Lacathedrale

Well lads, which room to I stake my claim to? It's either that or forgo a 'room layout' in the house entirely, and either wait until outbuildings are supported or take a different tac with a Gauge 1 / 2.5" or 5" gauge garden line.

Well, offer has been accepted on the house and the solicitors and mortgage lenders are sorting it out - the Spare Bedroom layout discussed here will need to fit into one of these three, or another room downstairs underneath the bay-window bedroom with exactly the same footprint: As very adroitly pointed out earlier - each room could be 'just a bit more perfect' - but that's exactly the kind of restriction us creative types thrive on, eh? Bottom-left has two opposing doors and a large window. Top-left is probably the most suitable, but also the most likely to be need ot be used as an actual bedroom, and top-right (or the room below) demands either a P-shape and to be situated low enough to not block the bay window. Of course, the 100' x 50' garden is crying out for a Gauge 1 or even 5" gauge railway that might fulfill the same function...

I imagine, though cannot be certain - that the narrow gauges would still be in 1/152 - and thus 3' narrow gauge would be 6mm between the rails.

Yes, I think as has been alluded to - you either go balls out with an 18" wide 'layout in the room' or a narrow an high-up bookshelf-type layout around the perimeter. I wonder how much is gained by a standing-eye-level layout over a desk-height layout - both intrude into the room a given amount, but a higher level layout interferes with the space when you're standing, looking around, etc. and maybe the perception that a room is smaller, claustrophobic or crowded - while the other is more akin to sideboards, radiator covers and pot-stands, leaving the space above open to the ceiling and not making the room seem overly small? I imagine spotlights on pivoting booms out from the wall, rather than a lighting canopy to further reduce the visual impact?

I'm not sure that really works - it sounds like it should, but having another look at Stummiforum produces this - masked as well as you can, but still very obvious... https://5is57vtuioa6sb73mgll5fhnhi--www-stummiforum-de.translate.goog/viewtopic.php?p=2142576&sid=ee80dc2b841511d4ddb6dd4a93531486#p2142576 You're quite right that keeping the minimum-kernel size as small as possible is a great idea. However, one of the major considerations of my 00 Holborn Viaduct layout was that I wanted trains to GO SOMEWHERE - rather than just shuttle back and forth along 18" of track between a platform and a fiddle yard. I was thinking that with an around-the-walls system-layout, I could build my first element on the bench a traditional FY to Terminus exhibition-type layout, to keep the scope small. Keeping the wider context of the system in mind, it could slot into a space on this nascent around-the-walls layout, initially with @Zomboid's skinny rail connections giving some distance of run. I could then plan and build the next element, removing the temporary continuous run from that 'slot', and adding in the full-fat ones as time goes on. @Harlequin maybe I am misrepresenting this 'elements connected by plain track' thing - I am not envisioning three or four rectangular, self-contained cameo layouts connected by pieces of set track, but rather a single continuous layout that starts with one section, and grows iteratively - consisting of discrete elements connected by plain track. @mdvle I've been working remotely from a 7' x 10' office which is essentially empty apart from an old bankers desk, a guitar amplifier and an office chair. I think mocking something up with polystyrene in the space might be useful? But I think the main ask is that around the desk area any model railway is as out of the way as possible, i.e. narrow, wall-coloured and set way back and above the desk (i.e. like a thin bookshelf rather than a large layout).

My own eye-height layout-room experiment was with 14" boards at 54" from the floor. The skyboards were 14" tall with an upper fascia/screen for hiding the flourescent tubes I used, and the front/bottom fascias were 4" deep too, so it made a very substantial visual intrusioin into what was already a fairly small space. Any working underneath them (as in, monitor and keyboard work) quite oppressive even after the peninsula and half the layout was removed. @Harlequin - that's a very valid point - but if we are talking about 18" deep boards that isn't really sustainable in a dual purpose spare bedroom - unless that's along two walls with your spindly bridge-connecting-continuous-loop is around the other two - essentially writing off that space as a casualty of the bedroom railway, rather than attempting to co-habit it. In N I would assume a 12" radius non-scenic curve minimum - that gives 7' along a short wall and 9' along a long wall - surelly enough for 'interesting track plans' ? I am investigating the european solution to this problem - which just appears to be a very different approach based on track diagram realism twisted and contorted into sharp radii and multiple levels to fit a given space...

