Newbridge

[81A Oldoak]

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

Peter,

Bob Essery's field of expertise is the Midland Railway and LMSR. However, his books describe the general principles of railway operations that were common to all lines. I suggest you start with "Railway Operation for the Modeller" published by Ian Allan ISBN 1 85780 168 7.If you get into the subject, you can move on to the other four titles that cover passenger operations, freight operations,train shunting and marshalling, and railway signalling and track plans.

 

For specific GWR branch line operation, I recommend "Great Western Branch Line Modelling Part 1 - Prototype Layouts and Signalling" and "Part 2 - Prototype Buildings, Fittings and Traffic Operation" published by Wild Swan way back in 1991. Both are out of print, but well worth trying to acquire on the second-hand (or should that be pre-enjoyed?) market. 

 

The one thing I would suggest is that you try to incorporate a small branch off your branch such as a mineral line or harbour. It could be a gated extension to the head-shunt into the staging area. This will allow you to justify more intensive operation with the exchanging of traffic and even an industrial loco. Thus on Cwm Bach I can justify two trains on the layout even though it has just seven points and the only constraint on running them simultaneously is my masculine inability to multi-task or, as Sir used to say at school, do two things at once. 

 

Kind regards,

 

Chris

 

PS thank you for the compliments about Cwm Bach. 

[Simond]

I do deprecate this all-pervasive sexism. Many men of my acquaintance can multi-task.

 

For example, they can simultaneously lean on a bar, drink beer, and talk b******s.

 

Best

Simon

[2ManySpams]

Morning Peter

 

I've done the same as Mr Klein, to make operation a bit more interesting I converted the 'gas works siding' on the real Bodmin North to a freight only clay works branch. Should increase the amount of shunting required between passenger trains. If I do get bored I can also use the three left hand sidings as a shunting puzzle.

 

The best bits about changing to 7mm are the mass and size of the trains and also the opportunity to really go to town detailing the scenics and stock.

 

Loads of folk are put off by the cost but in any given layout area you can fit much less stock, track, buildings. Because I'm making more stuff myself and because there's much less RTR to impulse buy I'm actually spending less per year than I did in 4mm.

 

Definitely worth going along to one of the Gauge O Guild events - Bristol, Kettering, Reading and Telford. They aren't exhibitions, more trade events, but you get a good idea about who supplies what. Many of the cottage industries aren't on the web and can be difficult to get hold of otherwise.

 

Don't know if you have these already, they are out of print but I found them a great read and introduction to 7mm.

 

[Simond]

Gordon’s layouts are worth looking out for, too.

 

Best

Simon

[2ManySpams]

Gordon’s layouts are worth looking out for, too.

Best

Simon

Yes, his Ditchling Green (sp?) was a big inspiration for me when planning Pencarrow. Showed what could be done in a similar space and that it was well worth considering scenic at an early stage. It's very easy, having worked for years in 4mm, to see a space and try and fit too much in to it in 7mm. Sounds obvious but everything takes up more room than you think!

[Happy Hippo]

Yes, his Ditchling Green (sp?) was a big inspiration for me when planning Pencarrow. Showed what could be done in a similar space and that it was well worth considering scenic at an early stage. It's very easy, having worked for years in 4mm, to see a space and try and fit too much in to it in 7mm. Sounds obvious but everything takes up more room than you think!

Theoretically you should be able to upscale by 175% to resize a 4 mm track plan into 7 mm scale.

 

I found that although it might work for locos and rolling stock and buildings, you really needed to double to length and width of the overall plan to make everything fit without it looking cramped. 

 

Unless you are a magician!

[jcm@gwr]

I do deprecate this all-pervasive sexism. Many men of my acquaintance can multi-task.

 

For example, they can simultaneously lean on a bar, drink beer, and talk b******s.

 

Best

Simon

 

Conversely, some women can't multi-task,

you try getting them to sit down and shut-up! 

[GWR57xx]

Peter,

Bob Essery's field of expertise is the Midland Railway and LMSR. However, his books describe the general principles of railway operations that were common to all lines. I suggest you start with "Railway Operation for the Modeller" published by Ian Allan ISBN 1 85780 168 7.If you get into the subject, you can move on to the other four titles that cover passenger operations, freight operations,train shunting and marshalling, and railway signalling and track plans.

 

For specific GWR branch line operation, I recommend "Great Western Branch Line Modelling Part 1 - Prototype Layouts and Signalling" and "Part 2 - Prototype Buildings, Fittings and Traffic Operation" published by Wild Swan way back in 1991. Both are out of print, but well worth trying to acquire on the second-hand (or should that be pre-enjoyed?) market.

