Jump to content
 

From OO to O in a garage - trackplan help please!


Grafarman
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, brossard said:

My sector plate is 5' long with 3 tracks.  This is serving a 16' scenic section.  The station is designed to take two 61' B set coaches.

 

P1010175.JPG.291bab9c4951c63fde1338dc2f33e1b0.JPG

 

John

 

Thank you - this looks and sounds exactly the sort of thing I'd be aiming for; I'll go back to Anyrail and play around with the plan...

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that you can get away with a little more on a c3ft radius curve than has been suggested.

 

Shorter bogie coaches, up to scale 50ft are feasible without excessive centre-throw or buffer-lock, and if you are standing on the inside of the curve the centre-throw that does occur isn’t visually offensive.

 

That sort of coach length suggests older vehicles, probably pre-grouping built, so may not be available r-t-r, but certainly more interesting to look at than later designs.

 

Whether you want to is, of course, up to you.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The OP talked about wanting to see a 2 coach train pass through beautiful scenery

 

Just think its important to highlight you need a lot more than 16ft for that - by the time you have a fiddle yard, it will barely be moving more than a few times its own length, even with a tight curve.

 

Edit: just add I'm not being snobby - I've got a 10ft by 16ft room and havent cracked using it yet. Tempted to have a quickly assembled non-scenic line down the hallway and even out the back door a few feet so I can run trains and a little scenic shunting thing for my space to photo and look nice.

Edited by Hal Nail
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Shorter bogie coaches, up to scale 50ft are feasible without excessive centre-throw or buffer-lock, and if you are standing on the inside of the curve the centre-throw that does occur isn’t visually offensive.

I can't vouch for UK stock of that length, with buffers & screw/3-link couplers, but I can agree that being on the inside of a tight curve isn't too bad a view.

Here's a video of my O Scale Atlas SD40 taking the 36" radius curves at one end of my layout. Leading freight car is a 72' 'Centerbeam Flat'.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

To illustrate what I mean, a couple of photos of 48ft coaches on a 38” radius curve.

 

These are tinplate trains, but that isn’t really relevant to what I’m illustrating, and I’ve disconnected the single-link coupling to show the buffers in contact.

 

Nobody would suggest that any of this looks “hi-fi prototypical”; beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

 

D1A92817-F044-4C9D-8FA6-6E7ABF72A18E.jpeg

AC7A065A-35B6-4D74-A20F-B719D274BF2A.jpeg

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

To illustrate what I mean, a couple of photos of 48ft coaches on a 38” radius curve.

 

These are tinplate trains, but that isn’t really relevant to what I’m illustrating, and I’ve disconnected the single-link coupling to show the buffers in contact.

 

Nobody would suggest that any of this looks “hi-fi prototypical”; beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

 

D1A92817-F044-4C9D-8FA6-6E7ABF72A18E.jpeg

AC7A065A-35B6-4D74-A20F-B719D274BF2A.jpeg

 

This does look 'acceptable' especially if the curve is disguised in some way...

 

I realised that 16'4"x7'3" in O gauge is more or less the same as 8x4 in OO or 4x2 in N, both of which I've had in the past; question is: would I be happy going back to those restraints or do I need something different...?  Jury's out for the time being...!

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hmmm,

 

Why when compromised by space does everyone think a BLT is the only thing to muddle?

 

A fully freight based yard might just make more sense.

 

The rolling stock can be made up of a myriad of small wagons which look more interesting as they snake through point-work.

 

The soon to be announced/release Heljan CCT Vans would suit newspaper train or parcels operation.  As well as departmental maintenance operations.

 

This muddling era 5 - 7 with its multitude of smaller wagons may take some of the sting out of running 40" radius points and curves.

 

Shift everything to a dockside then you limit the locomotion to the Dapol Y1/3 or Class03/4/6/8 which can cope with the tighter radius and will work down to O-gauge R1 (circa 943 radius) without too many compromises.

 

Disguise the tighter radius by a scenic break which could just be a cutting, so in case of the inevitable derailment, you don't need to be armpit deep groping around like a vet calving a cow...

 

Agreed if you have a fiddling yard feeding a scenic fiddling yard there is a sameness to the operations but the same could be levelled at a fiddling yard to BLT.

 

There were a lot of concentration yards so would they be a possible outlet for the creative juices?

 

The basics of the admirable Brierley Canal Road box file micro has much to recommend the kind of layout that might break the strangle hold of BLT. I could postulate that North Woolwich has much to commend it but it was very SLT when the final axe fell...

 

If you must have passenger handling then the Heljan Railbus or the recent Dapol class 122 and 121 would cover that desire. Heljan also have a DVT in development so the 121/2 could have it's peak hour enhancement...

 

 

We all look at BLT or Minories as the epitome of muddling yet there were so many other railway operations that get minor lip service paid to them but may work better in a smaller space with tight 40" or less ruling radius.

