Port Penare

[50050 Fearless]

Those of you on RMWeb may have already seen this layout thread, but for everyone else - this is the opening plans for my first trip into layout building, a OO gauge layout set on the south coast of Cornwall. 

So here goes with the backstory: Port Penare (that name might still change) is a heritage railway station on the South coast of Cornwall,  just over 10 miles south-west down the coast from St Austell. The town  of Penare grew from humble beginnings through the early 1800s into a  decent-sized town, and this conicided with the growth and increase in  traffic into the town's burdgeoning port. With the natural topography of  the coast providing an ideal natural deepwater dock for ships, it grew  to become a partial rival to the Penzance port, as well as the larger  ports at Southampton and Liverpool. It's big trump card was berthing  costs - a fraction of it's rivals, because of it's relatively smaller size.

Hence, through the 1800s, passenger liners and freight ships were in regular supply at the port. The Great Western Railway  combined this with it's growing reputation as being an excellent  transporter of perishable freight to locations far inland, and built a branch spur from St Austell, heading down to Penare. Unlike many other branches in the area, it was double-track, to cater for any increase in freight/passenger workings to the port.

Whilst services did grow steadily, the popularity of the port started to decline after WW2, with the rise in air and car travel, and slowly, its relevance faded. It remained a popular destination for spotters and rail enthusiasts, as whilst the main 12-coach expresses continued on to Penzance, most  shorter trains that shedded coaches at Plymouth terminated in Penare,  and it occasionally even gained it's own sleeper train, the Bayside Sleeper, to complement the early departing passenger cruise ships. So large express locomotives would often be seen in the station, with the catch being that they would often not be hauling a full-length express train - or rather, had been, up until Plymouth.

Predictably,  Dr Beeching didn't see the romance in this story, and it was assigned for closure under his infamous cuts, with an initial closure date set of 1965. However, although the port had declined in usage, several local shipyard owners contested this decision, saying that the line was an important source of freight and materials for them in a rural location more difficult to access by road. Also, there was an emphasis still on mail/parcels traffic that remained a lifeblood to the town. So whilst  passenger services were slashed to a bare minimum, freight traffic remained in regular supply, and in the summer, holiday services operated  for holidaymakers heading to the seaside a mile or two up the coast. In the grand tradition, these were operated by mainline express trains - initially during the early 1970s by Class 52 'Westerns' handled the service, before being phased out and replaced by Class 50s.

The  final death knell for the line came when the Parcels Sector began cutting back operations, meaning that the mail aspect of the line was  rendered redundant. With most of the port also closing, the line was  closed for good in 1979. However, due to the precarious nature of the line (with it's threat of closure having loomed for over a decade beforehand), a group of local businessmen and enthusiasts bandied  together to ensure that the railway would enter private ownership upon closure, and the Cornish Riviera Railway was formed in early 1980. With the locomotive preservation movement now well underway, they quickly began sourcing locomotives, with the three first arrivals all coming  from the Barry scrapyard, but as the 1980s wore on and diesel  locomotives began to be phased out, the roster took diesel locomotives under their wing. Nowadays, all the services the line was popular for  are now covered, plus some that never featured, including preserved EMUs on push-pull services. The station buildings along the line, including Port Penare, have pretty much been kept in the condition they were when the line closed, having remained in that state since the late 1950s  anyway.

Right, that's the backstory done with (if any of you are thinking 'he's got too much time on his hands' you'd probably be right), now time to explain how things are going thus far. The layout will take up two walls in an L  shape, a fiddleyard-to-terminus format. The length along the far wall, where the station will go, is 14ft, with the length along the other wall coming in at 11ft. The fiddleyard baseboard will be 1ft wide, and the rest of the layout will be 20inches wide, with the exception of the slightly angled station baseboard, coming out to 33 inches wide as it butts up against the wall. There's no final trackplan drawn  up yet, although I have a plan of four/five platforms, with one dedicated to  freight/mail traffic, and the platforms will be about four coaches  long. Carriage sidings will be included too, with stored stock in there,  and it'll be assumed that any locomotives head up the line about a mile  for a small engine shed/depot (much like Long Rock TMD) to be turned on a turntable up there off-scene,  so there'll be no turntable on this layout.

