A Garage-sized Layout

[t-b-g]

26 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

It took me a moment to twig what I was looking at, but honestly I like it - evoking that 'system layout' format in a terminus-to-FY concept.

 

I wonder if you're going that far, maybe it would be just as easy to have a terminus-to-terminus layout, assuming between the two of them you share enough space for all stock and locomotives? Maybe you'd need to over-provision in both, I guess - and would probably have to work one as 'live' and the other as 'shadow' for the duration of a given operating session? Could be interesting with a sliding shoji screen to mask one side of the layout as FY while the other is working :)

 

 

The full Narrow Road layout has 5 stations and no fiddle yard in normal operation. There are some hidden loops on the continuous run but they don't form part of the proper running and are just used when Ken wants to run some trains himself.

 

There are 3 long carriage sidings at Narrow Road itself and that gives us enough carriage capacity for a decent sequence, with each train running several times.

[Lacathedrale]

Bloody hell, five stations?! I thought it was 'just' a terminus station on the manner of Broad Street, I didn't realise it was that extensive!

[t-b-g]

Just now, Lacathedrale said:

Bloody hell, five stations?! I thought it was 'just' a terminus station on the manner of Broad Street, I didn't realise it was that extensive!

 

It was originally but after it retired from being exhibited, we extended it.

 

There are two main line terminus stations (the original station plus the scenic fiddle yard), two through stations, one of which is a junction, plus the terminus of the single track branch from the junction (Valleyfields). The total scenic run from one end to the other is about 150ft, which is three times up and down the shed. That doesn't include the other two double junctions linking two parts of the main line into a continuous run with some hidden sidings.

 

There is still lots to do but it is pretty much operational apart from signals. Some scenic work has started in a few places.

[woodenhead]

6 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Bloody hell, five stations?! I thought it was 'just' a terminus station on the manner of Broad Street, I didn't realise it was that extensive!

Don't get any ideas, you still need to build one station let alone five. 😉

[Lacathedrale]

Don't worry, while we're putting ideas forward about the grouping-era, TT gauge, and so on - please do rest assured that I'm slowly pecking away at my EM-SF Victorian SER & LCDR stuff all the time.

 

[Regularity]

The only questions you need to ask yourself are varieties of “how much”:

How much layout do I want?

How much space does it need?

How much space do I have?

How much money will I put towards it?

How much time will I be able to spend on it?

 

The more you want of the first two, the more you need of the other three, regardless of whether you go for RTR or scarchbuilding (as two extremes). The less reliance you place on RTR, the more time you will need, but it may cost you less money. The curves you can fit into your space may do more to determine the best scale/gauge combination for you than anything else, when it comes to matching available space to what you want from a layout - not from individual models, but a layout as a whole.

 

If you start off with RTR, with the aim of eventually changing tack to an earlier era with finer tolerances, and more hand building, then bear in mind that the initial time will require a fair bit of money and time to get anywhere  and that time and money will have been used up against what you might really want - unless you are happy with something simple like Leysdown. On the other hand, a simple layout like Leysdown can be built fairly quickly to finer standards as well as for RTR, and would give you the chance to see if you want these finer tolerances in the first place.

 

As I have some of you hand built models, I know you are capable of producing work to the required standard, so at least you don’t have to worry about that.

 

I built a simple 4-turnout layout very quickly: baseboards one weekend, got the cork down one evening, and had the sleepers down and ballasted by the weekend, ready for laying the track, which was another weekend’s task. (With quite a few breaks as it was a bit tedious.) Using RTR track would have saved me maybe a week of that effort, and everything which followed would have been the same whatever I was doing. That layout went to three shows, and then became someone else’s. He rebuilt a few things and then extended it. On his death it went to someone else who has reduced it back to more or less the original size, but it is still a bit too big for him so it is coming back home to me, 27 years after it was first built. It started with 4 turnouts, but I added a fifth, and the second owner added a sixth (which I felt unbalanced it a bit). It has reverted to 5 and I shall leave it that. 
 

