Newbridge

[GWR57xx]

Having previously been an occasional N-gauge GWR modeller, I have been enticed into O-gauge by the recent flood of announcements of superb-looking GWR models and the attraction of DCC Sound.

 

I have recently had a house extension built which included a decent sized, insulated garage with the intention of being able to have a permanent layout along one wall.

 

Also I am approaching retirement so am looking forward to being able to spend more time on modelling in the near future and for many enjoyable years to come, hopefully.

 

This will be a long-term project so I want to get the basics right and not go steaming off in the wrong direction.

 

With that in mind I thought a good place to start would be the track plan and the traffic requirements. The garage wall along which the layout will sit is 17'6" (edit: ~4.5m ~5.3m), and I am thinking of keeping to a width of 3' to allow for reaching across for uncoupling etc. I would like to be able to regularly have two locos "on stage" simultaneously, one shunting the goods yard and another on passenger duties, and I want to try to signal the layout in a realistic manner.

 

Having played around with track plans in AnyRail for a while, I realise that I don't have enough space to model any prototype anywhere near faithfully, but I would still like the layout to give a reasonable sense of space while still being operationally interesting and still having a GWR "feel".

 

I am currently thinking of something like this (trackwork is all Peco Streamline bullhead):

 

 

or this:

 

 

There is a 4'6" cassette-type fiddle yard on the left and a 13' scenic section to the right.

 

This is intended to be a fixed, stay-at-home layout but it will still be built to be semi-portable in case of any future house move.

 

The Goods Yard is essentially an "Inglenook Shunting Puzzle" which will allow one loco to shunt wagons around without interfering with the platform road, run-round loop or engine shed road. A passenger train can arrive, run round, get water and coal, re-couple and depart while shunting is in progress.

 

As an excuse for the large amount of traffic at a branch line terminus I am thinking of a Bodmin General type location!

 

The longest passenger/mixed train envisaged is a 45xx + B-set + Milk Tanker/Siphon, with regular appearances of 64xx/48xx with 1 or 2 Autocoaches.

 

Goods trains will be as long as the platform run-round loop allows.

 

Any thoughts or suggestions?

 

Thanks for reading this far.

Peter

 

Edited February 11 by GWR57xx
restore images

[Simond]

Peter,

 

Welcome on board! Couple of thoughts, if I may.

 

I like your plan, and the goods sidings as an inglenook will add “play value” as well as looking believable, and serving their intended purpose. Do make sure it’s nearer the front of the baseboard, particularly if you intend to stay with 3-links.

 

Can you reach over to uncouple the loco in the release road?

 

Another Peter, and a Chris, are building Bodmin-based layouts. The first is, I think, called Bodmin, the second, Pencarrow. Well worth a look.

 

Before splashing out on Peco pointwork, I’d seriously consider building it yourself. This will allow you use 31.5mm gauge through the pontwork, which gives better running, and will remove the constraint of the fixed size and spacing of the Peco geometry. It unarguably looks better, because the track can “flow” like the real thing. It’s possibly a bit scary building the first one, but after that, there is little that is actually difficult. And it’s cheaper. With the combined savings of space & money, you might get an extra milk tanker or siphon in there...

 

Again, there are lots of track-building threads on here, you could look at my Porth Dinllaen thread (link below) as an example.

 

Keep posting, watching with interest

Best

Simon

Edited January 30, 2018 by Simond

[Happy Hippo]

I'd echo what Simon has written regarding both laying your own point work, and more importantly also about what you can reach.

 

Personally I'd suggest that if you are using three link couplings that you will never reach across the rest of the baseboard to release a loco from it's train as the span is going to be around the three foot mark plus you have a rather large goods shed.

 

7mm is a wonderful scale to work in, but it eats up real estate, especially if you want to achieve the country terminus effect, where they were rather spaced out as land was cheap as opposed to a city site where everything was crammed in to save space (and money).

 

I speak from experience here, as havign designed a shunting plank on paper i then proceeded to lay it, and found that what worked on paper did not work in reality.

 

Fortunately, the loss of one road actually improved the plan and enabled the two sidings to end up far longer that originally planned.

 

The train lengths remained the same, and they looked so much better in the  longer sidings.

 

Being hypercritical, I'd lose the very short siding that runs up to the goods yard.  What is it's purpose?

 

Turnouts cost money, and the railway company is not going to the expense of installing one just for the sake of storing two wagons.

