Whittingly - What next?

Since the Rail200 event at the NEC National Festival or Railway Modelling, Whittingly Hospital has lived in its box in the garage. It was always intended to be the basis of an operational layout, not simply a diorama, so it is time to think about the transition. 

As a reminder, this overhead shot shows the layout as built within the Rail200 rules - which limited not just baseboard size, but overall height and the position of the front, disconnected, through track. The buildings were all constructed to fit within the available footprint and height limit. 

So here is Plan A. This was my original concept. The track layout is modified with a left-hand point by the end of the platform connecting the 3-way point to form a crossover, but otherwise the scenic area is unchanged. I would replace the backscene with a taller one, and add a cameo-style lighting pelmet. 

The key changes would be off-stage. To the left, a short extension gives a little more head shunt room beyond the platform canopy, and lengthens the two sidings through the buildings. On the right, a fiddle yard both provides for a change of train and completes a run-round loop with the 3-way point. I'd sketched a turntable yard, though if that doesn't look like it would work a sector plate would do. A train of 2 6-wheel coaches or 3-4 wagons and loco would be 15-18".

In this plan, the Rail200 challenge entry is kept largely unchanged, which minimises the work involved, and there are no board joins in the scenery. The downside is that only about half the layout length is scenic, shunting will go off-stage, and during key movements such as running around the loco can't be seen. 

Plan B is more ambitious. The extension to the left has become scenic, allowing the loco to be seen beyond the station canopy. A second board to the right provides the rest of the run-round loop and a point "on-stage", as well as the off-stage fiddle yard. This means pretty much all operation will be visible, and makes the scenic length around double that of the fiddle yard. 

The downsides are the complexities of extending the existing buildings. The engine shed would be particularly problematic, as sketched it crosses a board join, but the current structure is well fixed down and has an angled rear that is incomplete. I'm not sure how well the scene on the right-hand board works, messing up the balance of the existing scene without really adding to it. There's also an inconvenient backscene join, and it's harder to store. Finally, the resulting layout has lost the connection to the Rail200 challenge by growing well beyond its original size. While technically better, it would be better not starting from the current layout. 

Let me know what you think!

Rail200 plans - decision made!

After playing with lots of paper templates, thinking things through, and discussing with friends, things became clear. Given the short timescales I really should choose a plan that is simple to build, and doesn't need complex buildings from scratch - and the 009/OO exchange siding plan fits that brief and works well. However. the idea that had really grabbed me, and seems to interest others too, is the hospital railway...

Here's my inspiration. The small book at the top shows the quirky electric line at Hellingly hospital, the two pictures at the bottom are Calderstone, and the photos on the pages in the middle all show Whittingham. Each have their charm, but it is the yard at Whittingham that has inspired the plan the most - a 3 way point leads to an engine shed and a couple of sidings in a courtyard. Common features seem to be a boiler house, stores, engine shed, and often a platform for staff and visitor trains. Some received ambulance trains during WW1. Although the hospitals covered large sites with lots of buildings, the focus of the railways is often hidden away in a cramped corner.

Despite the small space, the plan captures many of these elements, feels cramped without (hopefully) being overcrowded, and promises interesting operation too. I hope it will work scenically too, although it will need several bespoke buildings to fit the site - which puts the pressure on time!

I wasn't able to make a start this weekend, but yesterday I did manage a trip over the Gaugemaster to stock up on the track and most of the materials I think I'll need. Don't get excited by the double-road engine shed kit - it won't be built like that!

Rail200 plans and decisions

The next question is what to build for the Rail200 challenge. The "standalone" option allows a lot of freedom, and certainly a lot could be done in my usual 009 scale. However, I've built many micro-layouts in 009 of similar size (Loctern Quay's dimensions are almost identical) or smaller (shoebox?). O14 would be possible too, but I don't have time for track building. Anyway, my reason for taking part is because of the uniqueness of the challenge, and so the "modular" category which allows entries to be joined appeals. I'm not normally a great fan of modular layouts, but in this case I'm looking to build a scene that works on it's own (with a fiddle yard attached as needed) as well as for the one-off challenge - and that makes the challenge interesting. Also, I've a small collection of OO gauge industrial locos awaiting an excuse for a layout. 