In the interim, I have built the stock that I meant to build for that layout, but not the planned successor to it, although there have been a number of false starts!

 

It will still serve me well, despite its modest capabilities. I also have Lydham Heath to play with, for all that it has 3 turnouts with the fiddle serving as the fourth. 2 locos, 1 coach, 1 brakevan, and a dozen wagons. Surprisingly satisfying to operate.

 

The point is, I have had quite a few attempts at something “more” to match the enjoyment I have had operating East Lynn, but to no avail. It’s quite a lot of work to build something like that - which is not always off-putting - but it only really comes alive as a layout when there are two good operators working the terminus (plus a third good operator if Nunnstanton is connected) otherwise there’s too much for one person, and if one of the operators isn’t a “natural”, then it can get frustrating: something to bear in mind, if you want a layout that really is at its best  with more than one operator - unless you want to have an automated fiddle yard, like Buckingham.

[Lacathedrale]

Kit vs Scratch, 1899 vs 1930, EM vs OO

@Regularity I'm very flattered by your kind words of my level of ability in being able to produce finescale models.  I don't want to appear too self denigrating but I am aware I have NEVER built a compensated locomotive before, nor have I scratchbuilt a loco. These are the two crucial which need to be tested before I make that decision of 1930's RTR 00 Southern vs 1899 EM-SF LCDR.

 

I much prefer scratchbuilding wagons to kits, but we'll have to see how the locos go.

 

On that note for 1899 EM-SF I simply can't justify the cost of RTR pre-group and it feels like buyng an 0-6-0T with inside valve gear and cylinders (i.e. none) that I then need to re-wheel or re-chassis feels like a terrible value proposition against buying something like a Lord Nelson with all the size and complexity of the locomotive ready to use.

 

PS. You make a VERY astute point about the sunk-cost fallacy of conversion, at least once it's beyond wagons!

 

Charford V3

As I'm slowly making my way through the Charford articles in RM, your last point is quite topical - paraphrased: better to build a layout which suits your usual number of operator(s) and may scale (albeit awkwardly) otherwise, rather than building to suit an arbitrary number which has no correlation to the number of operators you may find.

 

It is with some pleasure I see that in the next iteration of the Charford plan (v3),  John has resolved some of the comments I mentioned. It's interesting that both Berrow and Charford v3 have that twig-off-a-branch infront of the FY in East Brent and Whitsun Halt. Convergent evolution? Talking of which, @t-b-g's scenicked FY from Narrow Road is how John treats the Whitsun halt, with trains staged there whole-cloth between turns - rather than treating it as a 'real' station.

 

Scope

I think it's pretty evident that an 00 layout CAN be larger and more complex than an EMSF layout in a given amount of time (though as you've said the cost will increase). I figure for this layout, the use of the lever frame means that one person can be signalman at the same time another is engine driver - and be fully occupied.

 

Edited June 11, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Regularity]

Hi William,

 

If you can mark, cut and file accurately, the only issue with building a compensated chassis, or a loco, is one of familiarity with the tools and materials, which means time. My first chassis was ok, but needed rebuilding to chase out the slop, after which it ran very smoothly. (I tried making my own hornblocks guides, as I was too impatient to wait for mail order - this was pre-internet days when it might take a few days or even weeks.) it’s just a question of taking your time, enlightened impatience, and being prepared to redo things which aren’t good enough, until you get the hang of it.

 

3 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

On that note for 1899 EM-SF I simply can't justify the cost of RTR pre-group and it feels like buyng an 0-6-0T with inside valve gear and cylinders (i.e. none) that I then need to re-wheel or re-chassis feels like a terrible value proposition against buying something like a Lord Nelson with all the size and complexity of the locomotive ready to use.

That’s the nub of the issue, expressed in terms relevant to you. And yes, I think by adopting 00 you can probably get more into the space. You are also stating that you want things to look realistic, without necessarily having them precisely so - if it looks good, it is right, rather than if it is right, it looks good. (And that latter point doesn’t always apply!

