00 roundy-roundy - Tawbridge

by 10800

original page on Old RMweb

__________________________________________

??? posted on Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:25 pm

It's a nice idea Alan, but doesn't feature in the plans at the moment

__________________________________________

Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:12 pm

But Rod....... just think how nice it would be to have a cute little signalbox and a couple of working signals.... (interchangeable, to suit different company styles, of course)....

__________________________________________

??? posted on Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:13 pm

Get thee behind me, Satan!

__________________________________________

Comment posted by John B on Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:13 pm

And a cute little crossover and branch line junction to give reason for said box and signals

__________________________________________

Comment posted by philip-griffiths on Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:20 pm

Rod,

The Ulster MRC built a layout with a similar philosophy, just for exhibiting, a few years ago, but then added some refuge loops.

http://www.freewebs....exhibition2.htm

It was built on doors as these were found to be very robust and didn't warp. Very successful. It replaced a similar layout which was yonks old, constructed in a similar fashion and called the 'Doors' layout! very original.

regards

Philip

__________________________________________

??? posted on Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:27 pm

Some interesting parallels there Philip, but a bit more complex than what I have in mind! Still, goes to show how few genuinely orginal concepts there are around.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by philip-griffiths on Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:11 pm

Rod,

I've been planning and re-planning something similar with my botched 1883 entry - i.e. a roundy layout, but in P4.

(Yeah, I've lost the "New Poster" label!)

regards

Philip

__________________________________________

??? posted on Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:11 pm

OK, make me feel guilty why don't you!

__________________________________________

Comment posted by philip-griffiths on Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:13 pm

Well it wasn't supposed to make you feel that way Rod.

I should feel guilty in that I still am expressing my 1883 layout in the future tense.

The baseboards are built and some of the trusses are constructed. I'm still trying to finalise the pillars, when I get them sorted I can build them, finalise the trusses and put it all together.

I really would like to finish this. Though it has moved on a bit and the idea is to match a Crumlin type viaduct structure with a Bargoed setting.

regards

Philip

__________________________________________

Comment posted by number6 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:33 pm

Rod

Are you sure about only having an 8ft scenic section? Seems a bit small for all that effort in construction and space. If you had one long gentle curve across the front you could push those scenic breaks out further. Trains always seem to run smoother on curves... or certainly you'd not be bringing attention to the curve to straight transition. I also wonder if you can't squash down those fiddleyard loops - if you are going to be using RTR its all very capable of going through less smooth pointwork and the big curved points could go? Maybe you've been in P4-land too long?!

I'm not adverse to a the addition of a cute little diary, quarry exchange sidings and etc. off the country junction either.

best

Raphael

__________________________________________

Comment posted by jongwinnett on Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:37 pm

Rod,

Not wanting to add to your dilemma/waverings etc, but have you seen the latest shots on nevardmedia's Catcott thread? If anyone ever wondered if 00 could look "the business" then this surely answers them!

http://www.rmweb.co....=312155#p312155

Having a serious rethink about not-rewheeling my M7s etc. as I type this!

__________________________________________

??? posted on Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:59 pm

Hi Raphael

Well, I'm open to ideas on minimum radius in the non-scenic section which might enable the scenic section to be stretched a bit, but it would be quite a feat to bring it down to the layout frontage less a foot and a half at each end wouldn't it, giving nine feet or so? I'll have a play though - thanks for your interest!

(Inevitably I am influenced by P4-land, which is still my real home!).

__________________________________________

??? posted on Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:00 pm

Mmmmmmm ...

__________________________________________

Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:24 pm

You know you want it.....

__________________________________________

Comment posted by number6 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:36 pm

If you are adverse to the idea of a tighter curve out in the scenic section then you are stuffed but there must be a way with a more egg-shaped plan to have the trains coming out of the tightest part of the curve into the scene. And you could definitely get down to 2.5ft curves with no problems. That withered arm had a few kinks in it didn't it?

Raphael

__________________________________________

??? posted on Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:59 am

Badgering me in two threads at once isn't going to work you know - I'm made of sterner stuff!