My first thought is combining 009 with OO in an exchange yard, inspired by this scene where the Southwold railway (3' gauge) met the standard gauge, as well as places such as Minffordd, Dinas Junction - many NG railways had an exchange yard of some kind. 

PLAN 1a therefore has the NG entering (top right) from behind an exchange shed, with a siding into the shed at a raised level alongside a standard gauge siding, and another siding which drops down to the level of the SG siding (or even slightly below) for loading of coal into the NG wagons. The SG line passes the front, with a short platform for a halt, behind which the NG head shunt is set into the approach lane. Trees will probably be used to hide the exit tracks. There's room for a couple of cottages behind. I like this plan a lot, it doesn't appear too crowded and the angled NG line, lines at different levels, and scope for background scenery give the potential for an attractive scene. The downside is limited operating potential - yes the NG sidings can be shunted but even with fiddle sticks off to the right there's little meaningful operation of the SG.

PLAN 1b is the same, with the addition of a run-round loop for the NG. In theory this adds operating potential, but I'm not sure this is worth the trade of space as it feels cramped, and the SG has no more interest.

PLAN 1c has the exchange shed swapped to the left hand end, and the SG siding extended the length of the board. Hang on you say, why the point to nowhere? Well, after the challenge the through track could be lifted, and re-laid with a point to form a crossover, and so half a run-around. This gives the SG a little operational interest, including passenger services to the platform (now at the front). The NG is set slightly higher and squeezes in a short loop, spur into the exchange shed, and a siding dropping down to SG level tucked in front of the shed. There's little space for scenery except some trees along the back, and a footbridge linking the NG and SG (perhaps an unofficial passenger NG train is run?). 

Another idea for mixing NG and SG is a loading facility where minerals of some kind are transferred from NG to SG wagons. I'm not sure what minerals yet, and whether the loading operation could be depicted somehow (I've done wagon loading/unloading in 009 and O14). 

PLAN 2a has a mineral transfer in the top-left corner, I envisage something clad in corrugated iron with the NG line entering at a higher level - 5 to 6 cm above board level. The NG line runs across the back and over a level crossing, with a possible spur for a spare loco or stock, though it doesn't really have any operational interest. The SG has a couple of sidings, one under the loading chute with a weighbridge too, and passes under the road bridge to exit. Y points save space, and a connection to the front line could later form a loop. 

PLAN 2b is much the same for the SG, but moving the weighbridge makes space for a run round loop on the NG, potentially increasing operational interest but again at the price of appearing more cramped - especially as the NG will have to sit on a tall wall above the SG. 

PLAN 2c has a similar NG layout to 2b but with a different SG plan. The 3-way saves space and makes a more logical loop (when connected to the front line). This allows the middle siding to be used for an engine shed, and a short platform to be added along the front. This probably allows the best operational interest, but still looks quite crowded. The simpler NG layout of 2a could be used.

While I like the split-level layout of these plans and the mineral transfer is logical, they seem crowded and the limited height limit (14cm) for the challenge could be a problem - no space for trees on the high level for example. I don't really have inspiration for whatever the mineral might be or how it's transferred, but open to suggestions.

The final set of plans abandon the 009, and are inspired by hospital railways such as at Whittingham and Hellingly (beautifully modelled by Phil Parker), or a small industrial line such as Corringham, which had short trains, varied goods, and limited passenger services. The scene is the back end of a hospital/factory complex with a boiler house and general goods platform, a small engine shed (for small engines), and a short, narrow platform (possibly with a canopy). By contrast, the surroundings are playing fields and open countryside.  This is actually an idea I've been toying with for a while.