 

Thanks Chris.

 

I have the Stephen Williams trilogy, bought new all those years ago. As it happens they are on my bedside table right now. I've just finished re-reading part 1 and about to start part 2. I wonder how part 3 "Creating a Model" compares to the works of other esteemed modellers?

 

The one thing I would suggest is that you try to incorporate a small branch off your branch such as a mineral line or harbour. It could be a gated extension to the head-shunt into the staging area. This will allow you to justify more intensive operation with the exchanging of traffic and even an industrial loco. Thus on Cwm Bach I can justify two trains on the layout even though it has just seven points and the only constraint on running them simultaneously is my masculine inability to multi-task or, as Sir used to say at school, do two things at once.

 

Kind regards,

 

Chris

 

PS thank you for the compliments about Cwm Bach.

 

I like the idea, but didn't think I had enough space to include it in my scenic section. On my plan I was thinking that such a branch did indeed exist, but somewhere further up the line "off-stage" in the fiddle yard. I will have a re-think!

 

Cheers,

Peter

[GWR57xx]

Morning Peter

 

I've done the same as Mr Klein, to make operation a bit more interesting I converted the 'gas works siding' on the real Bodmin North to a freight only clay works branch. Should increase the amount of shunting required between passenger trains. If I do get bored I can also use the three left hand sidings as a shunting puzzle.

 

The best bits about changing to 7mm are the mass and size of the trains and also the opportunity to really go to town detailing the scenics and stock.

 

Loads of folk are put off by the cost but in any given layout area you can fit much less stock, track, buildings. Because I'm making more stuff myself and because there's much less RTR to impulse buy I'm actually spending less per year than I did in 4mm.

 

Definitely worth going along to one of the Gauge O Guild events - Bristol, Kettering, Reading and Telford. They aren't exhibitions, more trade events, but you get a good idea about who supplies what. Many of the cottage industries aren't on the web and can be difficult to get hold of otherwise.

 

Don't know if you have these already, they are out of print but I found them a great read and introduction to 7mm.

 

rps20180203_100148.jpg

 

Thanks for the recommendation of Gordon's books.

 

Part 2 is still in print, so I've ordered a copy of that.

 

I found a second-hand copy of Part 1 for sale on t'web at Bill Hudson Transport Books but someone else beat me to it when I hesitated before clicking "Add to basket". Hope they enjoy it. Seems to be quite rare. There's some chancer asking for ~£450 for a copy! I found another SH copy at Rail-Books which I hope I have secured (waiting for a dispatch confirmation).

 

Gordon’s layouts are worth looking out for, too.

 

Best

Simon

 

 

Yes, his Ditchling Green (sp?) was a big inspiration for me when planning Pencarrow. Showed what could be done in a similar space and that it was well worth considering scenic at an early stage. It's very easy, having worked for years in 4mm, to see a space and try and fit too much in to it in 7mm. Sounds obvious but everything takes up more room than you think!

 

I'm looking forward to seeing Ditchling Green in Gordon's books (plural hopefully) when they arrive. I've had a look at Arun Quay on the web and I've seen Pempoul in the flesh. The modelling is unbelievable. I am not aiming that high, because I don't want to disappoint myself!

Peter

[Hal Nail]

Ditchling Green is in Model Railway Journal issue 50 - worth looking out for on e bay etc.

[GWR57xx]

It's been a long time since I last posted, during which my plan has changed somewhat.

 

My initial thinking was based on the 'rule' that O-gauge curves must be a minimum of 6ft radius for anything other than industrial shunting layouts using 4-coupled engines. This ruled out a two-sided layout for me as I don't have 12'/13' available to work in.

 

Since then I've been reading a couple of layout threads on here that have used the Peco set-track curves (40.5" radius) with larger locos (Andrew P's SM&DE and TTG's St Davids). I have a space of 9' (possibly a few more inches if pushed) so thoughts turned to a 'U' shaped layout using a 180 degree curve of 4' or 4'3" radius.

 

Then temptation got the better of me and I pre-ordered a Heljan 61xx and 43xx, both totally inappropriate for a country BLT so I would have no-where to run them (unless the story was a heritage/preservation line).

 

Simond's excellent PD thread then caught my imagination, as a shed layout would allow me to run locos which would be out of place on the branch.

 

So the BLT has been flipped L/R and modified slightly, a curved viaduct takes the line round to the carriage sidings / fiddle yard, and a lower level becomes the shed layout.

 

Upper level BLT:

 

Upper level fiddle yard & lower level shed:

 

The part of the plan I don't like is the access to the creamery, as it will require several shunting moves to get the loco and wagons in the correct positions to propel into the siding. But this track arrangement seems to have been used in some real locations, so may be ok?