 

And there is always O-16.5...

 

 

Edited by Sturminster_Newton
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi @Grafarman

 

I have a cunning plan... (But I haven't got time to draw it right now.)

 

Imagine that the scene curves gently from top right to bottom left of your garage plan, with the line leaving the station heading over the bridge right into the bottom left corner of your drawing. You might wonder where it's going...

 

The bridge is modelled as a swing bridge but in fact it's a sector plate just long enough to hold a train. When you open it, hey presto!, it connects to the fiddle yard along the bottom wall. :smile_mini2:

 

OK, so some suspension of disbelief is needed while you carry out that operation but when the bridge is closed the scene would look convincing and would span the entire garage with very gentle curves throughout.

 

The bridge/sector plate could connect to the FY at a couple of different positions to give you more storage capacity in the FY with fewer turnouts.

 

The station (or yard if you go with Sturminster's suggestion) could have sidings behind the main entry line using the space in the top left corner. If it's a BLT then I suggest looking to the more unusual trackplans, like Hemyock, where nothing is straight and the run round loop is away from the passenger platform, making operations a bit more interesting.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a b clever idea!


Patent it quickly!

 

The bridge needn’t even be modelled as a swing bridge, it could equally well be one of those low-ish bridges, sometimes wooden trestle structures, sometimes steel girders on brick piers, that are typically used to cross a river plus a wide flood-plain or backwaters.

 

In reality, a bridge wIt’s swinging section long enough to accommodate a whole train would be a very odd thing indeed. Swing bridges have fairly short swing-spans, just enough to create an opening wide enough to accommodate the broadest vessel permitted.

 

Brilliant idea though, and I can envisage a variant on it that would work really well for an exhibition Layout in 4mm, as opposed to a home layout in 7mm, whereby the swing would be the other way, to put the FY behind the station.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thanks! There are lots of possible tweaks and optimisations to make it work better.

 

I imagine that actually, you'd include some of the track behind the bridge on the sector plate so the bridge wouldn't look so big. That should work because the embankment (or whatever) in front of the sector plate wouldn't move and the embankment behind is obscured from view. So when the bridge is in the normal scenic position the embankment behind the pivot point would look entirely normal and solid. Some greenery would help disguise any small gaps.

 

Restricting the maximum length of a train would also be a big help with this idea! A small tank engine, three wagons and a guard's van feels about right to me (or the same loco plus autocoach plus one van as tail traffic). But that's up to the OP.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Thanks! There are lots of possible tweaks and optimisations to make it work better.

 

I imagine that actually, you'd include some of the track behind the bridge on the sector plate so the bridge wouldn't look so big. That should work because the embankment (or whatever) in front of the sector plate wouldn't move and the embankment behind is obscured from view. So when the bridge is in the normal scenic position the embankment behind the pivot point would look entirely normal and solid. Some greenery would help disguise any small gaps.

 

Restricting the maximum length of a train would also be a big help with this idea! A small tank engine, three wagons and a guard's van feels about right to me (or the same loco plus autocoach plus one van as tail traffic). But that's up to the OP.

 

 

Trying to visualise this but can't get my head around the bridge siting...any chance of a rough plan drawing...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Grafarman said:

 

Trying to visualise this but can't get my head around the bridge siting...any chance of a rough plan drawing...?

 

Sure, drawings are what I do...

 

Rough layout:

grafarman1.png.0907c84324a130cb8308bd5332ab6ea5.png

 

Detail:

2069140752_grafarman1detail.png.37bd105f7c5cd8f48841fb3b62a0b22b.png

 

The embankment in front implies to the viewer that there is also one behind but you don't model the one behind so that the trackbed can swing around.

 

The sector plate is 900mm long with the pivot point at 300mm in this drawing.

 

I hope it's clearer now. Two pictures are worth 2000 words...

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Still brilliant, but I really do think that it is too short to be fit for purpose of accommodating a reasonable branch-line train.

 

900mm is a very short train in 0 and I would suggest a minimum of 1200mm, ideally 1500mm, to fit interesting trains, which is why I suggested the "flood plain" sort of bridge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Still brilliant, but I really do think that it is too short to be fit for purpose of accommodating a reasonable branch-line train.

 

900mm is a very short train in 0 and I would suggest a minimum of 1200mm, ideally 1500mm, to fit interesting trains, which is why I suggested the "flood plain" sort of bridge.

 

Thanks again! I just picked a size to show the concept. 900mm was just my best estimate for the small trains I mentioned above but it can be longer - up to a point. I must admit that I like the conceit of a model swing bridge representing a real practical swing bridge but I hear what you're saying about longer bridges. Whatever works best for the OP!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
20 hours ago, Sturminster_Newton said:

Why when compromised by space does everyone think a BLT is the only thing to muddle?

The OP specifically asked about running 2 coach trains and whilst I appreciate this is fairly rare for RMWeb, we're just answering the question!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

Sure, drawings are what I do...