So, that’s that solved. The only questions is, what wheel/track standards are you going to use, and will you be using Peco (especially the new bullhead range as they have announced a slip with makes for much more interesting possibilities) or building it for yourself, maybe with a bit of gauge narrowing to get finer flangeways without needing to rewheel everything?

 

I liked the twig off the branch on Charford, especially the way the station was contrived to look like a through station but could be operated as a terminus. But you could have a freight line. Reception sidings and a couple of sorting sidings alongside your terminus, maybe even dealing with general goods there, and a line off to a goods/coal yard in front of the fiddle yard.

[St Enodoc]

21 minutes ago, Regularity said:

I liked the twig off the branch on Charford, especially the way the station was contrived to look like a through station but could be operated as a terminus.

In the later iterations, the twig was deemed to have been "closed" beyond Whitchurch Halt.

[Lacathedrale]

On 11/06/2022 at 13:08, St Enodoc said:

In the later iterations, the twig was deemed to have been "closed" beyond Whitchurch Halt.

 

I've just got to that bit -becoming a minerals-only line I think? And the next bit I think, where it is installed permanently in a room in Jan '66. When installed there were no changes to either station layout except the extension of the goods headshunt into a milk depot beyond the station (it looks great, and makes me think I should be accounting for a full depth station building and forecourt if possible...). It probably says alot about the layout whose track layout stayed the same for something like eight years, and whose essential character for eleven.

 

I've yet to break out the IRSE green book about single line working, but I'm being convinced a suburban layout wouldn't be terrible.

 

It seems after the Jan '66 there's a precipitous drop in Charford content, but I'm wondering if the OCR used for my search isn't working, so I'm back to working chronologically from where I left off, February 1957. Interestingly there's an article about building a pair of GWR Bulldogs and their double-frames, which is what I just asked about in the Kit Building area - my target scratchbuild to prove out my abilities in that manner is an outside framed LCDR 2-4-0T "Second Sondes"-class.

 

 

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

I've just got to that bit -becoming a minerals-only line I think? And the next bit I think, where it is installed permanently in a room in Jan '66. When installed there were no changes to either station layout except the extension of the goods headshunt into a milk depot beyond the station (it looks great, and makes me think I should be accounting for a full depth station building and forecourt if possible...). It probably says alot about the layout whose track layout stayed the same for something like eight years, and whose essential character for eleven.

 

I've yet to break out the IRSE green book about single line working, but I'm being convinced a suburban layout wouldn't be terrible.

 

It seems after the Jan '66 there's a precipitous drop in Charford content, but I'm wondering if the OCR used for my search isn't working, so I'm back to working chronologically from where I left off, February 1957. Interestingly there's an article about building a pair of GWR Bulldogs and their double-frames, which is what I just asked about in the Kit Building area - my target scratchbuild to prove out my abilities in that manner is an outside framed LCDR 2-4-0T "Second Sondes"-class.

 

 

John Charman had other interests (including Big Band Jazz and hospital radio AFAIR) and, in a later article he did talk about Charford sitting in the shed unused and unloved for quite some time. He did go on to build other layouts later in his life but I think there was quite a long hiatus. I have a file of his articles somewhere so will have another look. I suspect that, like most home layouts, it wasn't actually operated all that often. From all accounts the Madder Valley Railway, despite being a very good design for operation,  was almost never operated and those who visited like Cyril Freezer seem not to have ever seen it in action (It is due to be operated at Pendon next Sunday). ISTR that the Berrow branch was exhibited fairly regularly but again wonder how often Max Pyrke actually ran the timetable. The secret to a fully operating home layout seems to be to have regular operating sessions with other people invited. Frank Dyer certainly did that with Borchester, as did Peter Denny with Buckingham and  Richard Chown with Castle Rackrent.

