Lacathedrale

1/2" to the foot is Imperial: (2mmFS wagon for scale) This is a very fine LBSC D8 covered wagon by William Models. Individually sprung axleboxes, laser cut steel W-Irons, sprung buffers and coupling hooks. These wagons could have been built with a single wooden brake, but the kit comes with a iron shod double-brake, double-sided configuration in keeping with their layout in a latter period. it also has a square builder's plate (adjacent the left hand crown plate) which means it is a post 1911 build. The original livery would have been lavender (red oxide added to light grey) with an illiterate mark only - then LBSCRY, then LBSCR and a darker shade (around 1904) and finally the dark 'lead' colour of GWR from 1911 onwards with plain 'LBSC'. I've still got all the brakes, horse hook, label clip/etc. to put on before I think about colour schemes!

The wagon is 2mm - A long term goal is a 5" Gauge loco whoever, whose stock would have the same relation to a 4mm wagon I think realistically unless I'm going with a @Mikkel-style bitsa-layout, @Donw, this is purely for the outside line!

Gaueg III may prove a challenge.... Maybe an inglenook?

Well, your thoughts of leveraging the door space more directly if nothing else. You're right of course that a layout of that scope most definitely does impact the room. I guess if we pared back that part of the layout to a thin shelf of no more than about 6" wide then a sofa bed could easily fit underneath...

Sketching in a few more details on the FY - by increasing the spacing between two tracks it could end up being a modelled 'shadow' station - like the aforementioned use of Ludgate Hill as a view block. The increased width in this area could be used for a headshunt loco facility and carriage siding off the main station. A cheeky connection from the FY ladder to the TT makes it perform double duty: Now, one can operate Minories solo and to a sequence timetable - there is room for two large trains and two short pre-loaded trains in the FY, three in and four back. There is a siding for empty stock movements (which were a non-trivial proportion of shunting work at an urban terminus) (like those over the river from Victoria) There is also access to a turntable for loco turning and servicing (think, Cannon Street engine shed, on the 'wrong' side of the river to the station itself) However, in the event there is another operator - one can 'run' both stations as interleaved layouts with bell codes, signalling, interlocking, etc.

As per @Zomboid's thoughts I decided to explore what the 4mm version might look like going around the corner: In my mind, having the layout behind the door and up against one wall reduces the incursion on 'daily life' greatly, which I think would mean it's less likely to end up being removed prematurely. As you can see however, by using a drop-leaf section to take it around a curve, a traditional FY is feasible (the details of which are just a sketch. With judicious measuring it might be possible to link up the FY and main layout in parallel for an 'exhibition' configuration, too. In addition to the 'real' FY, the platforms can be lengthened slightly to take a larger loco and four 48' bogie coaches - quite enough to represent a boat train and long enough to 'realistically' swamp a train of four or six wheeled carriages. This layout is of course somewhat predicated on the availability of early LCDR/LBSCR stock, kits, etc. (which is why I am suggesting 4mm as opposed to S-scale or 2mmFS).