 

It took me a while to work out how to do the transition from upper to lower level, but I have a cunning plan.

 

I propose to use coffee table hinges to provide a horizontal lifting platform on which will be mounted a traversing turntable. This will allow locos to be raised and lowered safely while being permanently powered and allow them to enter & leave each level pointing in the right direction. This contraption will be the key to success, so I will need to build it sooner rather than later.

 

The other critical part of the design is will the branch trains be able to negotiate the less than ideal 4' curve? All trains will be pulled rather than pushed except the auto-trailers. This will also need an early experiment to confirm.

 

Before any of this can be done I need to clear out the area of the garage that will house it all and put down some decent flooring. A lot has been done already but even more still needs to be done.

 

I did say that this was a long-term project!

 

Thanks for reading.

[GWR57xx]

Some progress since my last post: a new shed has been built to house some of the stuff that has been collecting in the garage (although there is still a lot of stuff remaining!); garage floor tiles have been laid to provide a warmer and more comfortable floor than the painted concrete; new shelving has been partially built around the pile of belongings still cluttering the place - the shelves should give me enough space to stow it all away under the layout and provide a stable surface for the baseboards.

 

Having got that far and having a clear surface in one corner I decided the first thing to do was to test whether the 4' curve was going to work or not.

 

Using AnyRail I drew up 4', 4'3" and 4'6" curves, each having a 20 degree transition lead-in. This was printed out, laid out and flexitrack laid to match the curves.

 

First the 4' radius:

Short wheelbase wagons are ok, with a pannier tank loco facing either direction and either pulling or pushing.

 

That's the good news. Sadly with a bogie coach it's a different story. Pushing resulted in buffer lock and pulling the three-link couplings aren't long enough to cope with the gap.

 

It was a very similar story with both the 4'3" and 4'6" radii too:

 

Just for comparison I then tried a 6' radius curve, this time with a 15 degree transition lead-in:

As expected, this would be ok for coaching stock, being pushed or pulled. Still looks quite tight, but then this corresponds to a real-life radius of just 4 chains, which is tight!

 

Unfortunately this means I will have to re-think my plans.

BTW, these tests were without power.

Hope this information will be useful to someone with similar plans.

[GWR57xx]

It's been a while since the previous update, but I've been busy cogitating and dithering.

 

One of the features I find most attractive about any layout is bridges and/or viaducts. When I was considering the possibility of a U-shaped layout I had in mind that a large part of the U would be a viaduct.

 

Now that the U has been ruled out (I don't have 13 feet width to play with and the width I do have isn't enough to get coaching stock round comfortably - see previous post) I have been in a quandary.

 

I want to go ahead with the double layout plan: one side will be fiddle yard to BLT; the other will be a large-ish GW shed. But how to incorporate a bridge and/or viaduct?

One idea that seems to have stuck for a while is:

 

 

This uses and 8 or 9 inch wide strip along the baseboard edge for a raised double-track line which could be built as an arched viaduct. I also like the idea of trying to add bridges over a stream or canal at the fiddle yard interface.

 

The down-side of this is that it reduces the width available for the shed, so I've down-sized to a two road shed but I think this could still work. What do you think?

 

To avoid stalling completely (analysis paralysis) I've ordered a pile of plywood to make the first few baseboards, which will be of ply sandwich design. I've also ordered the XPS sheets that will be the sandwich filling. The baseboards will be 1m wide and a total of 5.1m long.

 

I've also been building the 65ft turntable that will be installed in the shed yard.

 

[spikeyfaz]

Hi Peter

 

If you still want to have that nice big curved section why not use shorter coaches to get round the buffer-lock issues?  Or you could be sneaky and try slightly larger buffer-heads and slightly longer couplings. After all, who will ever know?! 

 

Hope you find a solution.

 

Mike

[GWR57xx]

43 minutes ago, spikeyfaz said:

Hi Peter

 

If you still want to have that nice big curved section why not use shorter coaches to get round the buffer-lock issues?  Or you could be sneaky and try slightly larger buffer-heads and slightly longer couplings. After all, who will ever know?! 

 

Hope you find a solution.

 

Mike

 

Hi Mike,

I've ruled out the U shaped layout because for me the compromises were too much. I would not have been happy with the ridiculous overhangs that B-set coaches produced on what would have been a scenic section of the layout.

I'm happy with the idea of two separate (but linked in my imagination!) layouts.