[t-b-g]

17 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

John Charman had other interests (including Big Band Jazz and hospital radio AFAIR) and, in a later article he did talk about Charford sitting in the shed unused and unloved for quite some time. He did go on to build other layouts later in his life but I think there was quite a long hiatus. I have a file of his articles somewhere so will have another look. I suspect that, like most home layouts, it wasn't actually operated all that often. From all accounts the Madder Valley Railway, despite being a very good design for operation,  was almost never operated and those who visited like Cyril Freezer seem not to have ever seen it in action (It is due to be operated at Pendon next Sunday). ISTR that the Berrow branch was exhibited fairly regularly but again wonder how often Max Pyrke actually ran the timetable. The secret to a fully operating home layout seems to be to have regular operating sessions with other people invited. Frank Dyer certainly did that with Borchester, as did Peter Denny with Buckingham and  Richard Chown with Castle Rackrent.

 

I think you have hit the nail on the head there. Whenever I get the chance to speak with layout owners/operators, either at shows or when I visit their homes, I like to ask the question "How often do you operate your layout?". Many times the answer is either at exhibitions or when visitors come.

 

I built exhibition layouts for many years and apart from testing, they were never operated at home just for my own pleasure. I never had room to set them up at home and even testing a small layout involved blocking up a room at home for a few hours.

 

Since I have had Buckingham here, my hobby has changed considerably. I have friends over once or twice a week for a running session of about 3 hours and when visitors come for the day, it is run for longer. Yet it was always very much a social event until Covid came along. With the enforced ending of friends and visitors coming, I started running the layout myself and thoroughly enjoyed doing it. Even without the "Automatic Crispin" solo operation turned out to be very relaxing and a great escape from the troubles of the world. When running the layout by myself, I would set a train up at Buckingham then go over to Grandborough to drive it round, or vice versa.

 

One thing I did add was that if there was a problem, either electrical or a derailment, it was a lot easier to stop running and sort out the cause when nobody else was about, so many long standing niggles got sorted out.

 

I still enjoy operating more when others are here and my solo sessions (which were usually about an hour to ninety minutes long) have declined now that friends can be here again but there is no doubt that a well designed layout can also be fun to operate solo. I always find that it is the intricate shunting moves that I enjoy most. Even a simple terminus is more fun that a big roundy-roundy. A layout with a big bank of fiddle yard sidings and a circuit where they just go round and round just bores me after five minutes.

 

My top requirement for enjoying a solo fiddle yard to terminus layout would be a good fiddle yard design. Being able to have a few trains set up ready to go and paying minimal attention to the fiddle yard until all the trains are back in there allows a session to flow much better than one where you need to be attending to the fiddle yard every move or two. Moving a traverser over to the next track would be the most I would want to do in the fiddle yard between moves.

[kitpw]

On 11/06/2022 at 09:18, Lacathedrale said:

nor have I scratchbuilt a loco

A couple of years ago, my wife snd I were trying to fit a child's car seat in the back of our car for our grandson:  he was jumping up and down on the back seat singing "I've got the' structions, I've got the 'stuctions - press the blue button!". We were laughing so much we couldn't read the 'structions, let alone follow them. To my mind, the great thing about scratch building is that you don't have instructions to follow... and there is no blue button.  Sure, you  go down a few blind alleys and make a few mistakes, but for me at any rate, I make more mistakes when trying to follow instructions, probably because it takes away the necessity of thinking it all through.  The key ingedient is some good drawings and confidence in their "accuracy" (inverted commas as accuracy is a relative term... or a moveable feast), some reasonable photo reference and a bit of time to plan each step as you go along.

 

Kit PW

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/blog/2502-swan-hill/

[Pacific231G]

4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I think you have hit the nail on the head there. Whenever I get the chance to speak with layout owners/operators, either at shows or when I visit their homes, I like to ask the question "How often do you operate your layout?". Many times the answer is either at exhibitions or when visitors come.....

My top requirement for enjoying a solo fiddle yard to terminus layout would be a good fiddle yard design. Being able to have a few trains set up ready to go and paying minimal attention to the fiddle yard until all the trains are back in there allows a session to flow much better than one where you need to be attending to the fiddle yard every move or two. Moving a traverser over to the next track would be the most I would want to do in the fiddle yard between moves.

