Lacathedrale

Hello @Zaonite I am but the student trying to catch the pebble from the master's hand when it comes to 2mm but hopefully I can help before one of the titans of industry step in. The association offers a wheel-turning service, where you can send your RTR locomotive wheels to a gent in the organisation who will turn them down to the 2mmFS profile for you for a nominal fee. It's not always possible. I've built an rebuilt some chassis for commercial bodies (the Jinty and 57xx) and find it great fun, despite the challenges inherent in building your own mechanisms. Generally if you're going down that route it means buying the chassis, the wheels, some accessories such as bearings and muffs, and a motor - although I'm still not happy with my work in this area, it's really not all that difficult and is very rewarding. The association sell all the relevant parts, so it's often worthwhile sourcing the body from Peters Spares or as a 'spares or repair' on ebay, rather than hacking up a perfectly good model.

Another SER terminus not very far away was Bromley North - another station that can be modelled in dead scalein SER map of Bromley North XtrkCAD of Bromley North I have chosen in this example to flip the plan rather than rotate it, to keep the goods areas at the front of the layout. I have also omitted the council-owned siding (being shunted by horse with a very short headshunt) and the spur on the 'carriage dock'. That said, it does fit nicely and illustrates that the space required does not preclude a double track branch. Note absolutely no way for a train to arrive into the 'up' platform, every train would need to be shunted onto the up main and back into the platform, even after the loco has been turned. Strange stuff. Back to Caterham I did some research on a 1903 WTT to get an idea of what Caterham around the turn of the century would look like operationally, and certainly it's a beast. After the rebuild, an intensive service was instituted with 50-something movements a day with empty carriage stock and light engine movements all over the place, shunting the gasworks siding at Whyteleafe (remembering the only yard or runaround during the single track period is at Caterham), as well as top-and-tailed troop trains that are being banked up tto the terminus. It seems there was always a float of at least one full fixed rake of coaches and two engines after doubling. Some research for stock in the early period suggests that O-class freight locomotives, R-class shunters, Q-class passenger tanks would be very appropriate for the SER setting. Q-class 235 was allocated to the branch from 1887 onward, joined by sister 367 in 1891. It would make sense that passenger branch traffic was handled by these. I have no access to an SER timetable, but my conjecture is that there were four or five through trains per day, the rest being shuttle services. There were definitely two inbound and one outbound goods train per day - and those goods trains would be of wildly different lengths (any wagons missed off the morning inbound would be attached to the afternoon). Through trains would not have been handled by the top-link SER locomotives, but there is a history of using the Caterham branch as a 'running in' job - the Caterham Railway book shows the picture of a brand new L-class 4-4-0 express on the turntable (just!) in 1914. I have photographs of unindenfitied 'Stirling-cab' locos pulling six wheeled rakes bound for Caterham, so I will hesitate to suggest these could have been an A-class!

I had considered (again with prompting) to amend the 1899 plan for two platform faces, like so: C1899 with engine shed replaced with additional platform face However, for this additional platform road to make any sense (particularly given the omission of the loco shed) it really does need a runaround and it all starts to get rather messy: C1899 with engine shed replaced with additional platform face with runaround At this stage, I've got neither the victorian simplicity of the original terminus, or the edwardian splendour of the latter - to me it looks 'off'. Making the above plan trouble track ends up with something which is probably the least offensive of these hybrids: Hybrid plan This plan provides for similtaneous arrivals and departures and goods workings, without the extensive throat of the C1900 plan. It retains the original station access road and building, moving the goods shed into the yard instead of adjacent the main building. Ten turnouts and two double slips make it twice as complicated to build as the standard C1899 design but not magnitudes higher. I think the point you make however @Harlequin may be very astute - building a layout to support complex operations is all well and good, on the assumption that you can actually run those operations. Otherwise it's just window dressing while you run a branch shuttle with your one pair of hands and eyes. I wonder if the C1899 plan with a flexible time period is the best of both worlds - it's got a high level of prototypical fidelity and is aspirational but achievable. Particularly with a flexible time period in the same way that Copenhagen Fields runs both garter blue LNER A4's along with fully lined outside framed MR 0-6-0s, I find it hard to believe many would raise umbrage with me running SE&CR trains six years too early on a plan over a hundred years old!