 

Finally the train length is a max of 4' 6" which is the length of your cassettes, not the run around loop distance on the scenic section of the line!

 

Another thread well worth looking at is Major Minerva's Cwm Bach.

 

Looking forward to following your progress.

 

Hth

[Jintyman]

Welcome to 7mm!!!

 

I can heartily agree with both of the above comments regarding building your own track.

I was daunted as the double junction in my layout required a single slip and a threeway but after getting the plan printed on Templot and just setting about it carefully and steadily, I had the whole complex built in a week of evenings.

It is also works out cheaper per turnout than Peco, and will look great in comparison, more flowing and each turnout is built for the specific requirement, not trying to make a standard turnout fit a particular space.

 

7mm is a wonderful scale, it has the ability to excess in detail and the sheer presence of an O gauge locomotive, or a simple wagon is so much more than 4mm, let alone 2mm.

 

I like your plan, it has some great operating opportunities and excellent 'play value'. Ideally suited for some of the recent releases such as the Panniers and B'sets and the forthcoming ones such as the 14xx, 63xx and the 45xx, plus lots of wagons from Dapol and the likes. 

 

You will find lots of good advice on here and you may benefit from joining the Gauge O  Guild as some of the 7mm traders don't advertise in the regular monthlies.

 

All the very best with your adventure, I hope you get lots of enjoyment from it, after all, that's what it's all about.

 

Jinty

[Hal Nail]

Hi,

looking forward to following this. In respect of the comment above about O gauge absorbing space, I always think it doesn’t help when model layouts invariably run in straight lines, often parallel to straight edged baseboards. Skewing the plan as you have done may help the illusion - could you also perhaps introduce a gentle curve through the platform (St Ives style)?

[GWR57xx]

Thanks for all the replies and constuctive comments. I'll try to provide answers ...
 
Simond: Thanks for the pointers - I've found Bodmin but hadn't come across Pencarrow, will have to catch up on that one.

HH: Cwm Bach (being 7mm & GWR) is one of the first threads I came across when lurking on RMWeb before I plucked up the courage to join. I've read the entire thread. Excellent modelling, along with many other examples on this forum.

Not sure if I will be able to reach over to undo 3-links. Plan B would be to use Dingham autocouplers if not.

Lots of votes for building the trackwork myself - No pressure then!
Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't share your confidence in my ability to build trackwork to a better standard than Peco!
I have great admiration for all of you who have the skills to build your own track and locos etc, but at the moment that is a step too far for me.
Also I would like to have the track laid this decade so that at least the layout is operational before retirement. I am then happy to take my time "finishing" the layout.
I know from the many threads on the subject that Peco points aren't perfect but, as I have already purchased some, building trackwork will have to wait for the next layout. Also, TBH I find the prospect far too daunting at this stage.
I think I can live quite happily knowing that GWR chairs only have two bolts and the Peco ones have three, but I do intend to make some of the improvements demonstrated on various threads. I don't think I can live with the huge microswitch box, as nothing like that appears in any photo I have ever seen of a GWR branch line in the 1930s, so I will definitely be having a go at removing that along with the tie-bar blobs and adding plasticard shims to prevent wheel drop on the crossings.
Reliable and smooth running is crucial for me, so I'll be making all the recommended wiring mods and am planning to control them using DCC Concepts' Cobalt ip Digital motors, using these to switch the frog polarity. The plan is to use analogue control using the Cobalt S levers' passing contacts to switch the motors (no intention of using DCC accessory addressing for this - I think pulling the lever to change the points/signals will provide a much more immersive and realistic experience for 1930's operation). More play value!

 

Being hypercritical, I'd lose the very short siding that runs up to the goods yard.  What is it's purpose?
 
Turnouts cost money, and the railway company is not going to the expense of installing one just for the sake of storing two wagons.

The straight answer is that it is one of the 3-3-5 sidings needed for an Inglenook.
In my mind I thought it could be the siding served by the yard crane for unloading large, heavy items. Would that make sense?

 

Finally the train length is a max of 4' 6" which is the length of your cassettes, not the run around loop distance on the scenic section of the line!

Very good point!!
Having worked out that 4'6" should be enough for a 45xx+B-set+Milk Tanker I think I'd mentally ticked the cassette length issue off on the list of things to take into account, then forgotten about it. Doh!.
For the shunting puzzle the cassettes need to be long enough to hold the loco + 8 wagons/vans + Toad, so I don't think 4'6" is going to be quite enough.
Just shows the value of early design reviews

 

Welcome to 7mm!!!
 