The shed layout will provide somewhere to house and run lots of engines and the BLT will provide plenty of shunting opportunities. It would be nice to have the space to build a roundy-roundy to just watch trains go by, but that will have to wait until I move to my dream house whenever or if ever that might be.

Cheers.

[Simond]

Can you go outdoors?  If you can have the curve outside your shed, you can run end to end when the weather’s nice, and do shunting puzzles indoors when it isn’t...

 

best

simon

[GWR57xx]

16 hours ago, Simond said:

Can you go outdoors?  If you can have the curve outside your shed, you can run end to end when the weather’s nice, and do shunting puzzles indoors when it isn’t...

 

best

simon

 

Hi Simon,

The layout is in my garage which was deliberately built with fully insulated floor, walls and roof as if it was a habitable room (so that it could easily be converted into an extra bedroom if necessary). Consequently it should be a very nice place to spend time in any weather. It is also integral to the house so no need to go outside to get to it, so I consider myself very lucky in that respect. The only thing I would do differently now is make it bigger, but at the time I hadn't considered that I might want an O gauge layout!

That's a long-winded way of saying I won't be knocking holes in the walls to go outside!

But anyway one side is the neighbours and the other two sides are other rooms in the house, so extensions in any of those directions would meet with severe objections!

[gismorail]

Have you considered Kadee couplings for your stock on that tight curve I know that there not ideal but it does stop any buffer locking it could be possible to utilise the HO gauge size which would make them less noticeable.  another idea is what has been used on Ramchester which I believe are oo gauge tension lock couplings have a look at the thread and assess them for your self. 

[GWR57xx]

12 minutes ago, gismorail said:

Have you considered Kadee couplings for your stock on that tight curve I know that there not ideal but it does stop any buffer locking it could be possible to utilise the HO gauge size which would make them less noticeable.  another idea is what has been used on Ramchester which I believe are oo gauge tension lock couplings have a look at the thread and assess them for your self. 

 

Hi Gismorail,

By coincidence I have just finished reading your Chumley End thread from beginning to end - some great modelling and information there, thanks!

One of the things I like least about N & OO is the hideous standard couplings.

Hence one of the things I like about O gauge is the authentic look of three-link couplings. They are a bit fiddly, but I hope that with a bit of practice they'll be fine.

As regards the U bend, I've now abandoned that line of thinking and I'll be sticking with an end-to-end straight along the wall.

 

[gismorail]

5 hours ago, GWR57xx said:

 

Hi Gismorail,

By coincidence I have just finished reading your Chumley End thread from beginning to end - some great modelling and information there, thanks!

One of the things I like least about N & OO is the hideous standard couplings.

Hence one of the things I like about O gauge is the authentic look of three-link couplings. They are a bit fiddly, but I hope that with a bit of practice they'll be fine.

As regards the U bend, I've now abandoned that line of thinking and I'll be sticking with an end-to-end straight along the wall.

 

Hope you enjoyed the Chumley End thread I'm certainly enjoying the build. Andy P found the same with his 0 gauge projects and has as you have probably know gone for two end to end layouts ....but that's Andy 

[GWR57xx]

I've decided to build the engine shed layout first and since it will now be separate from Newbridge I've started a new topic for it:

Hinton Road Engine Shed

[2ManySpams]

Hi Peter, I think you've reached the right conclusion. My railway room is a similar length and width to your space and I spent quite a while looking at U and L shape layouts.

 

Again like you I at first assumed a 6' min radius, with didn't fit, and then looked at curves down to 4'6" which a number of sources said would be fine. Thankfully like yourself I had a play with some flexi and stock and hit the same buffer locking and coupling issues. 

 

There's quite often conflicting info on the web and it's well worth finding out what actually works before embarking on an expensive project in time and cost.

[Simond]

Stick to 6’ minimum radius, and that dead slow.  And only look at it from the inside!

 

6’ is 1829 mm which you might take as a nominal centreline radius.  The minimum radius on PD is 1750mm to the inner rail, or 1766 to the centreline, and I have built my locos to traverse this on the basis that if I then take them out to other tracks, they should manage a normal Peco crossover.  

 

The critical factor on tender locos is of course the drawbar, and the clearance between tender and cab, although wheel to chassis clearances may be important on longer locos.  My Duchess is a right pain as the trailing truck fouls inside the frames, and I will have to thin the wheels to resolve this.  

 

I’d also note that 31.5 gauge helps avoid buffer locking - but makes it more difficult to get long wheelbase locos around corners.

 

But PD is only a loco shed, and apart from a few coal wagons, there’s not much shunting, so this over-tight tracklaying is less of a concern than it would be in a station setting.

 

and of course, I can only see the stock from the inside of the curve!

best

simon

 

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Simond