Well, @Harlequin - while RMweb has been down I've been beavering away at some plans I think we both know... Caterham 1899: XtrkCAD Templot version from some time ago Boards 1 and 2 are an dead scale represntation of the station in 1896, without compression. - the home signal for the station is at the border of boards 2 and 3 and permits an orthogonal exit to a fiddle yard or 90 degree bend. The entire branch was doubled in 1900 so it would make sense that everything is running at capacity. No dedicated shunting neck or goods runaround, and very limited facilties would ensure that any freight workings would have to dart in and out of passenger trains. SER O-class, a likely freight engine A view from the road showing the station building, goods shed (centre) and crane A simple option for a layout, only four turnouts, a threeway and a double slip - but most devilish for stock: SER black and red locos, dumb buffered wagons, horses and carriages and whatever hand-me-downs the joint company (SER/LBSCR) left to run on the line line. That said, It has been adroitly suggested to me that I could model the track plan at this period but continue to wind the clock forward or backward as neccesary, which I think is a great idea until I settle on a period and/or have enough pre 1899 South Eastern stock to 'pin' it properly. Caterham 1900: This is a depiction of the 1912 OS Grid map showing the station at its maximum extent - what a beast! The station area is to dead scale, but the throat on board 2 has been selectively compressed in length (while maintaining all the original routes) to fit, the area occupied by the station's throat is more than double the length of the whole original station site! This is really a secondary terminus to a much greater degree than the previous plan, sacrificing the simplicity and compactness in order to depict a much more extensive plan both in track layout and operation. This plan would be suitable for any period in the first half of the 20th century and so a very versatile layout in terms of epoch. Operationally there's alot more going on with both up and down passenger trains, loco servicing and goods yard operations all happening (in theory) simultaneously. The scope of trackwork has increased to 19 turnouts (four of which in a double scissors) and two double slips and the stock required skyrockets. On the face of it, I think that both plans have alot to offer - It seems to me like C1900 would be a 'decade' project, and C1899 would be more of a 'biennial' project. Frankly speaking I don't know if I have the dedication to stick to a single layout until ~2030 based on my track record! My gut feeling is that C1899 fits my space more easily, meets more of my original design criteria and is generally a more 'manageable' project. I feel like with C1900 I would be stuck in the weeds for so long for every single aspect, I'd lose interest. Any thoughts or opinions gladly taken.

Getting closer... I'll definitely need to put some foliage on the backscene in that corner to stop the shadows being cast on it. My thoughts are to use a couple of big trees in the foreground and 3-4 smaller trees behind. Who'd have thought that teabags and coffee grounds were good for groundcover under the trees?

Oh for sure - the plan above started as an experiment with smaller curve radii and @Sturminster_Newton's suggestion of a branch - but then I found I could use fairly generous curve radii. The exact same geometry supports a double track mainline for a city terminus also: I think it proves more that a 7'6" visible area with a parallel exit off the main boards is the 'best' way to handle the main layout section, and the arrangement of boards 5, 6 and 7 make the most sense. As you have said @Zomboid - what remains is to determine what lives on boards 1 and 2 - which I guess is the next question.

You're not wrong, Sturminster. One note is that I'm modelling in 2mmFS, not N gauge - so the minimum radius is more like that for OO/EM at about 22". By taking the suggestion to demote the layout from a mainline to a branch terminus in the vein of Bodmin: Boards 1 and 2 can fit into my workshop during construction with no problems, as can boards 6 and 7 (both are 7'6" long). They can also connect directly to 7 for earlier running and testing. Board 4 is the lift-out section to be stored under Board 1 (or drop down from Board 5) Boards 5 and 6 look like they are wildly inefficient, but a need to bring the running line close to the front by the time it reaches board 7 so the traverser works, somewhat mandates this. Some notional extra storage indicated on board 6. Board 7 is a traverser with runaround loop formed with the headshunt on siding 1 and keeping siding 2 empty, the remainder could have headshunts at both ends. Introducing a traditional FY ladder is certainly possible but doesn't seem to improve anything and adds another five turnouts: Potentially a solution if the traverser idea doesn't pan out and better for automation/etc, though. Part of me feels like a single line branch terminus could be more authentically modelled in this space and is more achievably than an urban city sprawl, despite the similar footprints. I also feel like it would give everything a chance to properly breathe - the main station platform can happily accomodate six Mk1's and a tender loco, or eight pre-group 45' bogie coaches and similar. It becomes a 'big branch' rather than a 'compressed mainline' station. I'll have to muse on that!

