breasts,  wardrobes and windows causing access problems. But the current proposals are not garage sized! They are ham-strung by the portability issue.

 

Maybe that's OK, maybe that's what William wants. but I'm just pointing out that his most recent worries: platform lengths, track density and fiddle yard storage capacity; are all caused by the portability issue, not the garage space. So is the hard-won space really being best utilised to get what he wants? Does the portability compromise really have to trump everything else?

 

[Lacathedrale]

I feel like the tone of the follow message is defensive in a way I don't want it to sound but I'm not sure how else to communicate my thoughts:

• I am generally satisfied now with the possible platform lengths of 4'6" and a train length of 4'. Fitting it into 8' boards brought me very tightly indeed towards a threshold I was unwilling to compromise beyond, but I think that moment has passed.
• A traverser fiddle yard of approximately 5 lanes at 12" wide should be more than sufficient (using Maybank's example of four train capacity for a six? platform terminus I think I'm OK there).
• The station throad is already very compact and doesn't lend itself to further curvature - for any meaningful curving (around 10 degrees) of the throat I'm skirting around a minimum radius on the pointwork.
• As much as I enjoyed seeing Plumpton Green and Sidmouth at ExpoEM, the vast expanses of "green" space left me a little cold compared to the action of the layout itself and so I'm not sure another 8" of woodland or a row of shops would justify (to me) the inability to exhibit should the desire come to me. I do appreciate however, the desire for a station forecourt - we have spoken about that in particular with regard to Caterham, eh @Harlequin
• You are very right that notional portability and exhibitability (???) are informing my design decisions, but I'm not sure what I would change were those not considerations. I am open to suggestion for 'tweaks' but I'm not sure the essential character of the layout would change.

The nucleus of the terminus + traverser can be extended over time in the ways you have rightly suggested that would increase the impact visually and/or operationally:

1. I can insert a 90 degree curve to extend the run of the trains
2. I can add another 90 degree curve and replace the traverser with a standard fiddle yard
3. I can implement a twig-off-a-branch station or goods depot infront of the curve or the fiddle yard.
4. I can add a spacer between the 180 bend and the fiddle yard for an island/passing station.

 

That said, I'm always interested in opinions, certainly reading the early railway modellers one can see an urgent desire for operating a layout as well as it have some degree of visual fidelity. The lack of a runaround and of goods facilities on this layout is conspicuous in absence.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[t-b-g]

6 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

I refer you back to the original post and the thread title, "A Garage-sized layout". The availability of a simple garage space seemed like a huge boon after previous wanderings around small rooms within the house with chimney breasts,  wardrobes and windows causing access problems. But the current proposals are not garage sized! They are ham-strung by the portability issue.

 

Maybe that's OK, maybe that's what William wants. but I'm just pointing out that his most recent worries: platform lengths, track density and fiddle yard storage capacity; are all caused by the portability issue, not the garage space. So is the hard-won space really being best utilised to get what he wants? Does the portability compromise really have to trump everything else?

 

 

There were several schemes that were proposed and discarded for being to ambitious, so it seemed to me that something simpler to start with that could be developed in stages at a later date seemed more appropriate. The plan is to eventually have a U shaped layout with two stations plus a fiddle yard. That could be exhibited in various formats, from a straight terminus to fiddle yard, through an L shape to a full U with the second station and/or goods facility. 

 

You are quite right though. It would be quite possible to build something as complex as the present Buckingham in that space and have a comprehensive fiddle yard based on points rather than a traverser on the other wall. It could still be portable for exhibitions but wouldn't go in the present car, a van hire or use of a bigger or a second vehicle being necessary. I just got the distinct impression that something more achievable in a shorter time frame was a greater priority than something more ambitious.

 

As it is now, it fits my modelling philosophy very closely as evidenced by my references to the layout I am working on but that doesn't mean that it would suit everybody.  

[Pacific231G]

On 28/05/2022 at 08:45, Lacathedrale said:

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...

I had to look again to make sure I wasn't going mad  (there are 25inch maps of the terminus in the National Library of Scotland's online collection) but the coal bins actually back on to the line leading to the goods shed rather than a running line. It's still a slightly curious arrangement because the back siding that coal wagons would have been unloaded from is the only access to the mileage siding with a yard crane. That suggests the coal wagons weren't allowed to hang round as they often did.

Were there examples of such outer suburban termini that didn't have goods yards or, if they did, where it was well separated from the passenger station? One of the great advantages of the "City" terminus was that they could be very comoact while the goods yards could be somewhere else.

