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.

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

@faulcon1 I understand it went wholesale to America in a private sale when Mike moved to P4? Truly a wonderful video!

Sorry, I meant multiple templates for the transition/egg curved track specifically! i.e. what was the method you used to create that curve? Did you start with the smallest radius and then make a transition curve from a straight section attached to the throat?

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.

That is fantastic to see, thank you - glad to see it's feasible.

@martin_wynne is there a way to achieve that transition curve/eggy curve in Templot without the use of multiple templates? It's something I've done from time to time but always using multiple templates with differing curve radii and I'd like to replicate what you've done in my space - it looks wonderful! @Siberian Snooper thank you kindly for your link there, good to know I'm not barking completely up the wrong tree.

In another thread I'm bouncing around some ideas for a garage layout - one of the options is to revisit P4 (as opposed to 00, or embarking on a new adventure in 3mmFS), but my main problem is that with only around 8' overall width available to me, the 180° curve to enter a fiddle yard needs to be a no more than a hair under 3'3" radius. I'm specifically looking to model the late victorian period - so the largest locomotives would be six coupled tender engines with a 16'3" wheelbase, the longest stock is likely to be 40' bogie coaches. An example of the kind of constraint I'm talking about is shown below, though the track plan is fairly notional the curve is just about what I'm "stuck" with in any scenario... The three parallel tracks show potential traverser/FY positions. P4 isn't the only option of course - I can attempt to reevaluate EM, consolidate down to 00 for the sake of expediency, or change scales - but for now, I'm curious as to whether with gauge widening I can consider this combination of track curvature and stock to be "safe".

If only other societies and scales were this thorough with their information - all these measurements (i.e. height to underside of wagon) are wonderful to see provided! You'd think that other corners of the internet were charged by the word...

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

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....

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:

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.

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?

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

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

Silver fox thank you for your reply. I’ve modelled in all the scales under the sun and found S the most gratifying by far due to the nature of needing to sort everything yourself - I’ve no interest in coarse scale/triang though I’m afraid. Your efforts In the workbench thread are truly wonderful though!

Dear Robert, can you please expand on the supply issues? That was a huge problem for me the first time around and may well be an early death knell. I’m comfortable using 3D printers and silhouette cutters should it come to that but I am going to draw the line at etching my own coach bogies or other mass required items. How is the supply of wagons kits, coach bogies/sides and 14.2 wheels and axles for stock in general? So far I’m thinking of a layout which coincidentally looks to follow a similar layout to David Jenkinsons “Kendal” . The only thing which has even a modicum of sway to prototype is that it must be pre nationalisation, and for scale the only steer is that I have some 2mmFS grouping era wagons! the space (14’ x 9’) is just a little tight for what I want in 4mm finescale although otherwise that seems practical and a revision of the plan may be in order to fulfill it. I have stock and experience in 2mmFS but I’m finding it increasingly hard to b muster the enthusiasm for something quite so small…

What about the enthusiast? Rather than the employee or shareholder. i ask because the two books mentioned has such polarised view from opposite sides of the same nationalisation

I’m planning a layout to fit into a 9’ x 14’ garage and coming to the realisation that in 4mm I think it will probably end up too compressed, and in 2mm will not have the presence I would like. I joined the 3mm association about four or five years ago and was quite dismayed at the underlying lack of support: no motor bogies, kits out of stock everywhere, and basically everything seemingly geared to keep existing devotees on life support rather than allowing new entries. i may have got that wrong but it was my impression at the time! I am looking to model a through station and terminus and will likely ultimately require around half a dozen locomotives and associated passenger rakes (3-5 coaches each) and a couple of trains of wagons. I’m looking to model the early grouping era in finescale (14.2). My exact setting is not yet concrete but either GWR or SR, and I would love to know what is ACTUALLY available to meet these requirements? Coach bogies? Bodies? 3D printed wagons? Etched kits with motors that are actually available, etc?

Are these the new one piece bases with integral chairs and cast crossing, or with thread-on-and-glue chairs and fabricated crossing? only available from the society?

LTC Rolt in railway adventure of 1952 sternly decries the nationalisation of the railways. Ian Fleming in modelling the br era (admittedly a little post hoc) rages against the privatisation. i seem to see very little about the grouping and I was wondering if there are any good resources for opinion among railwaymen and enthusiasts of this period.

Thank you! I can't take credit, it's my version of a double-track Seagood from aforementioned book with a bit of tweaking - as much as I'd like to say it sprang fully formed from the top of my head. With regard to TB I'm interested primarily in the top plan with the centre road. There will obviously be blocking of P1 during a shunt move into the yard, but I wasn't expecting there to be shunting ACROSS P1 into the centre road except via arrival and departure. Hmmmm....

The initial layout was purely speculative, but taking onboard your advice, I have taken to: Placing the carriage sidings behind the station, rather than in the foreground To include the turntable, coal, water and engine shed in the triangle created by the station approach lines and the main lines in the background. Adding some goods facilities to complement the through station and placing them in the foreground for some delicious shunting action. More generally: The goods yard could easily extend around the corner towards the double-junction, but the runaround length is hewed in by the arrival line's sequence of turnouts. I've included a goods runaround so goods trains can be run independently of passenger operations completely, but included a loco pocket for a pilot to release main line trains. The inclusion of a loco servicing facility I think is instrumental in the play value of a terminus, as are the carriage sidings for our puffed out station pilot to fiddle with. I'm quite pleased with this too, more particularly since I can build quite standard benchwork of 2' x 4' (or thereabouts) and without heavy scenic treatment can both get trains running quickly, and I can tweak and adjust as I go along. Any thoughts?

He commissioned much of it from Bassett Lowke apparently, and there are photographs to prove it! Anyway, here's a rough interpretation of the through station taking your point to heart about multiple platforms and platform width... Here we have P1 as an up through platform, P2 (and the adjacent middle track of the trio) as bidirectional and P3 as a down through platform. I'm not wholly happy with the relatively simple goods setup and would prefer another siding - but it is effective. Down goods trains can cross P2 into the middle road, runaround via P2 and then shunt as required. Up goods can simply pull straight into the middle road and shunt as required there. I guess potentially we could omit P1 entirely, but I like the idea of up and down dedicated platforms and the interest of the diamond in the formation and it looks a good deal less stately! I guess one could place the carriage siding/s on the inner-right and an MPD top-left? I'm quite taken with the design - quite apart from the terminus that was the original focus of this exercise, I think it's quite fetching indeed!