Good morning gentlemen. I'm penciling ideas about for my next 2mm layout - and thinking that my study might be a good place to home it. A consideration are curves around the room's corners. The general advice (at least I can remember reading it in a few places) is that any curve radius above 22"-24" for bulletproof curves. Can I get away with an 18" radius 90 degree curve, assuming gauge widening and transition curves - and the use of 0-6-0 tender and tank locos (or those with properly set up leading and trailing trucks) and trains of five or six bogie coaches at maximum? I would of course like to build some large tender locos at some point in the future - but for now my sights are set firmly on two and six-coupled, inside valve-gear locos. I imagine this layout will long be consigned to the dust heap before my skills are sufficient enough to build a Britannia or 9F to make their provision a meaningful design consideration. This sounds silly, but that kind or radius will allow me to utilise right-angled baseboard and joins rather than complex angled geometry and support structures, and allow the main layout to 'slot in' directly and in theory be moved or removed to a new home should my home situation change.

Jerry, I thought to myself that I'd build 3 SR vans simultaneously and while it was more efficient it did feel like I was going a bit mad. I can't imagine how building 27 is!

Has it really been four months? I decided (after recieving a delivery of Heki and Noch foliage products some months back) that it was time to make a start on the making the layout more south west England, and less south west Australia. Here's the result so far:

That's excellent, Phil - thank you - porting that to xtrkcad (yes, I know it's not '94 but I like playing trains on it before going to templot!) it looks roughly like this: B to C is removable as before, but with a coved corner on C it might be feasible to leave it as a permanent fixture and make the join at C2 instead of C1. It has been neccesary to bring the tracks in towards the middle of the room so the traverser at D is usable. At 4' long it should easily swallow up the longest rake of coaches I can think I can afford/need, six Mk1's plus a Class 40. I've had mixed results with traversers, particularly as integral units to operation - but with such a run between the traverser and the layout I think that'd be less of a problem. Not having to build half a dozen turnouts is just icing on the cake. THe angled joint at B makes me a litlte nervous, but seems like it is the only real way to ensure the window can be left unobstructed while also ensuring a 22" minimum radius is adhered to. As you @Zomboid and @Harlequin have said, really the baseboards should follow the plan - but with the parameters broadly set like so (i.e. the area from top left to 'B') and B to C2 I'm now equipped to actually plan the layout itself, rather than get to the end of the road and realise it won't fit (see: the original HV end-to-end plan with the traverser that had no chance of fitting!) I might be inclined to shuffle the baseboards so the corner board goes from Q-B instead of A-B a joint at Q means the tracks exit perpendicularly with no complex cutting geometry, and can fit inside my workshop while I'm working on them. Additionally, I can build the layout boards + traverser boards and test them without also building B-C1 and C1 to D. Any 'station' that bleeds around from Q towards C is cropped and the tracks leads straight into the traverser instead should the layout need to be erected in this configuration either in a new home or in 'exhibition mode'.

Well, my gloatbox is rapidly becoming slimmer with the completion of these three wagons: I'm a little frustrated by the overall finish, honestly - it seems whenever I looked at them under the lense it was fine (it being the paint finish, the wash coverage, etc. etc.) but when photographed looked like a right pig's ear. Oh well!

How about a hybrid? The 'layout' is swoopy, the drop down and FY sections are orthogonal: This gives a visible run of approx 15', and total run of approx 23' - the only 'mandate' comes from the (realistic) maximum of 8'6ish length of the main layout shelf which hopefully would be sufficient for a stylised secondary mainline terminus in 1/152... - something like this, anyway?