I rather agree with you about scale length stations with a lot of  open green space. Though I also enjoyed  seeing Plumpton Green at ExpoEM (but not the dose of Covid I picked up there!) I think that was a lot to do with the authentic operation - with mercifully quiet block bells. 

Looking at the 25" maps, Caterham is interesting in that it started out as a smallish BLT and grew into a double track outer suburban terminus. My favourie example of an outer "Minories"  is Windsor Riverside (LSWR) which was a three platform terminus but that did also have an adjoining goods yard (and a  royal waiting room in its own building and scope for some very interesting trains)

BTW. Maybank was a four platform terminus fed by a four road semi-automatic traverser (Actually a sector plate I believe) trains were four coaches. It had goods train shunting but with no actual goods yard. Somehow, in the flesh, four coach trains don't seem as short in 0 gauge as in the smaller scales though much the same in photographs. 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Pacific231G

[Stephen Freeman]

21 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Trailer

Larger car is more convenient. You might have thought I joked. In another lifetime I drove a Golf GTi, at the same time I transported baseboards to and from meetings. The only way I could do it was to take out the back seats! I did get quite adept at it but when the time came I choose to change the car for an estate car, end of problem.

[Stephen Freeman]

Here is a more minimal space one (00SF) that I am working on for myself when time allows - 1.8 metres in length.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Stephen Freeman

[t-b-g]

53 minutes ago, Stephen Freeman said:

Here is a more minimal space one (00SF) that I am working on for myself when time allows - 1.8 metres in length.

 

That looks to be a very efficient way to build a fairly complex layout in a short space! Especially if you are comfortable and happy making fancy points.

 

What size points have you used? If the whole length is 1.8m then the scissors plus slips part of the throat is very compact indeed. One of the advantages of OO-SF is that you lose so much side play through points that you can keep buffers aligned better through reverse curves and similar situations.

[longchap]

2 hours ago, Stephen Freeman said:

Larger car is more convenient. You might have thought I joked. In another lifetime I drove a Golf GTi, at the same time I transported baseboards to and from meetings. The only way I could do it was to take out the back seats! I did get quite adept at it but when the time came I choose to change the car for an estate car, end of problem.

 

Regarding Lacathedrale's dilema

 

I remember my first Golf GTi with great affection, a ’77 Mk1 in Mars red. However, my first 00 layout, in three sections and  20+ feet was transported for exhibition use in my then TR7, fortunately with a sunroof, so not a problem when dry, although it did need two trips.

 

The point is, that size matters when you want to create something meaningful without great compromise, so the occasional transport event can always be handled, particularly if a mate helps out with another vehicle.

 

Where there’s a will, there is always a way, so no excuses, just do it!

 

[Izzy]

It's worth noting that with the clever design of Minories - if that is being used as the basis - the loco spur was located on the outward bound line. This was I presume to allow movements without blocking any inward bound traffic. No shunting moves, or not many, on the inward bound tracks. More prototypical I have always thought with less danger of conflicting movements. If the spur becomes a goods siding and the spur is moved elsewhere this is lost. Perhaps it doesn't matter in the wider scope of things but as the twin track aproach was I believe to allow trains to come and go at the same time it might hamper this aspect.

[Stephen Freeman]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

That looks to be a very efficient way to build a fairly complex layout in a short space! Especially if you are comfortable and happy making fancy points.

 

What size points have you used? If the whole length is 1.8m then the scissors plus slips part of the throat is very compact indeed. One of the advantages of OO-SF is that you lose so much side play through points that you can keep buffers aligned better through reverse curves and similar situations.

The scissors turnouts are A6, the slips are 1 in 6 and the single turnout is a B7

[Stephen Freeman]

23 minutes ago, Izzy said:

It's worth noting that with the clever design of Minories - if that is being used as the basis - the loco spur was located on the outward bound line. This was I presume to allow movements without blocking any inward bound traffic. No shunting moves, or not many, on the inward bound tracks. More prototypical I have always thought with less danger of conflicting movements. If the spur becomes a goods siding and the spur is moved elsewhere this is lost. Perhaps it doesn't matter in the wider scope of things but as the twin track aproach was I believe to allow trains to come and go at the same time it might hamper this aspect.

The Shunting element of the intended layout wiil be separate, probably on a different level but I haven't got that far yet, so this bit is passenger only really. Quite a bit of the pointwork is well under way.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Stephen Freeman

[t-b-g]

7 minutes ago, Stephen Freeman said:

The scissors turnouts are A6, the slips are 1 in 6 and the single turnout is a B7

 

Very nicely done. I hope to see it some time. That really is my sort of layout!