PLAN 3a has the two sidings to the rear, and a kick-back to the engine shed. Again, a point added later into the front line completes a loop. The left end would represent the back of the hospital, with a loading platform served by ground level doors. The boilerhouse siding could be up a short, steep gradient - it would look more interesting, but could be a pain and would only rise about 1cm. All these plans have the narrow platform along the front, a canopy could disguise the left hand exit while a water tower or tree hides the right exit. 

PLAN 3b is similar, with a Y-point used for the engine shed spur. 

PLAN 3c swaps the engine shed to the left and has the boiler house siding disappearing into the rear. This makes it very short - 1 wagon - unless it extends through the backscene! It does make more space rear right for some scenic interest, perhaps a bowling green or workers' cottages. 

I like these hospital layouts best for operational interest, with the extra point in the front line and a suitable fiddle yard there is a proper operational layout. They could also look interesting. Perhaps the biggest challenge will be time - I've less than 5 months of some weekends, a few evenings, and the odd day off if I'm lucky - so I need to keep it simple. Bespoke buildings take time, and these plans need bespoke buildings to work! On that basis, plans 1a-1c work best as they only need one special building (the transfer shed) which could be quite simple. 

Decisions, decisions! Let me know what you think...

Rail 200 challenge

To mark 200 years of railways, Peco have launched a micro layout/diorama competition. For £30 posted you get the baseboard kit, a length of track, and it comes in a large cardboard box that can be used to store/ship the finished layout. It seems these have proved popular as the first batch of 200 sold out within days, and several more batches have been release (probably as fast as the supplier can make them!). Now, I didn't order one straight away as I don't really need another layout, but I do enjoy a challenge and it seemed a shame not to take part...

The flat-pack baseboard is laser cut from good quality 9mm ply. The straight track to use for the through track of the "modular" category, or you can build any scene you like and enter the standalone category.

Assembly is straightforward, the four bracing pieces slot into the underside or onto the ends of the board with a little PVA. There were just a couple of splinters to file off but the parts are cut with great accuracy and the fit is precise.

One of the ends had a slight bow (see the gaps in the slots). I don't have a big enough clamp to hold it while the glue dried...

...so I drilled a pilot hole and put a countersunk screw to hold the end tight to the deck. I also put one into each side beam (bottom left and bottom right) in case pulling in the top allowed the bottom to move out, and for good measure three screws the opposite end to match. These may not be necessary, but assembly including the screws was no more than 30 minutes. 

Now I just need to decide what to build. I've doodled a few plans, of which more later, but here's some of the inspiration that may be used...

A new challenge

A couple of months back a 009 society challenge was announced in the 009 News, to build a layout using two modular baseboard kits from Norfolk Heath Works. This means a total size about 2' 6" by 11" with a sector plate in one corner, and an option of a dropped front to the other board. The challenge runs until next March.

Of course I sketched a few ideas for fun but with no real intention to take part. One idea did grab my imagination though, based around a quayside/wharf with warehouses and other buildings surrounding an "inglenook" track plan. Most of the buildings would come from the Petite Properties range, after my experience of building one of their kits recently, and they fit the scene well. The layout would be front/end operated and could have a simple back-scene and lighting bar for an attractive display.

I like to check ideas with a full-size plan, so drew out the baseboard (on just 4 sheets of A4 paper) and printed some Peco point templates. The original idea used Y points for their shorter length - I know the set-track points are shorter but they have dead frogs, which I wouldn't want to use on a shunting layout. It seems to work but I wasn't happy with the arrangement of the tracks.

Using  left and right hand points for the sidings looks better, but there is still a severe reverse curve to the Y point which looks odd, and will be a pain for operation.

Using just right and left hand 12" radius points gives straighter sidings and more practical operation, though there's now a reverse curve into the fiddle yard. I think this is a better compromise, and pulls the tracks forward making more space for the street at the back. Oh, and it looks like I have these points in stock - found in the garage, recovered from a previous layout.

The benefit of a full-size plan is to check clearances. As you can see the headshunt and the sidings will take 3 wagons easily, and 4 at a push - small wagons will be required! The Petite Properties shop gives some perspective, and road vehicles confirm the street will work.