I can heartily agree with both of the above comments regarding building your own track.
I was daunted as the double junction in my layout required a single slip and a threeway but after getting the plan printed on Templot and just setting about it carefully and steadily, I had the whole complex built in a week of evenings.
It is also works out cheaper per turnout than Peco, and will look great in comparison, more flowing and each turnout is built for the specific requirement, not trying to make a standard turnout fit a particular space.
 
7mm is a wonderful scale, it has the ability to excess in detail and the sheer presence of an O gauge locomotive, or a simple wagon is so much more than 4mm, let alone 2mm.
 
I like your plan, it has some great operating opportunities and excellent 'play value'. Ideally suited for some of the recent releases such as the Panniers and B'sets and the forthcoming ones such as the 14xx, 63xx and the 45xx, plus lots of wagons from Dapol and the likes. 
 
You will find lots of good advice on here and you may benefit from joining the Gauge O  Guild as some of the 7mm traders don't advertise in the regular monthlies.
 
All the very best with your adventure, I hope you get lots of enjoyment from it, after all, that's what it's all about.
 
Jinty

Thanks Jintyman - I've also read (and watched) a lot of your Talyllyn thread. Very impressive stuff.

I do agree that flowing curved trackwork looks better than straight lines. I tried using Peco curved points but they take up yet more room. I had a look at Marcway points to get more choice of geometry but not sure how much better they are than Peco? There are no photos on their website.

 

Off to join the Gauge O Guild - thanks for the reminder.

[GWR57xx]

Hi,

looking forward to following this. In respect of the comment above about O gauge absorbing space, I always think it doesn’t help when model layouts invariably run in straight lines, often parallel to straight edged baseboards. Skewing the plan as you have done may help the illusion - could you also perhaps introduce a gentle curve through the platform (St Ives style)?

 

Hi Hal Nail,

I do like curved platforms, I'll give it a try but I think the straight points for the run-round loop might make it look a bit odd.

The curved Peco points take up even more space, so I doubt they'd fit, but I'll play around with it in AnyRail.

Thanks.

[Simond]

Peter

 

“...so I will definitely be having a go at removing that along with the tie-bar blobs and adding plasticard shims to prevent wheel drop on the crossings.

Reliable and smooth running is crucial for me...”

 

So sell your Peco points, and build some at 31.5 gauge - they work properly, and they don’t have weird lumps where the tiebar should be!!!

 

Ok, mostly joking

Simon

[Aldgate Box Boy]

Thanks for all the replies and constuctive comments. I'll try to provide answers ...

 

Simond: Thanks for the pointers - I've found Bodmin but hadn't come across Pencarrow, will have to catch up on that one.

 

HH: Cwm Bach (being 7mm & GWR) is one of the first threads I came across when lurking on RMWeb before I plucked up the courage to join. I've read the entire thread. Excellent modelling, along with many other examples on this forum.

 

Not sure if I will be able to reach over to undo 3-links. Plan B would be to use Dingham autocouplers if not.

 

Lots of votes for building the trackwork myself - No pressure then!

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't share your confidence in my ability to build trackwork to a better standard than Peco!

I have great admiration for all of you who have the skills to build your own track and locos etc, but at the moment that is a step too far for me.

Also I would like to have the track laid this decade so that at least the layout is operational before retirement. I am then happy to take my time "finishing" the layout.

I know from the many threads on the subject that Peco points aren't perfect but, as I have already purchased some, building trackwork will have to wait for the next layout. Also, TBH I find the prospect far too daunting at this stage.

I think I can live quite happily knowing that GWR chairs only have two bolts and the Peco ones have three, but I do intend to make some of the improvements demonstrated on various threads. I don't think I can live with the huge microswitch box, as nothing like that appears in any photo I have ever seen of a GWR branch line in the 1930s, so I will definitely be having a go at removing that along with the tie-bar blobs and adding plasticard shims to prevent wheel drop on the crossings.

Reliable and smooth running is crucial for me, so I'll be making all the recommended wiring mods and am planning to control them using DCC Concepts' Cobalt ip Digital motors, using these to switch the frog polarity. The plan is to use analogue control using the Cobalt S levers' passing contacts to switch the motors (no intention of using DCC accessory addressing for this - I think pulling the lever to change the points/signals will provide a much more immersive and realistic experience for 1930's operation). More play value!

 

 

The straight answer is that it is one of the 3-3-5 sidings needed for an Inglenook.