I said I have no final trackplan drawn up, although I have a pencil sketch that is pretty close to the final deal. Here it is :

Overall plan:


track plan 001 by 50050 Fearless, on Flickr

Detail of the station area:


track plan 002 by 50050 Fearless, on Flickr

Detail of the station throat and carriage sidings. Note also the signal box on the far side of the layout:


track plan 003 by 50050 Fearless, on Flickr

Detail of the station throat and lead-in, including scenic break and fiddle yard.


track plan 004 by 50050 Fearless, on Flickr

NOTE: This sketch is only roughly to scale. I'm aware the fiddleyard and carriage sidings are a bit on the short side on that drawing

I invite you all to put forward any suggestions or improvements, and particularly anyone who is knowledgable in layout design software, I'd love to have some input from you folks.

More updates as and when they come up, stay tuned...

 

[Simon Dunkley]

Hi, and welcome to WT.

I would love to comment, but it is hard to do so without some framework/terms of reference, so I have a few questions:

Is this 00, or N, or something else?
Is it based on sectional track, Streamline or handbuilt pointwork?

There seems to be quite a lot squashed in, I am guessing that the space is about 12' long, and you 6' on the shorter leg of the L, plus a fiddle yard. Is that correct?

Like the fact that you have a "backstory", as it means you are not planning in a vacuum. I also like your backstory, but you will need to work hard not to make it an excuse to over-populate the layout with too much stock in pristine condition. Did you start by designing the layout as it would have been to support the needs of a steam railway in, say, the 30s, and then work forward, with the idea that some of it would have changed (been simplified) under BR, and reduced even further in the 70s - it might even have become a single track line with just two platform faces and a run-round loop. You could then start adding things back-in to suit the needs of the preserved railway, which might lead to a few oddities in the plan, and maybe the inclusion of a run-round loop for the quieter days of operation.

just a few thoughts - it adds some variety as well as history to go through it this way.

Simon

 

[Jordan]

NOTE: This sketch is only roughly to scale. I'm aware the fiddleyard and carriage sidings are a bit on the short side on that drawing

EDIT _ Simon can type faster than me!! :-[

You've certainly thought out the 'back story' for this layout!  8)

Just a couple of Q's;....
What total lengths are we looking at for each side of the 'L' ? What do the '4ft' and '6ft' signify? I ask as it's all too easy to cram a heck of a lot of pointwork into a small area on a sketch, that simply has no chance of fitting in a given area, and TBH, that's what stands out here, "roughly to scale" or not.

What time period will you be modelling? The plan suggests a Station Pre-Beeching; By the 70s and especially 80s cutbacks in service would undoubtedly have meant track rationalisation - a Preserved Railway may not necessarily have re-instated all that track, especially a platform that was Parcels-dedicated. Having that in place, and mention of a Turntable (despite being 'offstage') makes me ask what time-frame you're modelling.

For that sort of size Terminus, I'd try and get hold of trackplans of real Stations for ideas; especially for the throat pointwork; I'm no expert on prototype formations, but that station throat pointwork seems a touch complicated to me (even if it fits the space, as my point above). If this is your "first main layout" I'd go easy on the complicated trackwork - yes it can look good, but will be the biggest source of frustration if things won't run through it without de-railing. 

Hope that's not too much of a 'downer' for you, but taken as the constructive criticism it's meant as.

 

[50050 Fearless]

Hi, and welcome to WT.

I would love to comment, but it is hard to do so without some framework/terms of reference, so I have a few questions:

Is this 00, or N, or something else?
Is it based on sectional track, Streamline or handbuilt pointwork?