Hi @Harlequin, I think you might be right that making too many sacrifices for 'layout mode' is not sensible when a) I've never exhibited, b) the future of exhibitions as a concept is certainly in question and c) even if it was, 99% of the time the layout will be at home. After some experimentation I think an orthogonal supporting structure consisting primarily of 90 degree corners makes sense - easier to build, ensure proper connectivity, etc. to subdivide and re-home: The application of organic surfaces and fascias make things look a little more 'home-y': It would mean that the key areas are fully supported, and the superfluous 'scenery only' areas could in theory be removed or amended. In this diagram A1 to C is still fully removable for stowage under the layout as a 'lift out' lightweight section consisting primarily of kingspan/celotex and aluminium. @DavidCBroad I understand what you mean now - makes alot of sense. I was thinking of a 'lift out' rather than 'lift up' section, but a drop down section might work - a layout height of about 5' with a drop-down section would span the gap well in a 'orthogonal' arrangement like that depicted above, rather than with the extended sweeping perimeters.

@Keith Addenbrooke there are radiators behind the lattice boxes, that's why the instruments are in the opposite corner and are both just a hair above 'off' The printer is only located there temporarily, it could happily shift underneath the layout at whever location - it is indeed wireless. My assumption is that the shelf will be significantly above the 'usable' volume taken up by the desk. In theory it could run lower down, but I think that might introduce more problems than it solves (i.e. would enforce a door-side U, monitor/laptop would block the FY tracks, etc.) You may be right, I'm roughly equating this to a previous home layout which had 14" baseboards at about 4'6" off the ground. The actual layout dimensions themselves (apart from the critical arrangements around crossing from the north to south walls on one or the other sides) are entirely notional. Can you rephrase the section about the dropdown? I'm not sure I understand - the idea being that a drop-down section is easier to manage than a lift-out section? I'm not sure that would work in my case unless the drop-down section was limited to the throw of the door? I have a sold up steppping stool that I keep in the room (visible adjacent the door in a previous shot) so derailments on rear tracks would be handled, but you are right that I'd have to be careful about putting 'operation-focused' tracks towards the back of the board. Slimming the baseboards down, moving the desk and potentially making the layout with an obtuse L shape while 'exhibited' (should that ever occur!): Tandridge* V3 The main change on this, other than more regularly shaped baseboards (I agree with you @DavidCBroad that the front edge of the layout should be gently curved with a fascia - but just to represent the structural footprint, in this case) - is the provision of a right angle joint at A1 - this means it can be joined directly to D as an obtuse L'shape for 'exhibition' use. If the layout needed to be re-homed, it could have a corner piece depicted in the middle of the diagram inserted, or cut at A2. A1 is therefore the shunt limit, and A2 represents a point that beyond which any 'layout' trackage should be prepared to exit the scene (i.e. headshunts, carriage sidings, goods yards, etc.) A1 to C would presumably remain as a scenicked drop-in section made of aluminium angle and extruded polystyrene (or similar lightweight material) - most likely a cutting, embankment or viaduct C to could be the start of a bitsa station C-D and D would be entirely functional track for a FY/traverser/etc. It would be possible to extend the layout around behind the door, but then the issue of reach and depth show up again, combined with a minimum radius of 22-24" means it's not actually all that functional! * Working title

I just lost my typed reponse @mdvle the door opens but not a full 180 degrees, leaving approx 10-12" that would need to be factored in - or double hinges fitted? I've taken a photo of the desk in-situ The monitor is 10" away from the wall, so less than the depth of the permanent part of the layout shelf, and its top edge is approximately 9" below the notional layout height. I agree it could cast shadow, and that it would benefit from some ambient downlighters - but this would be the case with any arrnagement that is a U or roundy-roundy shape in this room, no?

The desk can definitely be moved - but it does need to stay in the room, as does the printer, instruments, etc. Yeah, I thought it was a great idea but after some reflection, not being able to nip to the loo or refill the cup of tea while the layout is being operated (not least ventilation) I think you may be right. I've tried to make sane the original idea and I feel like by straightening out the removable section. By standardising the shelf above the desk (I do need some shelves anyway) means the drop-in section can be a more regular shape, and wide enough for scenicking a long sweeping curve from B-C. My monitor is approx 9" from the wall so I don't think it would be pit-like. Straight: Long curves: The section B-C may see fairly chunky - but could be stored wholly under the main layout boards. Fiddleyard at D has some notional extra tracks to illustrate maximum extent.