In my mind I thought it could be the siding served by the yard crane for unloading large, heavy items. Would that make sense?

 

 

Very good point!!

Having worked out that 4'6" should be enough for a 45xx+B-set+Milk Tanker I think I'd mentally ticked the cassette length issue off on the list of things to take into account, then forgotten about it. Doh!.

For the shunting puzzle the cassettes need to be long enough to hold the loco + 8 wagons/vans + Toad, so I don't think 4'6" is going to be quite enough.

Just shows the value of early design reviews

 

 

Thanks Jintyman - I've also read (and watched) a lot of your Talyllyn thread. Very impressive stuff.

 

I do agree that flowing curved trackwork looks better than straight lines. I tried using Peco curved points but they take up yet more room. I had a look at Marcway points to get more choice of geometry but not sure how much better they are than Peco? There are no photos on their website.

 

Off to join the Gauge O Guild - thanks for the reminder.

Hi Peter, thanks for posting looks great. couple of points. I use Marcways and I've just posted images of a LH/RH and 3 way with a ruler for scale, this may help. They are marginally more expensive but are well made, and they automatically switch polarity - you simply feed them from the toe of the point and put isolation joiners on both frog ends. No cutting, no extra wire to the frog and no third wire to the point motor.

I didn't quite understand what you were doing with your point motors and switches. If you have Digital IP you can run a control bus bar linking all the points with droppers from the BB. DCC sell a sniffer and a control board which your switches very simply wire into. This is what I have done as a complete newcomer. DCC website has videos and they are excellent in terms of idiots like me asking stupid question. its very easy. Also using the above system with Marcways you just need 2 wires, no frog wire.

You can see the point on my strand Green Leaf Brewery London. Happy to explain more if need to.

Welcome

Tim 

[GWR57xx]

Hi Peter, thanks for posting looks great. couple of points. I use Marcways and I've just posted images of a LH/RH and 3 way with a ruler for scale, this may help. They are marginally more expensive but are well made, and they automatically switch polarity - you simply feed them from the toe of the point and put isolation joiners on both frog ends. No cutting, no extra wire to the frog and no third wire to the point motor.

I didn't quite understand what you were doing with your point motors and switches. If you have Digital IP you can run a control bus bar linking all the points with droppers from the BB. DCC sell a sniffer and a control board which your switches very simply wire into. This is what I have done as a complete newcomer. DCC website has videos and they are excellent in terms of idiots like me asking stupid question. its very easy. Also using the above system with Marcways you just need 2 wires, no frog wire.

You can see the point on my strand Green Leaf Brewery London. Happy to explain more if need to.

Welcome

Tim 

 

Thanks for posting the photos Tim, very helpful.

That 3-way looks nice, as do the points (no ugly box or tie-bar pimples!).

I would be very interested to see the inside of your lever box.

I wasn't intending to use DCC to control the points because I didn't want to do it from the DCC control panel.

If the points and signals can be controlled by the Cobalt S levers wired into an independent (of the track) DCC circuit then that would be of interest (I am a complete DCC novice).

[GWR57xx]

On 30/01/2018 at 11:56, Hal Nail said:

Hi,

looking forward to following this. In respect of the comment above about O gauge absorbing space, I always think it doesn’t help when model layouts invariably run in straight lines, often parallel to straight edged baseboards. Skewing the plan as you have done may help the illusion - could you also perhaps introduce a gentle curve through the platform (St Ives style)?

 

Have had a play with AnyRail and made a few changes:

• Cassette fiddle yard extended by 6" to 5'.
• L & R hand points at station throat replaced by a 3-way (Marcway).
• Gentle curve added to platform road, run-round loop and goods yard road.

 

 

The fiddle yard is still not long enough to hold a train of 45xx + 8 wagons + Toad, but it should hold 7 wagons. I think that's the maximum I can give it because it takes too much out of the station area which is already squeezed.

Edited February 11 by GWR57xx
restore images

[Aldgate Box Boy]

Thanks for posting the photos Tim, very helpful.

That 3-way looks nice, as do the points (no ugly box or tie-bar pimples!).

I would be very interested to see the inside of your lever box.

I wasn't intending to use DCC to control the points because I didn't want to do it from the DCC control panel.

If the points and signals can be controlled by the Cobalt S levers wired into an independent (of the track) DCC circuit then that would be of interest (I am a complete DCC novice).