I remember Peter Denny wriitng that if he was forced to downsize  to a very much smaller layout it would be a terminus to fiddle yard. It's interesting though that the first well known (and possibly the first) terminus to fiddle yard layout was Maybank built by Bill Banwell and Frank Applegate in 1932 and built int hat form because the only space they had was a former long narrow ladder shed that Banwell's father-a retired builder- had erected.

My current H0 layout is only 62 inches long (plus FY) with just five points and it can take a good half hour to shunt the daily goods or mixed train. A roundy round would have me bored after the second circuit.I'm convinced it's the lack of shunting more than the end of steam that makes modern unit and block train based railways so much less interesting to watch than those from 1960s and before. 

Edited June 12, 2022 by Pacific231G
correction of number of points

[Lacathedrale]

Cross-posting from my workbench thread, EMSF appears to be a success:

 

 

One of those wagons is 6" too long and 6" too narrow, because I put the ends on top of, instead of between, the side sheets. The middle two wagons have glue blobs instead of square nuts on the washer plates. Would most people notice unless I mentioned it? Probably not. But the satisfaction of making them myself and the enjoyment of the process? Vivid and very real to me. I really enjoyed the entire process of scratchbuilding the wagons, and I didn't really enjoy the kits at all by comparison, @kitpw - I think it is as you say, since you are doing it yourself, you know what you mean; there is no deciphering of instructions or drying to work out what fits against what or in which order.

 

I want to build the HL chassis for my SER R-class before starting the scratchbuild, but I'm reasonably confident at being able to muddle through an LCDR 2-4-0T :)

[Lacathedrale]

Re: use and non-use of layouts 

There is of course a danger of the layout not being operated frequently if it's a home layout, certainly that is something I'm bearing in mind. That said, I have frequently talked about layouts and operational potential with a local enthusiast, and I think we came to the conclusion that while it would be horrible to have a layout that had NO operational potential, or a layout which was NEVER operated - the vast majority of my time spent with model railways was either with no layout, or a layout in early stages of being built that was stopped for one reason or another - so though I'm keeping sight of the end goal, I'm trying not to fetishise it.

 

Number of Operators

What I meant earlier when I obliquely mentioned working signals and a lever frame was kind of what @t-b-g has said - solo it will afford train running and shunting and lever switching sequentially, but with more than one operator those same moves can happen simultaneously.

 

 

 

 

[5BarVT]

19 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I'm convinced it's the lack of shunting more than the end of steam that makes modern unit and block train based railways so much less interesting to watch than those from 1960s and before. 

I’d say operate as much as watch.  That’s why my layout has to involve parcels, it’s the one bit of shunting that lasted well into the blue era on a scale that can be modelled (with some compromises).

Paul.

[Regularity]

34 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I remember Peter Denny wriitng that if he was forced to downsize  to a very much smaller layout it would be a terminus to fiddle yard.

The layout I have most enjoyed over the years was the one I had 44 years ago. It was a double track terminus feeding a double track return loop: the junction for that was just outside “station limits” but within easy reach of the operating position at the station throat. If I were doing that again, I would add an isolating section on each loop, to allow for two trains to be stored in each line, giving more variety, although I had barely enough stock for that!

In concept, although I wasn’t aware of it at the time, it was very similar to L.E. Carroll’s layout based on Victoria although a lot more limited.

The only problem with return loops is the need for space: two times the minimum radius plus additional tracks in width and three times the length in addition to everything else - the Victoria layout looped back on itself, and meant a 3’ radius minimum within a garage, about 16’x 8’.

There are alternative fiddle yards arrangement, but I think a variant on the Denny pattern with a train tray fed via pointwork (personally I would go for a scissors crossover incorporating double slips at one end on the approach to allow for simultaneous departures and arrivals) is the least disruptive: only need to get up and turn it once it has been emptied and refilled, rather than every time a train is needed. It would be possible to use a John Coulter style traversing traintable, with something to index a motorised traverser function. A simple manual release to allow the deck to be slid out and turned would have to incorporated, but the requirement for approach pointwork would be eliminated.

