An Operating 4mm Diorama?

[Guest WM183]

Hello all.

So I think it best to crawl before I run and get some practice building EM track and turnouts before I try to commit to a "larger" layout. To that end, I think I would like to start on somewhat of a "Diorama I can operate" for a 1st layout, perhaps 125 x 30 cm or so. I would like to be able to build a structure or two, a turnout or two, and do some scenery and even paint a backscene. My thought was perhaps something centered on a goods shed and maybe some coal staithes or the like, with the rest of the "terminus" (or through station fwiw) represented by a backscene or low-profile buildings. I'd like to have the ability to shunt a few wagons here and there with a small Pannier or Prairie, and maybe even install a ground and/or stop signal - various things to practice, as it were. The ability to run around 3 or 4 wagons lets me 1) build more turnouts, and 2) run around the train for "operations".  Is such a little area workable for such a diorama/layout in 4mm? I am not including the length of a fiddle track / casette in the size of course. 

 

[Mark Forrest]

Sounds like a great idea, look forward to seeing it progress

[Stubby47]

125x30cm is about 4ftx1ft - plenty big enough for what you need (it's a full size layout for some of us ).

I like the idea of just the yard, with the station buildings as the backscene.

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by Stubby47

[Gordon A]

A nice cameo size.

 

Gordon A

[Lacathedrale]

I would caution against going TOO small - that said, there are many interesting 'bitsa' layouts in that size. Check out 'Building Cameo Layouts' or 'Finescale in Small Spaces' by Iain Rice maybe?

 

[Harlequin]

The goods yard could probably just be laid out as an Inglenook shunting puzzle in that space, depending on the lengths of the turnouts.

 

Whatever the track plan, in reality a goods shed needs a bit of decent space around it for loading and so you might need to either suggest that space offscene, use low-relief techniques or maybe make the board a bit wider.

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by Harlequin

[DCB]

4 X 1 can be fun if you only design for tiny locos, 6" clear beyond the blades of the run round points should allow 0-6-0 tanks and GWR 45XX   2-6-2 Ts to operate even if  other railways 2-6-2 Tanks are too big. and allow a 2 coach train of 57ft coaches to be run round, but its tight, so no wasting space at the ends with fancy buffer stops.  I would design as if a fiddle yard was later to be added on one end.

Two very common mistakes to avoid, excessive gap between tracks, this is usually vastly over scale so two trains passing  on a curve don't collide, if you don't  have trains passing on curves then its irrelevant, and most layouts look mildly stupid viewed end on.  Scale gap is something like 42mm between track centres in  00, Peco is 52mm set track is 60mm plus, trains should just clear and an open door between carriages should hit. Points need to be trimmed at the frog end to achieve this or better still hand built

My other pet hate having done in myself is over high platforms. should be lower than the buffer centre line, 12mm max in 00 many are much lower, too high ides the train and makes the platform ramps too long.

If I had this space I would build something like my pic below,  An inglenook disguised as a station.  The curved platform gives a few more mm than a straight one and looks a lot less toy like, the fence between roads disguises the over scale track centres, The cattle dock is separate from the passenger platform but possibly inconvenient except cattle are usually loaded fairly quickly so blocking the run round shouldn't be that problematical and lets face it where else could it go?

Add a fiddle yard where it says Paddington and it could be a fun little layout.

Edited May 29, 2019 by DavidCBroad

[Gordon A]

Don't try to cram too much track in your specified area.

This is a case where less is better.

One end of your run round loop could be off stage in your fiddle yard board.

Llanastr is a good example. https://llanastr.webs.com/

 

Gordon A

[Dungrange]

18 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

Scale gap is something like 42mm between track centres in  00, Peco is 52mm set track is 60mm plus, trains should just clear and an open door between carriages should hit.

 

The scale centre to centre gap is a fraction of a millimetre short of 45 mm, whereas Peco streamline is 2" (50.8 mm).  The clearance between vehicles in reality should be about 18" or 6 mm in 00.

 

18 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

If I had this space I would build something like my pic below,  An inglenook disguised as a station. 

 

The problem here is that there is not enough space between the toe of the right most point and the right edge of the baseboard to shunt the sidings.  For an inglenook, the head-shunt should be able to accommodate the length of the locomotive and three wagons if using the standard 3-3-5 formula or locomotive and two wagons is using the smaller 2-2-3 formula.

[DCB]

3 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

The scale centre to centre gap is a fraction of a millimetre short of 45 mm, whereas Peco streamline is 2" (50.8 mm).  The clearance between vehicles in reality should be about 18" or 6 mm in 00.

 

Generally stock is less than 9ft (36mm) wide, plus 18" (6mm) equals 42mm.   I know the 11ft 2" figure is often quoted but I believe it was a Big Four era dimension for new construction not existing railways.  

[HillsideDepot]

I might be going against the flow here, but my thought is that "less is more". There are all sorts of clever plans which include lots of track, but as an initial exercise in construction I'd go for simple every time. Indeed, I'd generally do likewise with a layout, too.

 

A couple of points is plenty to get the idea of track building; yes they are simple enough, but need time to get right. Two are easily manageable, more could be discouraging. 

 

Buildings are a different skill, so space for a few, perhaps constructed of different materials. Low relief buildings, whilst the same in terms of construction, add issues of perspective, and sight-lines if they are to look convincing. 

 

I know it's 2mm finescale, but something like Callaton which I saw at Railex last weekend would seem to tick many of the boxes of an operating diorama.

 

Ultimately it's your choice; I look forward to seeing how this progresses.

[sharris]

12 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

The scale centre to centre gap is a fraction of a millimetre short of 45 mm, whereas Peco streamline is 2" (50.8 mm).  The clearance between vehicles in reality should be about 18" or 6 mm in 00.

 

 

Remember if you're planning a goods/coal siding next to a running line the centre-to-centre distance between these should be greater (minimum 60mm) - you need a safe space next between running line and siding to pin-down the brakes. However ~45mm is correct as the minimum gap between pairs of running lines or pairs of sidings. 

 

Mention of panniers and prairie tanks might suggest in some places a larger gap between running lines if the track was originally 7' gauge re-gauged to standard gauge. 

[Dungrange]

9 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

Generally stock is less than 9ft (36mm) wide, plus 18" (6mm) equals 42mm.   I know the 11ft 2" figure is often quoted but I believe it was a Big Four era dimension for new construction not existing railways.  

 

The 11 ft 2" figure definitely predates the Big Four Era - The Board of Trade Requirements for 1902 mandated that for all new railways "The intervals between adjacent rails, where there are two lines only, or between lines of rails and sidings, not to be less than 6 feet. Where additional running lines are alongside the main lines, an interval, of not less than 9 feet 6 inches to be provided, if possible, between those additional Lines and the main line.  This is what gives rise to the 11 ft 2" centre to centre dimension.

 

See - http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Requirements1902.pdf

 

However, the above is an annotated copy of the 1892 edition which stated that the distance "should not be less than 6 feet".  Presumably it was felt in the late 19th century that the use of the word 'should' was perhaps a reason why some companies were perhaps not necessarily following what had been established as a standard in the Victorian Era.

 

Therefore whilst some earlier railways may have built to a closer interval originally, it is likely that the spacing would have increased to meet the Board of Trade Requirements during subsequent renewals.