I still didn't intend to actually build the layout at this point, it's just a fun exercise. After all I don't need another layout project. But then I had to have an operation, and knew I'd be recovering for a while, so maybe a small table-top layout would be good therapy?

So here's the pair of baseboard kits, loosely assembled - they are not yet glued but the parts fit together so well they hold together. Before assembly I need to drill and cut some holes, but I'm not yet up to using power tools so that will have to wait. I've transferred the track-plan to the boards with only minor adjustments. I'll permanently join the boards (2' 6" is hardly large enough to warrant splitting) so the points can be placed over the join.

Before I start I need to decide on point control. With this type of small layout I'd normally choose wire-in-tube connected to slide switches for frog switching, the photos show how this could be arranged for front operation. However there really isn't space to route the wire-in-tube to the points, so I don't think this would work.

Another approach would be to use dowels under the baseboard which could protrude through the fascia as represented by the coloured pencils here, and have a wire connecting them to the point tie-bar. The slide switches could also be connected to the dowels under the board to switch the frogs and limit movement, this is similar to the method I used for Thakeham (though that used wire-in-tube too). This could get fiddly to arrange though, especially with some tie-bars at an angle, and the dowels could be a bit of a reach for end operation.

The other option is to use point motors, and a search of the garage has turned up three SEEP motors. As shown here they should fit under the points without fouling bits of baseboard, and could be easier to arrange than manual mechanisms. There's a bit of extra wiring and it means I need to use my larger power-pack for the layout, which has a CDU - or build a simple capacitor unit into the layout. It also raises the question of where to put the switches, there's no space for even a small panel in the fascia (there could be up to 4 isolating switches too). I could use an external box, mounted on the end of the layout, or on a wander-lead to  go in front. Alternatively the switches could be distributed along the fascia next to the points, but as above that might be less convenient for end operation.

Lots to think about...

Christmas

I hope you all had a good Christmas! Mine involved a long drive to my parents, seeing friends and family, enjoying time with the kids, a tummy bug, and now a stinking cold. Pretty typical really! Nonetheless, at least I have some time off work. So what did Santa bring? Well, nothing big this year, but I did get some interesting reading:

I've rather enjoyed Paul A Lunn's series of articles in Railway Modeller proposing micro-layouts, obviously enjoying micro-layouts myself I was pleased to get his book on the subject. It contains a selection of ideas similar to the articles in RM, with some attractively illustrated plans. To my mind many of the plans verge on the gimicky, with extremely short trains (30cm in OO gauge?!) and much use of traversers, sector plates and loco lifts in the operation of them - personally I prefer layouts with slightly more prototypical operation. Also I thought the text could have been more in-depth in places, explaining construction and operation better. However there are some great ideas, and the first section of the book gives good tips on designing small layouts.

The biggest omission to me though was Narrow Gauge - using NG is extremely popular in building micro-layouts, so it seems odd that it is not even mentioned. I guess the book is aimed at the mainstream, RTR-using modeller (all plans use OO scale), but scales such as 009 and O-16.5 are established and popular and given the subject of the book I think they should at least have been suggested.

This is another book of plans by Iain Rice, and those that have read his other books on the subject will find no surprises here, just lots of great ideas for layouts in a variety of spaces, all with good scenic and operational potential, and well-illustrated and explained. Some may not like his style, and not all his ideas will suit, but his approach to layout design has inspired me over the years. And yes, there is even a narrow-gauge plan!

A friend of mine is a big fan of the Sittingbourne 2'6" gauge railway and is planning a layout based on the Bowaters Paper Mill. I know very little about this system so when I saw this book by David Hammersley at EXPO-NG I had to get a copy (although the elves came and took it away so Santa could deliver it!). As the name suggests it is packed full of photo's, showing the atmosphere and detail of this industrial narrow-gauge empire, with a number of colour photos too. The captions are informative as is the brief introduction to the line, overall a great book for the narrow-gauge and/or industrial railway enthusiast, and for any modeller!

Wishing you all a Happy New Year, and hoping for some more productive modelling!