So I think we established earlier on in this thread that staging for four trains (plus one on the layout) would be more than enough for most steam-era operation. I built a 'half-Minories' some time ago and it had the unenviable wrinkle that station pilot shunt moves would take the locos and stock into the traverser. What may have made that more egregious was that realigning the traverser meant vaulting a joist in the middle of the attic from where the layout was stored. I don't think I got very far at all with that one after I realised what a pain it was! In any event, I'm looking at a Minories (or Minories-alike) in my office - the space is ostensibly long enough for a 'short' Minories, but it does have another niggle - in this case that the 'fiddle yard' can be no wider than 5". In 2mm/N or TT this isn't an issue at all, but as an experiment I've been looking at 4mm also. Discounting various ingenious solutions like re-hanging the door, etc. it feels like the only non-invasive solution to this is to use cassettes or a vertical traverser. Neither of these seem like that would be a trouble in an exhibition environment, but solo I imagine breech-loading trains would get very tiresome: (example layout in the space available - middle roads are bidirectional, southern is arrival only, northern is departure only) To ensure that all operations on a layout can be achieved without resorting to leveraging the fiddle yard for 'railway' moves, we need a layout length 4TU + station throat + fiddle throat) of 1TU for platforms, the throat 1TU for a headshunt and then 1TU for a cassette (or 1TU + a fiddle throat). In my case, I make that about 12' - or a foot longer than I have to play with! In 2mm/N gauge this works nicely - using Holborn Viaduct as a model, the throat was only 180' away from the first turnout of Ludgate Hill - so Ludgate Hill's overall trainshed and parapets could be used as a legitimate view block for the FY, with the turnouts for the FY roads visible as the tangle of tracks by the exit of LH: The above is essentially Minories-as-wrote, with the exception of a three-way instead of a normal turnout on the platform roads to save space, and a double slip rather than heel-to-toe turnouts in the throat for the same reason. What may be intresting is how closely HV itself ends up resembling Minories:

I have thought about 4mm too - this is Minories in the HV 1874 guise - very 'early' railway so short wagons, 0-4-2 locomotives, etc. but it fits fairly well!

If there is a really solid layout that would leverage the extra 2'6" I might consider it - for example, a jump from 2mm to 4mm for an equivalent plan - but I'd rather try to work within the existing parameters if possible. After all, this as mentioned is an office first, (future) bedroom second and space-for-a-layout third!

What I've found a little unexpected is that the HV-themed Minories is very close the 1951 plan of the layout flipped horizontally - and the plan of post-72 is almost identical to the 'real' Minories plan - save a loco spur. As per my previously linked thread, I think I vastly prefer the LCDR era of 1874-1896 but I just can't think of a way I'd be able to come up with appropriate rolling stock. Annoyingly, it would be much more straight forward in 4mm with the Hattons Genesis coaches and all of the SECR-liveried stock... As something of a wildcard, my new house is back on LBSCR territory - my grandparents, my first house all backed onto the brighton mainline and here I am again - albeit 50 mi south! Here's a lovely picture of the local station, the arrow points to where today my desk is situated! Maybe even MORE out of scope though

1. My garden is looking good, but as I said I really need to build/have built a few live steam locos of a given gauge (either G1 or G3) - which is something I'm working towards alongside this thread - before I make any commitment for large scale designs. 2. Technically I could have a hinge-down section, but it would then block the door completely from opening so is a no-go. I know I could re-hang the door in theory, but in practice it's not feasible. A vertical traverser, maybe? @Zomboid that's what I mean about a 30" x 5" thin section behind the door - I'm not really prepared to block it, but I might be tempted if there is a strong case for a taper rather than 'leg' off the end of the main layout. Here's HV 1874 perfectly depicted (and almost dead to scale). Arrivals/departures are via cassettes stored vertically below the arrival/departure tracks (shown in dotted lines). Holborn Viaduct Circa 1874 almost verbatim The bottom/nearest platform is arrival only, two centre roads are bidirectional - one hosting an end loading dock, and the topmost platform is departure only. (More details hidden away in this thread: Scenically, the station is on a viaduct, with the metropolitan extension on a steep gradient down at the front. Behind, the Belle Sauvage inn and yard. A ground-level road crosses under the throat and a taxi ramp/cart road comes up to platform level front-left, blocking the end of the M.E. tracks from view. It is fairly straight-forward to superimpose the feel of HV into Minories, by adding the signature features - the carriage dock, the engine shed + water tower, the wooden platform over the M.E. Lines, which sink down into the stygian depths of Snow Hill at the front of the layout, and the end of the layout scenically terminated with the signal box over the same lines. Staging isn't actually too bad as long as train lengths are reasonable - two trains per road with a double slip to provide space for six trains total - more than enough IMO! Holborn Viaduct circa 1899 (themed Minories) ps. I note that after drawing this, the signal box should be well to the left, adjacent the mouth of the station throat - where it is currently situated in the plan is the start of Ludgate Hill station - an overall roof at this point would be a wonderful view block! I'm going to investigate moving the period forward to NSE/etc. as well as what I might be able to do in 4mm in this space - stay tuned...