 

Rough layout:

grafarman1.png.0907c84324a130cb8308bd5332ab6ea5.png

 

Detail:

2069140752_grafarman1detail.png.37bd105f7c5cd8f48841fb3b62a0b22b.png

 

The embankment in front implies to the viewer that there is also one behind but you don't model the one behind so that the trackbed can swing around.

 

The sector plate is 900mm long with the pivot point at 300mm in this drawing.

 

I hope it's clearer now. Two pictures are worth 2000 words...

 

 

Many thanks; this does make a lot of sense,  although I agree that the bridge needs to be longer; but the concept is sound enough...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

You're all right - a 1200mm bridge does work better, if you can make it work scenically:

grafarman2.png.602283ba6b222a49dc9323c51101eb4f.png

 

It copes with 2-coach trains and separates the FY from the scenic layout better. Longer would start to make things difficult.

 

I would love to develop this into a full plan but I don't want to tread on your toes, @Grafarman, so I'll leave it there for now.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
25 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

You're all right - a 1200mm bridge does work better, if you can make it work scenically:

grafarman2.png.602283ba6b222a49dc9323c51101eb4f.png

 

It copes with 2-coach trains and separates the FY from the scenic layout better. Longer would start to make things difficult.

 

I would love to develop this into a full plan but I don't want to tread on your toes, @Grafarman, so I'll leave it there for now.

 

 

Spot-on; looks pretty good...feel free to develop this any way you like, I'm more than happy for the input...!

 

 

David

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

Sure, drawings are what I do...

 

Rough layout:

grafarman1.png.0907c84324a130cb8308bd5332ab6ea5.png

 

Detail:

2069140752_grafarman1detail.png.37bd105f7c5cd8f48841fb3b62a0b22b.png

 

The embankment in front implies to the viewer that there is also one behind but you don't model the one behind so that the trackbed can swing around.

 

The sector plate is 900mm long with the pivot point at 300mm in this drawing.

 

I hope it's clearer now. Two pictures are worth 2000 words...

 

Nice Plan, and  this is very similar to what I've done across the door, in the same size room with my Seven Mills.

 

I could have had a second scenic Layout down the other side, but my Guitars  etc are in the way.

1877043719_SEVENMILLSSIDINGS2020MiltonRoadPlan1.png.9b58ab63167f8b0ff9ef91a660f69233.png

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just planning a 7mm roundy in a 16ft by 14ft room. I'm using 6ft as a minimum radius. The 'benchmark' loco is a kit built Brush type 2 that the manufacturer recommends at 6ft radius minimum for good performance. My tests have shown it could manage a 4ft10ins radius easily but, i'm sticking with 6ft because shorter radii just looked too toy like and unprotypical to me. I would strive for the largest radius curving where possible. 

Edited by woodyfox
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot depends upon the length of the stock and locos being used - a Brush 4 is a long old beast, so will look odd on tight curves; a Class 08 and 4W wagons much less so.

 

What stock is it intended to use on the layout being designed here? I ask because that affects run-round and Things like loco release. Are we in GWR BLT territory here?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi @Grafarman David,

 

Before I go further with a design can I ask you a few questions? I'd like to try to make something relevant for you. (No pressure on you to use the end result, it's just a bit of fun.)

 

What era and region are you aiming for?

 

What sort of feeling did you have in mind for the station? Idyllic country station, something busier and nearer to a town or city commuter terminus?

 

Would you use hand built track and turnouts, or should I rely on standard Peco parts or a mixture of both?

 

Thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
44 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi @Grafarman David,

 

Before I go further with a design can I ask you a few questions? I'd like to try to make something relevant for you. (No pressure on you to use the end result, it's just a bit of fun.)

 

What era and region are you aiming for?

 

What sort of feeling did you have in mind for the station? Idyllic country station, something busier and nearer to a town or city commuter terminus?

 

Would you use hand built track and turnouts, or should I rely on standard Peco parts or a mixture of both?

 

Thanks,

 

Ok, so, as it would be a first trial as such, I was thinking late-50's/early 60's BR country station buried somewhere in the Welsh borders - a largely forgotten backwater apart from the staff and locals who value this connection with the outside world...!

There's plenty of choice in rtr stock etc, eg Dapol's 14xx, 57xx, 08 and upcoming small prairie, pulling variously an autocoach; a 2-coach B-set from Bristol/Cardiff, or pair of suburban brakes; and a local pick-up goods with 6 wagons and a brake van.

It would need a goods shed and coal yard, with an oil tank for local heating oil supply; and a single engine shed with a loco coal/water/diesel facility.

The station platform only needs to be about a metre long to accommodate 2 coaches, and sidings long enough for 2 or 3 wagons in each...

Peco .124 BH track to start with to get something up and running quickly! 

Hope that helps...thank you

 

 

David

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...