BRÜCKENHEIM (page three onwards)

[HSB]

Hi All,

Having spent most of my modelling time over the last four years helping to build Ramchester and stock to run on it I have now become thoroughly 0 gauged so I thought I would see what I could fit into my back bedroom/railway room. Using PECO points the answer is "not a lot!" but basing it on the geometry of the Marcway range I was able to come up with this:-

 

 

The plan hinges on the use of a curved tandem point at the station throat. The 2010 list I have gives the radii as 9'/6'/5' but on checking their website I see that has been replaced by one with radii of 12'/8'/5' 6" which should still work with a bit of tweaking. Minimum radius is 5'. Three main possible problems with this plan are having to couple and uncouple on a curve, having a duck-under (which might present difficulties for some of my more elderly friends) and shuffling stock on the low-level fiddleyard might be a bit, um, fiddly (sorry about that!). On the other hand the platforms will take five coach trains (the same as we run on Ramchester) and there is a reasonable amount of operating potential. Unfortunately, when I consider the price using ready-made track and the cost of all the locos I'd need to run on it I may have to scale back my ambitions! Anyway it shows what could be built in 0 gauge in about half the space Ramchester is built in.

Edited March 8, 2021 by HSB

[hartleymartin]

Could you re-orient the layout so that the dead-end is in the top-left corner? You might be able to get a few more inches of length in that way. Otherwise, you might be able to put some sort of small industrial yard in that space and have a wayside halt along the top wall before it goes into the tunnel, disappearing to the fiddle yard.

[HSB]

The fiddle yard would probably end in the top left alcove so I wanted to leave as much access as possible. Also the window is on the left and I don't want to block out too much light if I can help it. The line down to the tunnel is on a 1 in 36 grade so I'm not sure if a halt there would be practical. I have had few thoughts today about a few tweaks which I might make. I'd quite like to have the fiddle yard along the bottom wall but this would mean reducing the radius to below 5' in the tunnel to allow room for some curved points. As the station is capable of holding 5 coach trains I also need a couple of sidings in the fiddle yard long enough to take them. Of course, I only started working on this a couple of days ago so it is early days yet but I have been rather enthused by the results I've achieved so far. Anyway, thanks for your input, Martin. Any constructive comments are welcome.

Edited May 14, 2013 by HSB

[HSB]

I've been trying a few things out this evening and I have decided that the fiddle yard will definitely work best in front of the window. At a gradient of 1 in 36 down to it I can have it 10" lower than the station which gives reasonable clearance for reaching in. Anywhere else the clearance is a lot tighter. I have been rationalising a little bit and have moved the goods yard to the station approaches which eliminates the need for the short headshunt on the end of the loop. I have left one of the original goods yard sidings in place as a short coach siding. By eliminating the other goods siding I can move the tunnel entrance and have a slightly longer visible run.

 

[Poggy1165]

The plan reminds me of certain versions of the famous Ashdon and Midport, and that really cannot be bad. I think multi-level may be the answer to 7mm in small spaces, though I agree it certainly helps not to be tied to the rigid geometry of Peco points.

 

I am myself trying to cram 7mm scale into a ridiculously small space (for 7mm) so I appreciate some of the issues involved.

 

By the way, I like the idea of the goods yard being 'down the line a bit' from the station, something not that uncommon on the prototype, but very rarely modelled. Scope for some interesting shunting movements.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Poggy1165

[HSB]

Thanks very much for your comments, Poggy1165.

I've realised I haven't actually said anything about the basic concept. Despite the title I gave to this thread it won't be an ex-LNWR branch on the Cumbrian coast nor a bucolic ex-GWR branch line terminus (although I might change my mind on it being ex-GWR if Dapol were to announce a Class 22 in 0!). I would like it to be an ex-GN or ex-L&Y branch set in the very urbanised surroundings of West Yorkshire circa 1960. I've actually given it the working title of Kirkley Mills 3.0 as it is set in the same area as my little H0 layout of that name.

With regards to the positioning of the goods yard Martin earlier suggested I put some sidings in the alcove. It has occured to me that it might be possible to put the goods yard over the end of the fiddle yard although it might make it awkward to lift locos out from underneath although this could be mitigated by using a traverser to move them to the front of the fiddle yard. I could possibly have a siding serving a mill or shoddy warehouse in the corner where the goods yard is on the last plan.  