It is known that the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry - and this is no different! It has been determind that the bay-window room is infact a far better place for my home office, and as such the space I have to play with is as follows: 8' x 16" for the main layout, with a 2'6" x 5" sliver behind the door (headshunt, cassette, fold down FY/traverser/etc.)

I've just read through this thread for the first time and found it very enjoyable. I'm sad to see the layout needing to move on, hopefully you can find a suitable home for it.

Yes, it definitely is - any further real-world progress in that vein will have to sit behind visiting some local get togethers and getting some of my own live steam engines (stationary or otherwise) complete. The idea behind planning the G1 space was to see whether a garden railway WOULD be feasible. As you've said it's fairly complex at its apex, but initially would be much simpler and could slowly develop over time. Another option was Gauge 3. Models in G3/2.5" Gauge are just over the 'Model Engineering' side of the fence which is something I'm quite interested in at the moment, as opposed to buying commercial, off-the-shelf models - which seems very prevalent in Gauge 1. A Gauge 3 railway is no joke at all - a 4-6-0 and a few coaches could easily be over twelve feet long just on its own! Here is a G3 plan using the same station design (albeit as a through station rather than a terminus) and a simple island station opposite - the equivalent space in 00 is 15' x 7'6": Either way, for large scale I am not interested in buying my way into things - it's all about building and that has to be proven first as well as those visits to other lines.

You are absolutely right, Chimer - upon revisiting Ewer St. is effectively just a glorified Inglenook. Taking a huge leaf out of the Paddington to Seagood book, I've formulated a plan in the same vein but in a slightly different space. This is depicted as OO in 10'6" x 21" - but is in fact Gauge 1 in 50' x 100' in disguise (i.e. scaled down proportionally) for ease of a common language: This is very much at the sketch stage and all names and track layouts are notional placeholders. Caterham is the 1896 station as previously discussed Central Croydon is a fairly unabashed copy of Seagood from the aforementioned book, albeit with a double track connection. Purley is provides another bay, goods siding and carriage siding, and I'm thinking of it as a passing-terminus - trains are split and combined, motive power swapped, etc. Max train length is four Mk1's or five 45' bogie coaches and a 4-6-0. I like the idea of building the plan (in N or G1!) iteratively adding cost, time and operational complexity over the course of development rather than upfront. In this example, the continuous run could be built first (handily, at the back of the garden to get a feel for the practicalities and impact on domestic bliss). Then, each station could be grafted onto the trunk in sequence. Operationally I think the layout is a little more on the money than the previous - In this case there are a few separate interests satisfied: Expresses depart the city end as a Down and lope around the continuous run before returning as an Up Fast goods would drop cuts of wagons at Purley and similarly circambulate. The branch can operate independently (i.e. as a shuttle to the bay at Purley,) or integrated through to Croydon. Shunters can go hog wild at both termini.

Scoping out a system-type layout in this space, here is CJF's 1981 Minories superimposed into the space - if another narrow terminus could be afforded at the right hand side (nominally here as 'Blackfriars'), it would be a complete system!

Lovely locos - do you have any pictures of the layout these run on?