Indeed, the door is hinged away from the light switch, which is nestled into that corner. There is also a radiator underneath where the fiddle yard is notionally located. The grey box in the corner is as far as I know, solid brick. In the room below (the kitchen) it is also extant. My thoughts around the 'non layout' section of the railway was to paint it the same colour as the walls, with as little around it as possible by way of extraneous wood, supports, etc. so it would hopefully blend in. That said, @Nearholmer's point about a layout-under-a-desk being a bit of a pit - he could be right. I definitely found a 14" shelf with a desk underneath, despite clearance, felt oppressive. A spindly track support maybe less, so but as @mdvle has suggested - by flipping it the other way it would mean the permanent fixture of the FY would essentially just be a shelf, approx 6-10" wide, rather than cutting across the desk diagonally. Here's some photos of the room: From the door towards the window From the window to the door. The layout could be inverted, but would have to taper fairly dramatically towards the end, like so: Essentially, I like everything about it apart from the actual layout boards - the requirement for a 24" minimum radius is a bit of a pain! By extending the sceniced part of the layout through to 'B', there are really nice wide curves and the potential for both operational and scenic development: This makes the layout significantly more of a 'home layout-style' affair but I don't think it's neccesarily a bad thing? I was thinking (as above) to make the non-main-layout sections as innocuous as possible- but you may be right - in the case of the inverted plan, storing B-C on a shelf undernear A-B would mean that it could be sceniced. Limit of shunt is no problem in the adjusted plan! A happy by-product of this design is that the length of visible run from terminus platforms to the FY is approximately half a scale mile. That's about two minutes for the average unfitted freight to arrive, beyond waiting at any signals. - much better than the 10 seconds it took for my little Pannier tank to exit from my cameo layout! C-D is in theory totally optional, but I think it would make sense to include it (Even as plain track) so that the FY shelf can run the full length of the back of the room and give more running time to the locos at the cost of only a few pounds of easitrac components, wood and shelf brackets. I could imagine C-D being a 'bitsa' through station leading into the FY, bisected by a road bridge/overpass or whatever at 'D'. I imagine B-C will have to be made of something fairly rigid - I would happily add a small fold-up bracket to the back of the door to support it in the middle, though. The 'biggest' challenge of this arrangement is that the station formation shifts left, with a strange quadrilateral space in the back corner - something like Mallaig's goods yard beyond the station?

Hello again chaps, I really do like to layout plan, it gives me something to do on the computer between video conferences and sometimes during them. To that end, I've been chatting to a friend about home layouts, and moving away from the cameo 'tank driver viewing slot' approach I took as a given for my last few designs. If you've looked at Hennock (2FS layout in signature) you'll notice very early on in the project I mused that it would be a perfectly fine layout if there was about a foot extra spliced in between each set of turnouts - just to give the trains somewhere to run! I have an office room, which is approx 10'6" x 7' with a door in one corner and a window in the opposite, no furniture other than my desk, guitars/amplifiers and a lamp - and so very much a greenfield site. It was while sitting at this desk, I realised that I could put together a design which would effectively be a FY to terminus plan, but I could add about nine feet of running line by leveraging a lift-out section to put the FY on the opposite side of the room, instead of adjacent. With some smart planning, this FY could also be joined directly to the main layout in the event that I need to give up the room (children, moving house) or want to exhibit the layout. Here is a very rough plan - please note that the track plan is representational and just sketched in, and doesn't really reflect anything other than a desire to get a feel for how things might look: Layout height at home will be quite high, probably over 5' - so no worries bout intruding onto the desk space. The door arc is sketched in over-sized to ensure adequate clearance. The window is rebated an additional 6" beyond the extent of the layout plan above, but the room is already quite dark due to its facing, so while I can add supports for a lift-out section either side, I cannot afford to make it any darker with a permanent crossing. The line of A would likely represent the exit from the scenic section. A-B's primary purpose is to route the track, and it will be backlit by the window whatever happens! All train movements and operation should be achievable on board A - the limit of shunt is definitely at A! B-C and C-D need to be as low profile as possible. I was originally envisaging a neutral grey-green painted surface supported by aluminium or steel, but I guess it could be modelled as an embankment or equivalent. The actual station layout can be any combination of Holborn Viaduct (as previously discussed) Caterham (pre or post 1899 doubling, as previously discussed) or some variant of Buckingham! Very pointedly I have left space on the left of the boards to show off 'station road' and the environs, which I think adds alot to a layout. The station track plan above is as mentioned just a sketch, but includes nothing but nice long turnouts - C8's, B7's, etc. Any thoughts or opinions gladly heard.