Edited May 15, 2013 by HSB

[HSB]

I have refined it further and I think I am just about there!   I have moved the goods yard again, the short coach side has been replaced by a track leading into a shoddy warehouse (shades of Dewsbury) and the former goods yard is now a coal yard. I decided that putting something over the end of the fiddle yard would just make access difficult.

 

 

 

[Poggy1165]

Yes, I think grimy Yorkshire with the L&Y/GN would be ideal for such a layout - dark retaining walls and mills and terraces of housing rising from the valley sides. A visit to the KWVR at Keighley (especially if you can reconstruct in your mind the old GN route to Queensbury) would be good inspiration. The GN in West Yorkshire is a neglected prototype, though to my mind it's the most interesting bit of that railway. It had a way of burrowing an unlikely path between other railways, often with steep gradients, sharp curves and lots of tunnels. Just the job really for a model in a tight space.

[HSB]

As a child I spent many summer holidays with relatives at Tingley which was close to several minor ex-GN routes with one only 100 yards away although I don't recall ever seeing any trains. Unfortunately I didn't really get into railways until my teens by which time much had already gone. It is fascinating now to look at books and videos of the area to see what used to be there and to understand what I was looking at then. When taking the bus down into Dewsbury I was always intrigued by the tunnel entrance near the town which I now know was on the GN line from Wakefield to Dewsbury Central and on up to Batley. I also remember once walking through the closed and derelict Woodkirk station sometime in the mid-Sixties. Unfortunately I only had a Brownie 127 camera with an 8 shot film which had to last the entire holiday so I wasn't allowed to take pictures willy-nilly. If only digital cameras had been around then! 

[HSB]

I've now had a couple of days to mull over my last plan and I still feel quite satisfied with it. One minor tweak I will make is to replace the three-way point at the station throat with two separate curved points. This will mean shortening the platform very slightly but not enough to make a significant difference. I have a mental image of what I would like the scenery to look like but I would need to draw the layout out full size to plan it in detail which will probably not be for some time. Although I have used the dimensions of Marcway points as a guide I really want properly chaired track rather than copper-clad and using ready-made points would be very expensive so I will probably have a go at building them mainly using C&L bits. My friends tell me point building is actually quite easy but it is not something I particularly relish! I am also considering using 31.5mm gauge to give tighter clearances through the pointwork.  

[greenglade]

My friends tell me point building is actually quite easy but it is not something I particularly relish! I am also considering using 31.5mm gauge to give tighter clearances through the pointwork.

I thought that until I built a C&L B6 turnout.. in doing so I discovered another great part to this hobby, a part that I suspect I'll get just as much if not more satisfaction from than building Loco's

 

Give it a try, it's far easier than you may think.. oh and yes to 31.5mm......

 

Regards

 

Pete

[HSB]

Thanks for the encouragement, Pete. The only thing with 31.5mm is that I wouldn't be able to use C&L ready-made crossings and also, where do I get gauges? I see C&L list a 31mm gauge but not one for 31.5!

[greenglade]

Debs on this forum supplied my gauges,very nice they are too. Also you can use templot to set the gauge for a replacement template to the C&L one that comes in the 'turnout in a bag' range. Just create a turnout to match the one in your chosen kit but with the gauge set at 31.5 mm instead of 32mm. It is very easy and templot is a must and no where near as daunting as it first looks, plus it's a free download.

 

Pete

 

 

Debs http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/user/13493-debs/

Edited May 18, 2013 by greenglade

[HSB]

I have now sent a PM to Debs regarding the gauges but I have also discovered an interesting thread on the GOG forum on the pro and cons of 31.5mm with a link to a page showing the gauges.  All but two of the points on my plan are curved, including the fiddle yard, so adapting C&L plans is not really an option. Also, two of the points at the station throat are 5' radius so some gauge widening would probably be needed there. 

[HSB]

I've now had a week to mull over my last plan and I'm still pretty satisfied with it. The only thing I'm not happy with is having the fiddle yard in front of the window. It would be possible to move it to under the station throat and the coal yard but would require reducing the radius of the track in the tunnel to 4' 6". Has anybody had experience of running trains around that sharp a curve (other than on industrial/shunting type layouts with very small locos!).

[railwayrod]

Howard came round this week to work on the "proper" Ramchester and showed me his plan. I have been working on him for some time to build an O gauge layout so I was quite surprised and delighted when he turned up with his plan to fit a layout into his spare bedroom. Of course I am concerned that once he starts he will not be able to spend as much time helping me!! However most of the basic work on Ramchester has been completed and once the station building has been finished it is a matter of fitting in all the little details to bring the layout to life (except for the not insignificant question of signalling). I will of course give Howard as much help and support as possible to enable him to get Mini Ramchester to a similar state to Ramchester and it will make a nice change to go to his house to build his layout instead of him having to come up to my shed.