Hmm. Now there’s a thought…

 

But you makes your choices, hopefully to fit your own circumstances.

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

I'm reasonably confident at being able to muddle through an LCDR 2-4-0T :)

Personal recommendation:

Rock the leading axle axle side to side, with twin beams on the drivers, one on each side. You can then more easily fit the mechanism based on how it best fits without worrying about beams being in the way. 
The side beams can be made out of 15 thou material, and rest on top of the axle boxes, with a simple screw each side for the pivots. I do the same for 0-6-0s, and for a 4-4-0 or 0-4-4 would have twins beams for the drivers, with the bogie pivot as the third point. The bogie itself would have twin beams as well. 
 

Cross beam:

 

Side beam:

 

Diagram of 4-coupled bogie:

A shot of a small 2-4-0T chassis, which has made no progress since 2005!

(I know the rods are on upside down, but I was just testing ride height at the time.)

Slightly fuzzy overhead shot to show the central pivot on the leading axle:

Edited June 12, 2022 by Regularity
Added two more photos.

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, Regularity said:

The layout I have most enjoyed over the years was the one I had 44 years ago. It was a double track terminus feeding a double track return loop: the junction for that was just outside “station limits” but within easy reach of the operating position at the station throat. If I were doing that again, I would add an isolating section on each loop, to allow for two trains to be stored in each line, giving more variety, although I had barely enough stock for that!

In concept, although I wasn’t aware of it at the time, it was very similar to L.E. Carroll’s layout based on Victoria although a lot more limited.

T

 

LE Carroll's layout is in two of the articles I've kept (the second was a reworking of the Victoria terminus) but a rather similar theme is Geoff Pitt's Horn Lane.  I'm not usually that keen on LT based layouts but I do like Geoff's which is very effective

 

It is inspired by the District/Central Line extension station at Ealing Broadway and is essentially Minories, including the loco spur, with an extra platform so two platforms for sub-surface stock and two for tube stock with typically LT burrowing junctions feeding a double track return sub-surface (District and Met)  loop includign part of a two platform station and a single track return loop for tube stock with one underground tube platform. There are also two empty stock sidings in the terminus area to allow for the sequence to change.

 

The overall size is  13ft by 8ft 6 inches ‘L’ shaped with te end and on the loops the outer  radius is  18.5 inches and the inner radius 16inches.

Geoff doesn't have a track plan but the control panel makes the layout fairly self evident and operation outside the terminus is semi-automated

Operation is basically to display a cavalcade of LT stock from different eras including the turnover of locos for the loco hauled service but it's far more interesting to watch than a roundy round layout performing the same function and captures the atmosphere of the UndergrounD  very well.

 

[Pacific231G]

Just for completion here are more images of Geoff Pitt's Horn Lane.

A general view of the short arm of the L  with the bare board half of the return loops  behind the backscene

The sub-surface double junction, based on Minories Junction at Aldgate.

and "Newgate" station

and finally the station building and underground platform for the deep level Pitt Street station

 

This was the entire layout as I saw it at the Northolt MRC's show in 2006 (Geoff's club) and at the LT Museum Depot two years later. Geoff no longer exhibits the layout but the home version is about 40% larger with one more tube station.  

 

Edited June 12, 2022 by Pacific231G

[St Enodoc]

53 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Just for completion here are more images of Geoff Pitt's Horn Lane.

A general view of the short arm of the L  with the bare board half of the return loops  behind the backscene

The sub-surface double junction, based on Minories Junction at Aldgate.

and "Newgate" station

and finally the station building and underground platform for the deep level Pitt Street station

 

This was the entire layout as I saw it at the Northolt MRC's show in 2006 (Geoff's club) and at the LT Museum Depot two years later. Geoff no longer exhibits the layout but the home version is about 40% larger with one more tube station.  

 

Would the next station along from Pitt Street be Hob's End?