I keep circling the drain with a Caterham plan, and it feels like an unwilling obligation to model it in some form at this point, but I think that Caterham has got so much going for it - pre 1899 as a single line branch terminus that would have been jam packed, even with the loco shed at the end of the platform - in the edwardian period with huge 4-4-0's visiting as well as lots of commuter and freight traffic and the remnants of the old station adjacent, and the pre-war period with multiple units. Good stuff. I think the issue with the ops on the ATSF layout was that I didn't really have a mechanism for handling the trains as they came off and on-scene - presumably as you've discussed re: your layout previously, there needs to be some definite reason for trains. Reading MRJ47ish about operating Buckingham GCR you realise just how intensive the operational aspects were, let alone the modelling. It might sound like I'm espousing a US-style operational-driven layout design, but I think it's more than that - it provides the purpose for train movements of course, but the wider context informs decisions about track plans, locomotives and rolling stock to a huge degree. As a tangent, how are you finding a 'shed layout' as opposed to a home layout? I'd be worried if I made a layout that only existed in the garage, that I'd never do anything with it!

Looking good @Atso, how did they go together? I have several sitting in my gloat box... Hi there, I don't know the true origins, but it's listed as 2-552 in Shop2 - I've no idea where I bought it, as I only have a single one and I thought they were only sold as pairs.

Really interesting Mr P - I had come to a similar conclusion albeit by a completely inverse trajectory with a tiny layout with 3' minimum space. I thought to myself 'gosh, this needs about two feet inserted at every foot', just in order that the trains are moving for more then a few seconds before coming to a halt. It's really interesting how sometimes plans just can't convey the nuances of real-life usage - part of the reason I'm a bit leery about the operating potential of any layout I end up building. Can you remember coming over to operate the ATSF layout I built in my house in Brockley? A perfect example of a plan we had both spent a good time analysing, but just didn't work out in pracise - in this case, the exact thing you're mentioning - half the layout being non-scenic and only a few feet of 'run' between stops!

All of my stock to-date has been grouping era - which is odd seeing as I'd never really intended to build a grouping-era layout. I've had three wagon kits knocking around half built since autumn last year, so I figured it was time to get them done - the first is an RCH 7-planker. I'm really really impressed by it - the bolt detail on the inside, the knees on the inside, the correct position of the diagonal washer playes - all really lovely stuff. I decided on a whim to paint this in post-nationalisation condition - it needs the BR detail box in the corner and some remnants of an earlier paintjob, but overall I'm quite happy with it!

I've personally found PCB turnouts to be nicer but that's obviously just a personal preference - I would unhesitatingly use it for any trackwork where the ground level is up at the bottom of the rail for the sake of cost and the ability to bodge and repair fairly easily.

Hello there all, I've got a 4Sub on the workbench and while I was trying to figure out how best to put it together I thought I'd collate everything in my palette that could even be vaguely construed as a 'green', and this is what I came up with. These are taken in the same light and location, the top bar is a grey undercoat, the bottom is white - just to highlight the differences these things make! Tamiya X28 'Park Green' - too light Tamiya X5 - Seems a dead ringer for regular dark green EMU coaching stock but not the late SR/early BR(S) shades? Army Painter Greenskin - fine but the pigmentation is garbage Mr. Hobby Aqueous Gloss Green - really nice match Mr Hobby Emerald - Too blue Army Painter Goblin Green - way too bright Vallejo Heavy Black-Green - too dark Army Painter Angel Green - as above Vallejo Luftwaffe Camo Green - tied with the Mr. Hobby Aqueous green but with a more yellow hue. My gut feeling is that of this batch, Mr Hobby Aqueous Green, on a grey undercoat is the best match. Please note that I'm sticking to acrylics since I know that best!