__________________________________________

Comment posted by SweeneyTodd on Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:35 am

Hello Rod ,

Quote "roundy-roundy layout in 00" if you have the space it makes much more sence than a " parallel-parallel in OO" in my opinion

The bench for beer time / pencil an paper time / fiddle yard time / looks great / model building / laptop time / whatever / is a fantasic idea .....

The no station no signals idea is super ...

The fact that you will be able to run any loco pulling any wagon or coach on your layout is wonderfull , and be able to just watch them run around , with sound or not , and no theme , is as far as i'm concerned a utterly and brilliant idea and "theme" in its self ....

Shaun

__________________________________________

??? posted on Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:53 am

Thanks Shaun - it won't be permanently erected unfortunately (not in the current house anyway) so will remain as an occasional bit of playtime and/or exhibition material, and also a learning programme for Camberhurst and Eridge Mk2 scenically. I may change the line of the curve at the front (following comments by Raphael and Alan Smithee), bringing it closer to the front edge, but possibly allowing for additional plug in scenic bits on the front to increase the depth. I'm also thinking about ways to disguise the river as it heads off the back. Might put up a revised plan later on.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by beast66606 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:24 am

From the decoder to the motor only I hope

__________________________________________

??? posted on Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:46 am

No final decision yet on that one Dave! Initially this one will probably be DC throughout, but who knows later on!

__________________________________________

??? posted on Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:14 pm

I've had a further play with Templot and the frontage curvature and have decided to leave it as it is - whilst you can extend the scenic section a little and have a long curve, the radius of that curve is still about 5ft and less than what I would want.

As is my wont, I've put together a 1/10th scale mockup of the layout with backboard (18in high) and proscenium arch. The arch is supported in the middle by a gantry extending from the rear (to avoid an obstruction half way along the front). Light-weight lighting (possibly halogen tracks) can be suspended between the outer arch supports and the middle gantry. It will obviously be a lot higher off the ground than the 1ft suggested by this

I was out yesterday looking for possible scenic views that I can photograph, print and stitch together for the backdrop - some possibilities off the A30 between Crediton and Okehampton, but the weather was not very good! When I eventually get them, the photos could if necessary be adjusted for blueness to enhance the distance effect.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by martin_wynne on Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:58 pm

Hi Rod,

I've just discovered this topic. Nice one.

For a P4 modeller thinking of dabbling in 00, have you made any decisions about the track standard to use? Exactoscale are known to be working on something for 00: http://groups.yahoo....-SF/message/298

I don't know what standard Len has settled on, but 00-SF gives you the best pointwork appearance and running quality with no need to modify RTR wheels and interchangeability with Peco turnouts on the same layout, e.g. in a fiddle yard. Brian Tulley has just sourced some superb track gauge tools for 00-SF, although you may have missed the first batch.

My guide to the available track standards for 00 is at: http://groups.yahoo....-SF/message/254

regards,

Martin.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by <B>

Re: Proposed 00 Withered Arm (or anywhere) roundy-roundy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:37 pm

Just a note of caution,

C&L in OO does have a slight drawback, the rail fixings are just too high for some Bachmann items* whereas SMP rail fixings on their plain track are just that touch lower and much cheaper .

Tim

*surely Rod doesn't want to rewheel his stock otherwise it rather defeats the purpose of a simple OO layout?

__________________________________________

Comment posted by martin_wynne on Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:10 pm

A solution to this is to file a soldering iron bit to the shape of the wheel profile, and run it along the top of the rail. This will melt just enough plastic off the top of the chair jaws to clear the wheels. Surprisingly, after painting this is barely noticeable -- visitors who have seen this EM railway have never noticed it:

regards,

Martin.

__________________________________________

??? posted on Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:58 pm

The pointwork in the fiddle yard (all six of them) will be Peco code 75. Plain line in the fiddle yard will probably also be Peco code 75. For the scenic section, I am aware of the C&L/Bachmann wheel issue, and may try either SMP or more likely Exactoscale fast-track bases (should be an interesting conversation with Andrew when I buy them off his stand!).

As Tim points out, the whole basis of this is convenience and playing trains straight out of the box.

__________________________________________

</B>