[DCB]

On 10/06/2022 at 08:57, Lacathedrale said:

I have really been listening when people have suggested a single-line terminus instead of a double-track terminus. I'm still not convinced, but while I have been perusing the early RM's I've found the articles on Charford starting in RM April '55. I've come across it in passing before, but lovely to see it develop through the issues. John provides a simple track plan and later on, a working timetable. I figured this was a perfect opportunity to test out actual layout operation - please note, I'm not planning on building the layout described below!

 

Charford V1 in EM - 14' x  18" (original 12' x 12")

 

 

Interesting  We started with a kickback goods shed with Haddenhoe back in 2009 ish basically based on Faringdon, and not unlike Charford but it was a PITA to operate and a PITA to keep operational bearing in mind it is in a separate shed "The Rabbit Hutch" away from the rest of the layout. Gradually the track layout has been simplified and the sidings which added nothing were deleted.  The Kick back goods shed made the back road of the goods yard just about un usable so as of last evening the track plan is as per my 2022 drawing , and  more important shunting it was fun.  The problem with the kick back is there is nowhere to put the wagons FROM the kickback apart from parking them on the main line.  Finding somewhere for the wagons in the siding used as a headshunt to lurk is not easy either. With no kick back you" just "need to run round and the loco is always at the country end with no wagons beyond to run away.   Except my son will send 20 wagons down when the run round only takes 15.. (The full size Faringdon loop took 40 wagons) 

Edited June 13, 2022 by DCB

[Lacathedrale]

Wow, two layouts in two sheds (presumably with a garden section linking them?) I totally see what you mean about the experience maybe requiring the layout to be altered. In your case, maybe the old Ashburton chestnut of horse shunting expected?

 

The more consider that idea though, and the more I look at Berrow, Charford, Buckingham - I realise that there are a class of layouts where the operators did not just start over, they set about improving them and tweaking them as time went on - in some case, for decades. Maybe it was part of the 'mend and make do' attitude of the time, where it wasn't as straight forward to get a completely different fleet of rolling stock and locomotives, new track or even materials? I like that idea. Particularly I like the idea of building towards a corpus of rolling stock, structures, etc. that would work within reason on any of the layout ideas I'm proposing.

 

Anyway, with regard to Charford's awkward set-back goods yard, the addition of a goods runaround (highlighted in red) on the throat alleviates almost all the trouble with shuffling back and forth to the platform runaround and does not otherwise impact the length of the layout:

 

Charfield (Tweaked 'Charford') v1

 

I very much like the look of the layout as shown above, it has an air of authenticity - particularly how spacious it looks. I think its secret in this guise is that with the exception of moving the coach set from P1 to P2, all shunting occurs within station boundaries.

 

I also saw Tyling, by Ken Payne - an Early EM Gauge layout in April '57:

I think the cutting is particularly effective, and there has been a clear restraint on the scope of the model I think, and it shows - it seems like a remixed Charford v2 (i.e. the first published) with a close attention to prototype detail without being slavish to it. I'm not sure I could cope with quite so much simplicity, but you can't argue the visual impact: gentle curves, view breaks and height changes. The second shot gives me such an impression of peaking over that bridge parapet and staring at the loco simmering on the runaround it's quite queer indeed.

 

 

[Pacific231G]

There is another single track but fairly important terminus plan I've been looking at that may be relevant.

 

This was an 0 gauge layout built by E.A. (Ernest) Beet, and I assume, the boys at the school he taught at that was in MRN in 1947.

It was portable (with about six boys carrying  the 10ft x  26 ins main station board!) and used with further sections leading to a simple run-round terminus. It was operated strictly to timetable and rule book. with five, mostly Basset-Lowke, clockwork locos. 

What struck me was the length of train it could accomodate on the main platform.

I would probably extend the bays to full length and it did occur to me that a headshunt immediately below the main line would give the impression of a double track terminus.

The terminus represented an extension of the LMS from Windermere to Ambleside.

 

Beet himself was better known as an astronomer and, after he retired from teaching, was the astromical correpsondent of The Times.