There seems to be quite a lot squashed in, I am guessing that the space is about 12' long, and you 6' on the shorter leg of the L, plus a fiddle yard. Is that correct?

Like the fact that you have a "backstory", as it means you are not planning in a vacuum. I also like your backstory, but you will need to work hard not to make it an excuse to over-populate the layout with too much stock in pristine condition. Did you start by designing the layout as it would have been to support the needs of a steam railway in, say, the 30s, and then work forward, with the idea that some of it would have changed (been simplified) under BR, and reduced even further in the 70s - it might even have become a single track line with just two platform faces and a run-round loop. You could then start adding things back-in to suit the needs of the preserved railway, which might lead to a few oddities in the plan, and maybe the inclusion of a run-round loop for the quieter days of operation.

just a few thoughts - it adds some variety as well as history to go through it this way.

Simon

Cheers Simon, I appreciate the input

Thanks for pointing out just how un-informative my description is of the actual layout!  ??? Haha. I've gone back and tweaked it a bit with the relevent info.

To answer your questions, it's OO gauge, and I'm planning on using Code 100 flexi-track with set points.

The length along the far wall (longer leg of the L) is 14ft in total, with the shorter leg 11ft in total, with 5ft of that being the fiddleyard, although that will probably be extended to fit longer trains into the fiddleyard roads.

That's the exact method I used for planning - hence why the entrance to the station is double-track. I'm assuming that, instead of specifically ripping up parts of the station, they just left most of it to deteriorate and become overgrown in the 1970s, as it became steadily more unused...much like how Great Yarmouth station looks nowadays...

I'm assuming the line was originally built double-track the whole way down, but could easily have been reduced to single up to the small depot/stabling point, where it became double-track once more for the station entrance. As well as that, my history assumes the preservation society have restored the station to how it was before BR stripping back began.

A couple of changes I've made since sketching that plan involves taking out the platform along the viewing edge of the station and widening the next platform in, as well as adding a run-round loop.

EDIT _ Simon can type faster than me!! :-[

You've certainly thought out the 'back story' for this layout!  8)

Just a couple of Q's;....
What total lengths are we looking at for each side of the 'L' ? What do the '4ft' and '6ft' signify? I ask as it's all too easy to cram a heck of a lot of pointwork into a small area on a sketch, that simply has no chance of fitting in a given area, and TBH, that's what stands out here, "roughly to scale" or not.

What time period will you be modelling? The plan suggests a Station Pre-Beeching; By the 70s and especially 80s cutbacks in service would undoubtedly have meant track rationalisation - a Preserved Railway may not necessarily have re-instated all that track, especially a platform that was Parcels-dedicated. Having that in place, and mention of a Turntable (despite being 'offstage') makes me ask what time-frame you're modelling.

For that sort of size Terminus, I'd try and get hold of trackplans of real Stations for ideas; especially for the throat pointwork; I'm no expert on prototype formations, but that station throat pointwork seems a touch complicated to me (even if it fits the space, as my point above). If this is your "first main layout" I'd go easy on the complicated trackwork - yes it can look good, but will be the biggest source of frustration if things won't run through it without de-railing. 

Hope that's not too much of a 'downer' for you, but taken as the constructive criticism it's meant as.

No problem Jordan, I'd rather these novice flaws get pointed out now rather than several months into building!  Haha!

As I said in reply to Simon's post, the length along the far wall (longer leg of the L) is 14ft in total, with the shorter leg 11ft in total, with 5ft of that being the fiddleyard, although that will probably be extended to fit longer trains into the fiddleyard roads. The lengths are just reminders for me for the lengths of each individual baseboard, for building purposes - probably should've erased them before posting it, as it just adds confusion to those looking at it who don't know what the lengths represent.

I'm modelling it in the preservation era, with the station set up how it would've been in the late 1950s/early 1960s. That would've been the last time any changes happened to it - I'm proposing that BR left the line to largely deteriorate, rather than ripping a lot of it up.