Hi Peter, yes mine is wired from a separate bus bar. So you would need the following:

12 volt power supply which plugs in to the 'sniffer'

a sniffer which has 2 wires out for the bus bar

a wire from the sniffer to Alpha encoder

then as many levers as you want - max 12 per encoder.

Basically you plug in you lever, attach three wires per lever into the ports on the encoder and that is the wiring.

you take a dropper down from the bus bar to the point motor and insert, address the point.

This is all really simple I too was a complete novice doing this in November

Below are the images of my frame with the covers off this looks more complex as each lever has 9 wires - you only need 3.

I was advised to have a separate control bus bar and they were right. The levers are great.

[Aldgate Box Boy]

sorry here are the images of the gubbins

Also take a look at DCC Concepts' site, search for the videos

https://www.dccconcepts.com/product/cobalt-alpha-main-unit/

best Tim

[GWR57xx]

Thanks very much Tim, very helpful.

I'll take a look.

Peter

[GWR57xx]

Also take a look at DCC Concepts' site, search for the videos

https://www.dccconcepts.com/product/cobalt-alpha-main-unit/

best Tim

 

Hi Tim,

DCC Concepts seem to have excellent products but rubbish documentation.

I am very glad that you explained your setup to me, because without that there is no way I would have been able to make sense of the information on the DCC Concepts website. They seem to suggest that I would need to buy the Alpha Box and an Alpha Power and maybe an Alpha Central as well as the Alpha Encoder in order to achieve what you have done. Oh, and better have a Switch-D too.

 

There is one diagram in the Alpha Product Guide (p8) that shows your setup, but I wouldn't have put two and two together from that alone. Maybe I'm too dumb for DCC. I know where I am with hundreds of multicoloured wires and D-connectors!

 

(NB. For anyone reading that diagram, the words say the Sniffer needs a DC supply of 15-21V, but the etching on the Sniffer PCB in the image reads "12V-18V DC ONLY". The same misinformation is repeated on p30).

 

May I ask you a few more questions about your setup please Tim?

 

Does the Encoder board need its own power supply, or does it get it from the Sniffer via the "6P-6C BUS CABLE"?

 

Does the "6P-6C BUS CABLE" come with either the Encoder or the Sniffer, or did you have to buy it separately?

 

Does the Sniffer come with a connector for the DCC output port or did you have to buy it separately?

 

I notice you have the optional Display Extension. I assume this just displays the number of the last switch that was operated? Do you use this much, and would you recommend having it?

 

Do you have another box of tricks with the Sniffer in (I don't see it in the lever box)?

 

Very nice setup by the way, which I think I will be copying. Hope you don't mind.

Thanks,

Peter

[Aldgate Box Boy]

 

Hi Tim,

DCC Concepts seem to have excellent products but rubbish documentation.

I am very glad that you explained your setup to me, because without that there is no way I would have been able to make sense of the information on the DCC Concepts website. They seem to suggest that I would need to buy the Alpha Box and an Alpha Power and maybe an Alpha Central as well as the Alpha Encoder in order to achieve what you have done. Oh, and better have a Switch-D too.

 

There is one diagram in the Alpha Product Guide (p8) that shows your setup, but I wouldn't have put two and two together from that alone. Maybe I'm too dumb for DCC. I know where I am with hundreds of multicoloured wires and D-connectors!

 

(NB. For anyone reading that diagram, the words say the Sniffer needs a DC supply of 15-21V, but the etching on the Sniffer PCB in the image reads "12V-18V DC ONLY". The same misinformation is repeated on p30).

 

May I ask you a few more questions about your setup please Tim?

 

Does the Encoder board need its own power supply, or does it get it from the Sniffer via the "6P-6C BUS CABLE"?

 

Does the "6P-6C BUS CABLE" come with either the Encoder or the Sniffer, or did you have to buy it separately?

 

Does the Sniffer come with a connector for the DCC output port or did you have to buy it separately?

 

I notice you have the optional Display Extension. I assume this just displays the number of the last switch that was operated? Do you use this much, and would you recommend having it?

 

Do you have another box of tricks with the Sniffer in (I don't see it in the lever box)?

 

Very nice setup by the way, which I think I will be copying. Hope you don't mind.

Thanks,

Peter

Hi Peter, no problem. I've attached images of the sniffer. Yes it sits outside the box, screwed into the frame of the baseboard.

On the left are the 2 wires to the bus bar - blue and white. they go around the layout with droppers (uppers?) to p/motors. again blue and white.

On the right lower is the power supply, you were right this supplies sniffer, Alpha encoder and b/bar.