@Keith Addenbrooke I get what you mean - in my diagram I do suggest that an element can overlap a curve also. Those back corners could provide fertile ground for coal mines, foundries, or a big pre-group goods warehouse where stub ended tracks lead, suitably masked to represent a larger facility. Maybe it is worth considering each corner to be part of an adjacent straight section? It would be great if each element could be built and operated independently (even in a limited fashion) as to provide satisfaction and a sense of completion ahead of a wider 'room' project, as well.. I am strongly considering a move from 2mmFS to Euro N/TT or even Japanese N to permit a system-type layout that is achievable in my lifetime, and so radii which are much less obtrusive for corners and return curves are possible. It's a different kind of model railways, far away from the kinds of layouts I adore in MRJ - but I think I am at a stage where I want to voluntarily engage in hand-laying track and building stock from scratch rather than it being mandated. Coarser standards do also mean much tigher radii for non-visbile curves, so things like helices and dogbone return loops are feasible. One thing I like about a dogbone style layout is that fiddle tracks can be integrated into the reverse loops, so a pickup goods can arrive from the south loop, shunting wagons , maybe setting out branch traffic at the junction goods yard/etc. and picking up northbound wagons and continue to the 'north' loop. Other things can happen, and then lo and behold - a southbound goods train arrives from the north loop at a later point and can shunt traffic in the other direction. This is to say nothing of passenger services from either direction or industrial or branch connections. A system-type layout permits signalman, fireman/engineer and shunting functions for multiple operators - but could also be linked to a computer control system and allow the 'rules' of train priority, direction, etc. to take effect and let trains circulate the room while working (either real, or modelling!)

Here's what I mean by a system layout - the bare bones is a continuous run around the walls of the room. One could maybe include a continuous gradient throughout the layout to provide a "dogbone" set of stacked reverse curves, or maybe a helix to a lower level. Layout elements can be 'slotted' into the design as they become ready of various sizes- small, small + overflowing onto a corner, or large:

Good morning gents - I do apologise @Keith Addenbrooke, I hit 'submit' before I had really finished my first post. I was hoping to spark a general discussion about spare room layouts, rather than my SPECIFIC notional spare room. It seems that a spare bedroom generally isn't a large one although @30368 clearly proves that rule. In my first home the 'spare' room was 7' x 11', in my current it's 10'6" x 8" and in the home I'm (currently) hoping to buy, it's either 10' x 9' or 13' x 10' - each with doors and windows in different places, so I figured that splitting the difference for an average spare room as the point of divergence for discussion would be most productive. I say 'spare bedroom' as opposed to 'railway room' because I think as @Nearholmer has eluded to - while much imposition is tolerated by the fairer sex, it may be a bit much to have both a dedicated workshop, dedicated railway room AND a dedicated home office - so the extra duty does incur some restrictions, namely: If a continuous run, it needs a llft or gate section rather than a stoop or duck-under. As mentioned, it needs to be relatively tight to the walls and high enough up that a desk/monitor can be placed underneath without undue strife (i.e. @DavidCBroad's recommendation) The permanent projection of wide peninsula into the roomis a no-no (I did this in aforementioned 7' x 11' room and it worked wonderfully for increasing the run, but made the room essentially unusable) All fit and finish needs to be of a high level with cabinetry and fascias rather than trailing wires and exposed bulbs. This isn't a perfect example as it very much does encroach onto the usable space of the room, but was in line with what I have discussed above in terms of fit and finish: I feel like a home office layout (particularly in N/2mm) where one can traverse the walls ideally suits a system-type layout of discrete layout design elements linked by more narrow plain track sections. These elements could be effectively self-contained micro-layouts - a branch junction, a large terminus, a small station with a rail-served adjacent business, a goods yard, etc. - or a functional area such as a helix entrance or fiddle-yard. Each long wall could consist of two such elements, and each short wall one of them. In 00/H0 the principle is more challenging because the minimum radius brings the corner curves significantly out into the room - by the time you have factored in a backscene, fascia and some clearance on the inside of even an 18" radius curve you are looking at a significant projection into the room - and if a wall is only 10' long, that means half of the wall space is covered over by large 90 degree turns. Any thoughts on that? In an ideal world these 90 degree curves would be either self contained non-scenic or scenic-break boards (large buildings, etc.) but they could also form an overflow from an adjacent element (such as sidings from a single ended yard or factory).

Lovely Lok @Dr Gerbil-Fritters - what is the magic word for finding these dcc-compatible, nicely-detailed but not OTT euro models?

You're absolutely right @Zomboid - I was just sketching an idea of end-to-end termini . @Pacific231G this pattern might also work in the garden too. I do very much like the idea of a layout SYSTEM which connects a Minories plan towards other areas.

So I am moving home shortly, and find myself in a very similar conundrum in a potential new home that I have in my current - that is, until I get authorisation from the domestic authorities to build a dedicated railway shed outbuilding, the only space that's really available for a layout is a spare bedroom of the fairly usual dimensions - about 9' by about 11' . Maybe the door will be in the corner, maybe in the middle of one of the walls - and there will no doubt be a window along one wall. This room will probably also have to pull double-duty as an office and maybe host a work table. It's a more european/american-style to build something integrated into a space rather than baseboards which can be carted to exhibitions or between rooms - but this feels like a scenario which has some solid known-good principles, if not outright answers. I'd be interested to see what we've got!

Would Minories work in a terminus-to-terminus design? i.e. Minories at one end, Seironim at the other? This is realy just a sketch - showing Minories (top) and Achaux (bottom) using Kato Unitrack on a hollow-core door.

Duly noted, but for now it stays under cover: My father's car and mine - the red GT The garden of the property I'm looking at is so huge, I'm thinking that the workshop for a garden railway could exist there, with all modelling equipment/etc. provided - and the layout itself in a spare bedroom/etc.