Good point on the trackwork. I drew a few of the points as multiple turnouts, but I'm gonna try and seperate them into individual turnouts, to make things a little simpler. I like the idea of trains clanking slowly through the trackwork into the station, but at the same time, as you say, I'd rather they clanked into the station at all rather than kept falling over in the station throat 

No problem, I don't mind critisicm like this, as long as it's not patronising, which has sometimes been the case. I understand I'm a total rookie at this layout building business, so any tips from you knowledgeable types would be much appreciated 

 

[Simon Dunkley]

Thanks for pointing out just how un-informative my description is of the actual layout!

I wouldn't say it was uninformative, just that it was hard to comment without knowing the relevant constraints.

To answer your questions, it's OO gauge, and I'm planning on using Code 100 flexi-track with set points.

Do you mean set track points, or the Streamline ready-made variety? If possible, I would suggest using the latter: the "medium" radius would be fine, but if you can run to the "large" radius they do look nicer.

The length along the far wall (longer leg of the L) is 14ft in total, with the shorter leg 11ft in total, with 5ft of that being the fiddleyard, although that will probably be extended to fit longer trains into the fiddleyard roads.

Not a small space!

That's the exact method I used for planning - hence why the entrance to the station is double-track. I'm assuming that, instead of specifically ripping up parts of the station, they just left most of it to deteriorate and become overgrown in the 1970s, as it became steadily more unused...much like how Great Yarmouth station looks nowadays...

I'm assuming the line was originally built double-track the whole way down, but could easily have been reduced to single up to the small depot/stabling point, where it became double-track once more for the station entrance. As well as that, my history assumes the preservation society have restored the station to how it was before BR stripping back began.

A couple of changes I've made since sketching that plan involves taking out the platform along the viewing edge of the station and widening the next platform in, as well as adding a run-round loop.

Well, that is all nicely thought I must say - and it is a pleasure to hear that the planning stages have been taken seriously and considerable thought has been put into developing the plan, including finding reasonable prototypical precedents. I would rather see such an approach using Peco code 100 than a thoughtless layout design in P4. Ideally, I'd prefer this approach combined with C&L track (00, EM or P4 - not fussed) to capture a more authentic feel for British P&W, but not everyone the confidence nor indeed the interest in such things to do this - assuming there is time available to make the required turnouts!

No problem, I don't mind critisicm like this, as long as it's not patronising, which has sometimes been the case. I understand I'm a total rookie at this layout building business, so any tips from you knowledgeable types would be much appreciated

I don't see any evidence of you being a rookie here: I presume the patronisation happened somewhere else?
(Don't care where, just want to be reassured that it wasn't here!)

 

[50050 Fearless]

I wouldn't say it was uninformative, just that it was hard to comment without knowing the relevant constraints.Do you mean set track points, or the Streamline ready-made variety? If possible, I would suggest using the latter: the "medium" radius would be fine, but if you can run to the "large" radius they do look nicer.Not a small space!Well, that is all nicely thought I must say - and it is a pleasure to hear that the planning stages have been taken seriously and considerable thought has been put into developing the plan, including finding reasonable prototypical precedents. I would rather see such an approach using Peco code 100 than a thoughtless layout design in P4. Ideally, I'd prefer this approach combined with C&L track (00, EM or P4 - not fussed) to capture a more authentic feel for British P&W, but not everyone the confidence nor indeed the interest in such things to do this - assuming there is time available to make the required turnouts!I don't see any evidence of you being a rookie here: I presume the patronisation happened somewhere else?
(Don't care where, just want to be reassured that it wasn't here!)

Hah, nah I was just making a joke that my original post had missed some basic info in my rush to write out the full backstory...kinda got caught up in that  :-[ haha!

Yeah, the ready-made Streamline ones will be the ones I'm going for. I'm trying to make the radius of the curve into the station, as well as other curves on the layout, as large as possible - I'm aware quite tight radius curves look rather ungainly, as well as unrealistic.