 

Howard's plan looks good and I can see why he is very enthusiastic about it. He has really sat down and thought about how he can squeeze a quart into a pint pot and the results are looking very good. As we discussed yesterday, Howard, my San Cheng Jinty and Black 5 are designed to negotiate a 54" radius curve so you should not have any trouble in this area.

 

Go for it, I am certain you will lnot regret it. See you tomorrow all being well.

 

Railwayrod

[HSB]

I have been playing around with various options including reversing the plan and moving the fiddle yard but have concluded that my last plan works the best with reasonable access to the end of the fiddle yard. I have re-drawn it with a few minor tweaks.

 

 

[HSB]

A comment on another thread a few days ago about the problems with duck-unders has caused me to re-think my plans for this layout. My Sn3.5 layout is currently mounted with a track height of around 53" which seems about right so this would be the height of the 0 gauge station. The hidden trackage beneath this would be 8" to 9" lower where it passes in front of the door which some crude tests suggest would create a crawl-under rather than a duck-under. Also the amount of work in building it was a bit daunting so, although I like the previous plans, I have decided to simplify things and stick to one level. There will still be a duck-under but at a much more comfortable height. Anyway, this is what I've come up with:-

 

 

This also solves the problems of access to the fiddle yard.

Edited May 28, 2013 by HSB

[HSB]

I have been doing some more tinkering to my trackplan since my last post. After trying and failing to draw it out in Templot which had me tearing my hair out (well, what's left of it!) I have gone back to good old pen and paper! This latest version gives me more or less what I want but without the complication of different levels and the steep gradient in between. Also, despite what I said at the start of this thread, it could be built with PECO points (apart from the fiddleyard which would be built with copper-clad)

 

 

 

[HSB]

I have been exploring ways I might include a continuous run in my layout and have been looking again at the plan in post #18. I have now included a freight branch to form a loop although normally the layout would still be operated point-to-point. I have managed to draw it out using Templot:-

 

 

My original plan could handle a five coach train but in reality my rake of three re-worked LIMA Mk1s is the longest passenger train I'm ever likely to run so I have been able to shorten both the platform and the fiddleyard.

[DLT]

Hi Howard, 

 

I recomend rotating the whole plan by 180 degrees, so that the station is away from the door of the room.  That way you have more space for for station features/siding/scenic development behind the staton.  

Then you can have a plain (and narrower) scenic section curving accross the door, and the possibility of a lifting flap for access, which would be impossible if it was in th station area.

 

If you are sticking with the end to end plan, then the best place for the fiddle yard is under the station.  This will give you the maximum length of scenic run, right round the room.

 

All the best,

Dave.T

[HSB]

Thanks for your comments, Dave. I have looked at reversing the plan but I don't want to put the station in front of the window as it would block out too much natural light. The problem with putting the fiddle yard under the station is the lack of access room even with a fairly steep 1 in 36 grade!

[3 link]

Good evening Howard,

 

Although Templot can be a bit trying at times, it does show you if your plans are feasible and also saves you time and money. So far everyone of my layout plans have not been able to fit into the area of the room I have .

 

Martyn.

[HSB]

I've had a play with my latest plan to give a better idea of what it will look like in situ.

 

[HSB]

I've recently realised there is a problem with the last plan in that there would be a hell of a stretch to reach the end of the platform! I would need arms about 5' long to reach a loco standing at the buffers! I have also been wondering whether I really want a permanent layout at home as it would only be run once a blue moon when my friends come round. I am a builder rather than an operator and there is still loads of work to do on Ramchester. Anyway, I have gone back to thinking about a modest exhibition layout which would be small enough to fit in the back of my car. Before working on the plans for a room-sized layout I had thought of building something similar to my H0 layout 'Kirkley Mills'in 0.

Below is a picture of the Mk1 version which is nearer to what I have in mind than my current Mk2 version:-

 

      This was built to P87 standards with pointwork very kindly made for me by Brian Harrap.

 

Below is the plan I have just come up with. Overall dimensions are 10' x 2' 3" tapering to 1' 3". Folded up it would be 5' x 3' 6" which is the maximum size I can get in my car with the back seats folded down.

 

Edited August 16, 2013 by HSB