Top right is the plug in cable to/from the encoder.

 So that one power supple feeds all the control equipment.

I can't remember if the cable came separately, i suspect it does.

The display extension is useful - its in the encoder board and you need that when addressing the points. After that it's useful to see which points you have thrown. the extension is simply plugged in.

there isn't another box of tricks for sniffer.

S you have lever to encoder, encoder to sniffer, sniffer connects to the 2 b/bar wires.

As i said my marcways don't need frog switching so it's 2 wires. Other points will use the polarity switch on DCC Concepts ips.

Take a look at their video:

 

I don't mind you copying that's what we all do, I've learnt so much from this site, and others in the short time i've been into O Gauge. As others have said do join the Gauge o Guild, and also your local club, my one is great and has been really welcoming.

Hope this helps

Tim

[GWR57xx]

Thanks Tim.

I think I've twigged now.

From what I can tell the RJ12 interconnect cable is not included, so I'll add it to my shopping list.

Cheers,

Peter

 

PS - I have joined the Guild

[F-UnitMad]

My 2p-worth for Peter...

 

No 1. Make a 3-track traverser or sector plate rather than cassettes; when you have several hundred-£££'s worth of (heavy) loco & stock on a precarious, narrow board that's too long to lift comfortably, you'll have 2nd, 3rd & 4th thoughts about moving it at all

 

No 2. Get away from the OO/N mentality that equates more track with a more 'interesting' layout. O scale has presence the smaller scales cannot match, & if you use 3-links your shunting will take 'real time' to do, so for O scale, "Less is More" can be true:- less track can still feel like more Railway.

I would pare down your plan even more; ditch the Engine Shed spur & kickback altogether, & have just 2 looooong sidings rather than 4 short ones. If you have to spot wagons at particular spots on those 2 sidings, rather than just dump them all in 'the Goods Yard' like a lot of British modellers do, then that is extra shunting work to do as well

Lastly, I'd move the Goods Shed away from in front of where you'll be wanting to uncouple the loco from inbound trains.

 

Welcome to O scale, too.

[81A Oldoak]

My 2p-worth for Peter...

 

No 1. Make a 3-track traverser or sector plate rather than cassettes; when you have several hundred-£££'s worth of (heavy) loco & stock on a precarious, narrow board that's too long to lift comfortably, you'll have 2nd, 3rd & 4th thoughts about moving it at all

 

No 2. Get away from the OO/N mentality that equates more track with a more 'interesting' layout. O scale has presence the smaller scales cannot match, & if you use 3-links your shunting will take 'real time' to do, so for O scale, "Less is More" can be true:- less track can still feel like more Railway.

I would pare down your plan even more; ditch the Engine Shed spur & kickback altogether, & have just 2 looooong sidings rather than 4 short ones. If you have to spot wagons at particular spots on those 2 sidings, rather than just dump them all in 'the Goods Yard' like a lot of British modellers do, then that is extra shunting work to do as well

Lastly, I'd move the Goods Shed away from in front of where you'll be wanting to uncouple the loco from inbound trains.

 

Welcome to O scale, too.

I agree. The mistake is that we focus on track plans that look nice or busy instead of first considering the nature of the traffic for which our fictitious railway is being built. This will determine the volumes and types of traffic, the most efficient allocation of motive power and other rolling stock and the track layout (and concomitant signalling) to allow the most effficient way to operate, subject to any geographical and other factors. My Cwm Bach layout is centered on the requirement to transfer traffic between the mainline and the colliery branch with full mineral wagons going out and empties coming back. The basic operation of exchanging can take a leisurely twenty minutes of my real time. A simple interval passenger service operates in and out formed by either an auto-train, a 57XX/8750 and B Set or a short DMU and there is a daily short pick-up goods train to move general merchandise. Twp staples of model branchlines are missing: first, there is no loco depot for the mainline engines and only a simple water tank for topping off after the climb up the valley; secondly, there is no coal merchant in the small goods yard as domestic coal sales would have been handled at the colliery.

 

Railway operation is well worth studying and the series of books authored by Bob Essery and published by Ian Allan are a helpful starting place for this subject.

 

Regards,

 

CK

[2ManySpams]

Peter

 

Welcome to the wonderful world of 7mm. I made the move from 4mm about 3 years ago and am loving it. Simon mentioned my layout Pencarrow in an earlier post. It's a very similar size to your plan and us primarily a stay at home layout.

 

The plan evolved from a shunting layout based on Wenford to something a bit more urban inspired by Bodmin North.

 

There are 4no scenic boards, each 1m long by about 950mm deep and a 1.3m long fiddle at one end. I'd like the fiddle to be longer but I doubt my daughter wants to loose part of her bedroom!

 

I don't know if this will help or hinder you but I've attached below a few photos and drawings of the project:

 

My 3d miniature mock up

 

General description of the layout parts

 

Creating the track templates in Templot

 

And the track plan I'm working to

 

 

 

I've not worked in 7mm before and have never built track before but decided to use C&L parts to build track to 31.5mm gauge - referred to as 'modified fine'. It's tested me, particularly the double slip, but it's been very rewarding.

 

The loop is big enough to run round a two coach set. The clay branch, bottom right, is a freight only line based on Wenford clay traffic. The kickback sidings to right off the loop go into the fiddle and will be operated as part of the layout.

 

I did have a play with three-links but ruled them out as impractical on this depth if board. Electrically, much to many folks amusement, the layout is wired to be run as DC or DCC.

 

Hope this helps.

 

PS, I more in your original post you said the layout was 17'6" long. That's the same as Pencarrow, which means the metric length is 5.3m not the 4.5m in your text.

[F-UnitMad]

I would like to be able to regularly have two locos "on stage" simultaneously, one shunting the goods yard and another on passenger duties,...

I thought a bit more about this quote from the OP, & just wondered about how it would play out in reality? Do you mean you will have a second Operator available, who can handle one of the trains while you shunt the other? Because even with DCC allowing umpty-nine locos to be active at once, truth is that on an end-to-end line, the Mk1 Human can only effectively operate 1 train at a time. Trying to shunt two trains at once by yourself, even with two controllers, is going to be some challenge!!

Also, thinking of how the prototype would operate this single-track branch; only one train can arrive or depart at once, but trains in opposite directions have to meet & cross somewhere. As there's room on this plan, it would make sense for one train to arrive (say the Goods) before the other train (passenger) leaves - there is where you have two trains on the board - albeit briefly. Once the Passenger has departed, the Goods can shunt without having to worry about keeping the main clear (incidentally saving on pointwork costs) as long as it's done before the arrival of the next Passenger, upon which the Goods departs, & so on.

Such an operating sequence also shows, hopefully, the wisdom of a 3-track traverser fiddleyard.

[2ManySpams]

A few general photos of where I'm up to with Pencarrow so you can see what that amount of track looks like on a 4m x 950mm scenic area.

 

 

 

(most of the buildings are cardboard mock-ups)

 

Lots of liberties taken with the Bodmin North trackplan to condense it down to the area I have. Oh, and I was just mucking around having 4 locos on scene, the maximum I've seen photographed at Bodmin North was 2.

[GWR57xx]

My 2p-worth for Peter...

 

No 1. Make a 3-track traverser or sector plate rather than cassettes; when you have several hundred-£££'s worth of (heavy) loco & stock on a precarious, narrow board that's too long to lift comfortably, you'll have 2nd, 3rd & 4th thoughts about moving it at all

 

One of the reasons for using cassettes is to avoid the need to handle locos and stock. My cassettes would be no longer than 3'6" (enough to hold a B-set or 7 wagons). Locos, Toads, Milk Tankers etc would have their own individual cassettes of appropriate lengths that would be plugged together to make a long unit of up to 5' for arrivals and departures. Once driven into the cassettes the loco will be uncoupled and the individual cassettes slid around on the smooth fiddle yard surface. There should be minimal need to ever lift cassettes or handle stock. The cassettes will also become stock storage boxes by having fitted covers.

 

No 2. Get away from the OO/N mentality that equates more track with a more 'interesting' layout. O scale has presence the smaller scales cannot match, & if you use 3-links your shunting will take 'real time' to do, so for O scale, "Less is More" can be true:- less track can still feel like more Railway.

I would pare down your plan even more; ditch the Engine Shed spur & kickback altogether, & have just 2 looooong sidings rather than 4 short ones. If you have to spot wagons at particular spots on those 2 sidings, rather than just dump them all in 'the Goods Yard' like a lot of British modellers do, then that is extra shunting work to do as well

Lastly, I'd move the Goods Shed away from in front of where you'll be wanting to uncouple the loco from inbound trains.

 

Welcome to O scale, too.

 

I get where you're coming from, but for me the engine shed is a non-negotiable requirement and an essential part of the scene I want to create, as is the goods shed.