Heh! When I first started designing, it always seemed too small...it's only recently I'm realising that, actually, I've got quite a bit of room to play with and work with

Thanks for the complements on the planning I've tried to get as close as possible to prototypical precedents whilst keeping the operational potential I want from the layout. For now, I'm sticking with pre-built track just to get me started, though I won't rule out switching to finer gauge trackwork and so on later on. For now though, for my first venture into building a layout, I'm keeping that aspect simple - no need to load myself down with stuff at this early stage and risk getting de-motivated.

The rookie bit is just in relation to the fact that I've never built a layout before, so this is the first steps in I dunno...the patronising happened on another forum (I'll leave you folks to guess which one  :scratch:  ), it may not have been intended that way, but the fella in question seemed to assume I didn't really know what I was talking about. That's how it came across, anyway. It certainly wasn't here, that's for sure 

 

[Jordan]

If you are planning to run 4-coach trains, then you need a fiddleyard rather longer than 5 feet. :scratch: With a loco as well, that's about the length of the train itself, so at least some of your fiddleyard sidings are going to need to be a minimum of about 6 feet long each. take some pointwork into account, and your 11ft leg of the layout is shrinking rapidly...

 

[28ten]

I concur with the 'too much track'  school of thought. the plan doesnt look like a rationalised station layout. I would lift a couple of the sidings and model one of the platforms with lifted track, less is more when it comes to 70's/ 80's.
You have obviously given it some thought so the main thing is to get on with it, learn and have fun building

 

[50050 Fearless]

If you are planning to run 4-coach trains, then you need a fiddleyard rather longer than 5 feet. :scratch: With a loco as well, that's about the length of the train itself, so at least some of your fiddleyard sidings are going to need to be a minimum of about 6 feet long each. take some pointwork into account, and your 11ft leg of the layout is shrinking rapidly...

Hahaha! Ain't that always the way? 

I don't mind putting the scenic break a lot further up the wall, and loosing some more of that 11ft for a fiddleyard...some of it, not all of it!  :scratch: 

I concur with the 'too much track'  school of thought. the plan doesnt look like a rationalised station layout. I would lift a couple of the sidings and model one of the platforms with lifted track, less is more when it comes to 70's/ 80's.
You have obviously given it some thought so the main thing is to get on with it, learn and have fun building

I see what you're saying, but this is an issue where I might have to bite the bullet and keep it, just for operating potential. My assumption is that the track wasn't lifted, just left to rot, during it's fallow period in the 1970s, before it was closed in the late 70s, before the heritage railway society restored the station to an early-60s state, working to re-lay any track which had been lifted.

Thanks I will endevour to...although I'm told ballasting is a chore to look forward to... ??? haha! I can't wait to get track laid and stuff running though.

 

[Jordan]

(re 'too much track'...)
I see what you're saying, but this is an issue where I might have to bite the bullet and keep it, just for operating potential.

Depends what you mean by "operating potential"..?  :scratch:
The real Railways don't lay lots of complicated (and expensive) trackwork just to increase the 'operating potential' or make it interesting for the train crews; they lay what's needed to provide a service, have some flexibility in case of unforeseen circumstances, and comply with the rules.
Operating potential usually means the amount and variety of trains that can be run realistically. In American terms this includes giving purpose to all the freight cars and places/industries to switch (shunt) them to; since you're modelling a UK Preserved Line you're stuck really with out'n'back Passenger workings and the occasional 'Photographic Charter' Freight. That is what might lead you to boredom - not watching trains thread through complex track (which is the underlying fear I think you may have).
There was a long-running thread on RMweb about why there aren't more "Preserved Line" layouts; it made for a fascinating read at times, and the reasons boiled down to the difficulty of making a Preserved Line Layout look "right", as opposed to a hotch-potch collection of models; and being stuck with the rather monotonous service that actually happens in real life.  :scratch: