MINIMUM SPACE minimum time
Paul A. Lunn describes his methods and formula for working out a layout’s physical attributes according to the modeller’s requirements.
Model Rail reader Ryan Beaney approached me for help with a minimum space project. He’d suffered a serious leg injury and wanted a small, quick project to build while he recuperated.
Designing layouts for individual modellers forms a large part of what I do, and over the years I have developed a process which works well for identifying a person’s needs. It’s not about imposing what I would want, it’s about enabling others to achieve their ideal layouts.
I always start with a laid-back chat, during which I look out for wants and needs in order to form a brief. Ryan’s brief was very modest, but contained enough to define a starting point. I ensured that I always returned to the parameters he’d set. It’s an effective tool for staying focused, but in a creative way it might provide a springboard for something more dynamic.
Ryan’s layout brief included the following key pieces of information:
Track gauge: ‘OO’.
Maximum size: 4ft by 1ft scenic section plus additional fiddleyard. Operational requirements: Station and shunting layout, but large enough to hold a ‘9F’! Era: 1960s BR with mainly steam (EX-LMS) stock but with the occasional DMU.
Location: West Yorkshire.
Key scenic features: A factory and/or loading bay. Track: Peco Code 75, with medium radius points the smallest permissible.
Anything else: Ryan wanted to use Kadee couplers and would welcome any additional suggestions. He also wanted to allow for possible future expansion.
I’m a firm believer in choice and offering as much as possible. I therefore offered
Ryan 12 potential layout concepts, chosen for their versatility and operational capacity, hoping that one might emerge as a clear winner, or that he’d like components from several which, space permitting, I might be able to amalgamate into a single design.
Even when we’d arrived at an almost final design, there was the opportunity to provide a number of minor revisions and variations. Model Rail
STEP 1 – NARROW DOWN YOUR CHOICES
The accompanying 3D illustration appeared in Making Tracks* and has been adapted to include improved flow between all tracks, leading to a part-relief, Selby yard-inspired warehouses and wrapping around a very derelict Leeds Marsh Lane signal box.
I’m a keen protagonist of factoring in possible expansions from the start and suggested that Ryan built a scenic-only 6in add-on rear section, when time permits. His love of West Yorkshire locations says it should be mills and the like, with the accompanying Halifax postcard offering perfect inspiration.
STEP 1 – NARROW DOWN YOUR CHOICES (continued)
Good friend Paul MarshallPotter and I worked on this design a few years ago and I’ve tweaked the idea, in a minimal way, to accommodate a ‘9F’ for Ryan. I was particularly keen to show Ryan the importance of mocking up key items to get a good feel of balance over the entire layout, both in length and depth.
The 3D illustration on the previous pages brings together several key prototype components from Dewsbury in an ‘L’-shaped plan. All I’ve done here is rework them into what is essentially a new, micro-sized, straight 4ft by 1ft baseboard.
‘Collier Street’ was designed as a downtrodden station, similar to Bradford Forster Square, retaining some local passenger services but with part of it dedicated to parcel traffic. It was originally designed as an ‘N’ gauge layout (which Paul Marshall-potter built for Peco) but this reworked ‘OO’ gauge version makes use of a double slip for improved access and replaces the original’s foreground cottage with a signal box.
STEP 2 – AND THE WINNER IS…
Ryan chose this design, inspired by Dewsbury Central Station and adjacent yard. This precursor to the final design had many desired components but I was concerned about how everything appeared squashed together, widthwise, and the factory/goods shed was way too short. Ryan picked up on regimented trackwork, parallel to the baseboard edge, remarking how much he’d enjoyed curves on some of the other designs.
STEP 3 – THE FINAL DESIGN?
Inspired by our conversations, Ryan increased the baseboard width to 1ft 3in. That extra space enabled us to resolve all the issues with the original; graceful curves in front of the station platform and into the yard, slightly angled station pilot headshunt (a new and positive addition) and a longer factory/goods shed.
This final iteration remained almost identical to its previous counterpart, save for the addition of a much more interesting warehouse, with wagon hoist, based on the extant version at Huddersfield and, by careful manipulation of the track plan, Ryan was able to use a ‘standard’ signal box rather than scratchbuilding something bespoke.
STEP 4 – STARTING WORK
This photograph shows how much can be packed into a 4ft by 1ft 3in space and still retain an uncluttered feel. Ryan has started work and we can see how the layout can be visually contained around the perimeter. I suggested a stepped rather than sloping retaining wall and giving more importance, from a shape and size point of view, to having a sawtooth canopy.
I have been extremely impressed by Ryan’s approach to this project and am extremely grateful to him for allowing me to use his experience as an example of layout designing, not just as a hypothetical track plan, but as the first step in a blow-by-blow account of building a working layout.
Visualise your Plan
thorough planning is the best way to ensure that any layout, regardless of size, meets the highest expectation. It’s especially the case with a micro layout, where space is at a premium.
A full-size ‘rough’ usually proves to be fool-proof and is certainly a great way to reveal functional and aesthetic issues. the 2D plan is ideal for working out what’s happening at ground level, but it’s worth making a 3D mock-up if you want to get a real feel for the final result. I used cereal boxes, tape and a ‘bold’ felt pen, to mock up this layout with Paul Marshall-potter.