 

I take your point about the multiple sidings and am willing to give up the separate shunting puzzle aspect of the layout if necessary. I will have a play in AnyRail and see what comes out.

 

I thought a bit more about this quote from the OP, & just wondered about how it would play out in reality? Do you mean you will have a second Operator available, who can handle one of the trains while you shunt the other? Because even with DCC allowing umpty-nine locos to be active at once, truth is that on an end-to-end line, the Mk1 Human can only effectively operate 1 train at a time. Trying to shunt two trains at once by yourself, even with two controllers, is going to be some challenge!!

Also, thinking of how the prototype would operate this single-track branch; only one train can arrive or depart at once, but trains in opposite directions have to meet & cross somewhere. As there's room on this plan, it would make sense for one train to arrive (say the Goods) before the other train (passenger) leaves - there is where you have two trains on the board - albeit briefly. Once the Passenger has departed, the Goods can shunt without having to worry about keeping the main clear (incidentally saving on pointwork costs) as long as it's done before the arrival of the next Passenger, upon which the Goods departs, & so on.

Such an operating sequence also shows, hopefully, the wisdom of a 3-track traverser fiddleyard.

 

Yes, it was planned so that a second operator could be accommodated occasionally.

 

Thanks for the comments,

Peter

[GWR57xx]

I agree. The mistake is that we focus on track plans that look nice or busy instead of first considering the nature of the traffic for which our fictitious railway is being built. This will determine the volumes and types of traffic, the most efficient allocation of motive power and other rolling stock and the track layout (and concomitant signalling) to allow the most effficient way to operate, subject to any geographical and other factors. My Cwm Bach layout is centered on the requirement to transfer traffic between the mainline and the colliery branch with full mineral wagons going out and empties coming back. The basic operation of exchanging can take a leisurely twenty minutes of my real time. A simple interval passenger service operates in and out formed by either an auto-train, a 57XX/8750 and B Set or a short DMU and there is a daily short pick-up goods train to move general merchandise. Twp staples of model branchlines are missing: first, there is no loco depot for the mainline engines and only a simple water tank for topping off after the climb up the valley; secondly, there is no coal merchant in the small goods yard as domestic coal sales would have been handled at the colliery.

 

Railway operation is well worth studying and the series of books authored by Bob Essery and published by Ian Allan are a helpful starting place for this subject.

 

Regards,

 

CK

 

Cwm Bach can take partial responsibility for enticing me into 7mm, along with Lionheart/Dapol. I think it is a superb model and shows what can be achieved in a relatively small space for O gauge. The scene, scenery and detail are great.

 

I don't have any of Bob Essery's books but I do have plenty of railway books, mostly related to GWR branch lines strangely enough. Are there any of Bob's books that you would particularly recommend as being relevant to a GWR branch line?

 

Thanks,

Peter

[GWR57xx]

Peter

 

Welcome to the wonderful world of 7mm. I made the move from 4mm about 3 years ago and am loving it. Simon mentioned my layout Pencarrow in an earlier post. It's a very similar size to your plan and us primarily a stay at home layout.

 

The plan evolved from a shunting layout based on Wenford to something a bit more urban inspired by Bodmin North.

 

There are 4no scenic boards, each 1m long by about 950mm deep and a 1.3m long fiddle at one end. I'd like the fiddle to be longer but I doubt my daughter wants to loose part of her bedroom!

 

I don't know if this will help or hinder you but I've attached below a few photos and drawings of the project:

 

Thanks for the replies, and I hope you recover from your injury soon.

 

I have had a look at bits of your thread, but as it is currently 255 pages and well over 6300 posts I doubt that I would ever be able to read the whole thing.

 

Your layout is looking very good so far, and I like the track plan.

 

PS, I more in your original post you said the layout was 17'6" long. That's the same as Pencarrow, which means the metric length is 5.3m not the 4.5m in your text.

 

Brain fade! I still can't relate to metric. I think it must have been a long day and I multiplied 17.5' by 25.4mm then forgot to multiply by 12" and got the decimal point in the wrong place! I have corrected the offending text.

 

A few general photos of where I'm up to with Pencarrow so you can see what that amount of track looks like on a 4m x 950mm scenic area.

 

Lots of liberties taken with the Bodmin North trackplan to condense it down to the area I have. Oh, and I was just mucking around having 4 locos on scene, the maximum I've seen photographed at Bodmin North was 2.

 

Thanks,

Peter