Correct, I know Gareth Collier (?) of this parish has built a number of LCDR/SER/SECR locos that would be perfect for the Caterham branch. In some ways that branch is ideal for scratchbuilders because all sorts of pensioned-off motive power ended up there way up until the end of freight in '63ish. That does make it rather a challenging prospect for 2mm/N because of just how diminutive the 1870's era stock would be, that would have worked the branch. It's alot easier in Gauge 3... SECR D-class in Gauge 3, built from scaled up G1MRA "Dee" plans

Good points - I don't think I've gone off track laying, I very much enjoy that - but after long conversation with @justin1985 I've come to realise that there is a 'pick two' out of the following: 1) finescale standards 2) timely construction 3) size of layout So Finetrax N would work very well in that all the non-scenic items could be Peco RTR and only the visible sections hand laid. Certainly the minimum radius would help for minimising the impact of the 90 degree bend in the corner of the L. The short leg of the L could play host to one of the many terminii I have designed. The original Caterham station on the single line branch, in 7' x 1' in Finetracks N. Holborn Viaduct (more or less) as built in 1874 in 2mmFS However, both of these plans have the drawback that they essentially mandate pre-grouping locomotives and stock - which is very much up my street - but looking at the 'choose two' above, I just can't scratchbuild every bloody piece of stock and track I might need for these layouts and get it done in a reasonable amount of time. I think my second love, that of the railways of my childhood (i.e. late 80's through to 00) makes more sense - 33's, 73's, 4CEPs, Networkers, PGA stone trains, etc. are all available in RTR (or near enough). I return back to the specific criteria of what I want to model (as opposed to the discussion about scale and gauge) - I'm not willing to sacrifice on scope - the layout MUST contain at least a (sub?) urban passenger terminus Working signals, with a provision for mechanical interlocking An authentic track plan (if not in geometry) Provide operational and not just aesthetic entertainment for me - this puts the 1980's era under some question as it precludes a good deal of terminus operation. Some more food for thought, anyway...

Having mulled the ideas over in my head I've come to some fairly obvious conclusions: With my primary interaction with the hobby at the moment being large scale live steam (at least with that intention), I've gone right off finescale for myself (though hopefully I can help out others) The space is just too small for 10mm/7mm/3-16ths/etc. A stylised 4mm layout may just about be feasible - i.e. shorter train lengths. TT is off the cards unless it's euro RTR N is most feasible for a layout - but probably least appealing. Neither the fineness of 2mmFS nor the heft of any of the larger scales. Much food for thought here!

Well, we find ourselves a couple of months later - contracts are exchanged and completion looms. Finally. Here's a revised look at what I think would be 'the room' should an indoor model railway take shape: In this example I have knocked out the built-in wardrobes to use as a desk nook in beige - the footprint includes 3' of depth for a chair and access. The solid orange square represents a potential bed, with the dotted outline a recommended 2' clearance to walk around it - clearly there is room to shuffle or rotate it as required. The left hand wall has a slightly sloped ceiling which has no impact on daily use (the straight part of the wall is easily 8' tall) but which may naturally suggest a separate space from the rest of the room, so I have chosen that to show the scenic section of a given layout. If the layout was modelled in N rather than 2mm/4mm/3-16/7mm/etc. here is room for a pair of minimum radius return loops should they be required without undly imposing on using the room as a bedroom in future. A more likely configuration as a terminus to FY or small system the west (top) wall is more than long enough for fiddle yards. In 2mmFS or N these would probably stop by the foot of the bed or potentially just loop underneath the scenic section - but larger scales and gauges could leverage that length. The leg is noted as a constant width (6") throughout, but there is no reason why this could not be widened a little beyond the window for a second 'country' terminus rather than a FY. The room is west facing and bridging over the window is a no-go, so seated, 'desk height' operation is probably where I'm leaning. I appreciate this puts me in the territory of 'toy trains' especially in the smaller scales - but this is an office foremost, a (potential) bedroom second, and a railway room last.

Yes in my brief experiement I was quite surprised at the 'period' pulling power for the models i.e. not very much! Still, they look gorgeous!

What chassis do you put under these lovely 3D printed bodies? When I checked out TT way back when, the big issue was that there was no easily available diesel chassis/bogie units!

You gave a great presentation at the 2mmFS/Copenhagen Fields video conference by the MRC, @justin1985 !

Looking very interesting Doc, that's quite a jump in (percieved) complexity compared to your BR(S) layout - what do you think about that change?