Yea, I was looking at stummiforum and there are some layout rooms which are just nicely done cabinetry and subtle lighting: https://5is57vtuioa6sb73mgll5fhnhi--www-stummiforum-de.translate.goog/viewtopic.php?p=2147612&sid=56801055684788af9a25e771136475f1#p2147612 A far cry from sundeala on a paste-table trestle in a garage! My hobby space used to be two rooms - an 8' square garden office full of varnished pine and carpets - very snug and cosy to work on wagon kits and 2mm layouts - but no meaningful layout space other than being perched ontop a bookcase. My other space was half of an insulated but unheated water tight and well lit double garage - great for being messy but ultimately only a thin strip of space between the 'workshop'-area and the car that could be used for a layout, rather than a sprawling 20' x 20' empire. I wonder if that is just simply better executed by separating layout from workshop and 'modelling' completely - whether by ensconsing the former in a separate outbuilding, or a spare bedroom in the house...

Very interesting Ian - I'm sorry for causing this disgression in your thread Dr. Fritters - I'll start a new one to avoid further disruption!

Back to back, the plans fit on a standard Wickes hollow-core door - maybe ideal while the caprice has yet to settle? Obviously not a permanent layout solution as the long discussions of 'island' vs 'around the walls' layout designs will testify - but for the sake of £40 to get a testbed it seems like it may be worthwhile?

Would you double and utilise for the railway, or double and use that for other things? I'm trying to work out how I can fit a lathe, pillar drill, etc. in the same space as the railway!

@Dr Gerbil-Fritters - what are the details on your shed, please? I'm potentially looking at a property which won't have an integral space for a workshop or model railway, but has quite a large garden - and I figure you have some experience you might be able to share? It looks like 8 * 14' - was there a driver for that particular size? Have you found it OK for condensation/heat/cold/etc. ? I've spent a good deal of my time in the last year in an unheated double-garage that seems to flood intermittently - but it did have nice lighting and was obviously more than big enough.

The topic title really only because I was inspired by C.A. Hart's "Achaux" via @Dr Gerbil-Fritters discussions as a track plan source, but thinking about potentially state railway or DR setting - rather than specifically relating to the topic of the layout. Essentially, I think at this point I am notionally thinking about a "continental/non-UK Minories" . Thank you so much for the info re: running lines, that's very interesting. I've re-drawn the plan in Unitrack in N rather than Tillig in H0 - and I'm quite fond of how it looks: Due to the double crossove, it actually ends up being significantly more compact than Minories: Both of these are configured for four or five coach trains (depending on the era and prototype) and could fit nose-to-nose on a shelf on the average spare bedroom. One of the interesting things about Mr. Hart's plan is the branch platform forming an interchange between companies - maybe it could be a non-electrified line and thus requiring turn over of trains from electric to diesel and vice versa? Or standard to narrow gauge, etc. ?

Thanks John, I'll check it out - the precise subject is yet to be determined. Infact, the precise scale and gauge is also yet to be set - but I feel like this is a solid opportunity to model something awesome. I've been comparing and contrasting track options - I truly enjoy hand laying track, for example, but I'm slowly getting worn down by only ever having built one (very small) cameo layout to completion, so I'm considering what off the shelf options might give me a good bang for buck.

I'm rolling around the idea of building a Minories-type layout based on a french or german practise in H0. Current thoughts are directing me towards Epoch I german prototypes, i.e. KPEV. Homage to C. A. Hart's Achaux Overall length: 5' (short), 6' (long) Passenger Platforms: 3 Goods sidings: 3 Turnouts: 10 This plan can be stretched and compressed using different points lengths, a double slip, etc. between 5' and 6' in length. Operationally I am foreseeing Minories-style locomotive switchover - sleepers and NPCS being attached and detached with a branch shuttle service, or freight transfer between the main and branch lines. Track Choices The folliwing are the versions of what the station might look like in Tillig Elite Roco-Line and Peco's Code 83 geometry - not really much in it! The main difference is that the tillig track doesn't seem to have a 'flat' double slip, so a pair of turnouts is substituted. This S-curve between the outbound main and platform 3 isn't as significant as one might expect, the topmost platform being essentially reserved for a branch shuttle service - no shunting moves would use this crossing, only departures from the middle-top platform. Any thoughts on track choices/availabillity/etc. or the plan? I'm expecting this to be an 'operating' layout as well as a scenic one, and I am also thinking that while it would be good to be mobile and exhibitable IN THEORY, it is not a priority for me.

@Dr Gerbil-Fritters - any snippets of aforementioned catalogue? I have found a bunch of Fleishmann train packs for Epoch I KPEV locos and passenger stock which seem much more reasonable - £175-200 for a loco and a couple of carriage/wagons...

contact pads? I had a little look around for european N and Ho - bloody heck, that's not cheap! Maybe I should take heart from C. A. Hart's "Achaux" and stick with vintage Jouef...

Wow, this struck home so much with what I've been thinking about alot recently: > For years I have wanted a ‘system’ type of layout with a number of stations and wagons are sent to specific destinations – rather than the normal UK one station and a fiddle yard job.