Amanda's 7mm Stuff - A 1366T takes shape - and runs!

[34006]

On 20/11/2020 at 23:34, GRASinBothell said:

Jim Russell's Illustrated History of GW Coaches, Volume 1 (published in 1972) has a couple of pictures (Figs 172 and 173) of a clerestory brake third, coupled to a milk tank wagon on the Hemyock branch "twenty five years ago", so around 1947. Assuming BR didn't immediately retire it, you're close enough...

Gordon

Also,page51 in Michael Messenger's "The Culm Valley Light Railway"it says ;

Reverting to the tradition of using carriages from the minor Welsh railways taken over by the GWR ,early in 1950 the elderly GWR carriages were replaced by two ex-Barry Railway coaches.

The inference here suggests that the aforementioned clerestory coaches lasted till then.

Hope this helps,

atb

 

Phil.

[Pacific231G]

On 22/11/2020 at 17:30, WM183 said:

What is the minimum length required for a "Minories" type urban terminus in 0, if I wanted to ensure I could fit 4 coach trains + a 2-6-4t in both platform and fiddle yard? I wonder if dropping to 3 coach trains might work in my given space of 14 feet? A three coach train in 0 is still pretty big...

 

Yeah. I want my LMS engines.

Amanda

Hi Amanda

I think you'd be hard pressed though what you can fit in obviously depends on the length of the coaches you intend to use. In 00 scale Cyril Freezer's original Minories plan was 6ft 6ins ( i.e 2 metres) long and that would take three suburban coach trains hauled by  0-6-0 tank locos. I think that was based on two foot radius points (in OO) but he fairly rapidly increased it to seven and then eight feet but using three foot radius point. Thats without the fiddle yard of course. A simple scaling from 4mm to 7mm would make that 11ft 5ins in O which would only leave you about 30 inches for the fiddle.  

Also in 4mm scale (EM) Geoff Ashdown has managed to get an operationally equivalent terminus "Tower Pier"into two metres (using two metre long baseboards) plus a metre long cassette based fiddle yard, so three metres or just under ten feet in total.  So far as I know, Geoff's longest train is an ex LNER  "Quad Art" articulated four car set but I think the other trains are two and three coach and his largest steam loco is an 0-6-2. Again a simple rescaling makes that length seventeen feet  so too long for your fourteen feet  (I'm finding that in thirteen feet I can only just fit a Minories equalvalent with fiddle yard for four coach trains and that's in H0 scale- though admittedly with main line stock and locos. It's frustrating because I really need five coaches at minimum so 'cheating' with view blockers seems the only answer) .

What Geoff Ashdown did to hide the shortness of his trains was to make very good use of scenic breaks, including the overbridge that Cyril Feeze had in his original version (and that everyone since seems to have forgotten) and a short overall roof at the buffer end of the terminus.

I've seen Tower Pier at several exhibitions. It is a fantastic layout to watch and you somply don't notice how short the trains are.

I think your best approach might be to work out the total length of the shortest train you'd be prepared to accept as the longest on your layout i(ncluding the loco), multiply that by two and subtract the result from fourteen feet to give you the maximum length avaialable for the pointwork between the platform ends and the fiddle yard (which is going to have to be cassette or traverser based) allowing a few inches for some wriggle room.

[Guest WM183]

TRedacted
 

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted

[Pacific231G]

Hi Amanda

It might be worth looking at an urban version of Tony Collins' 7mm scale Goonhilly or a similar plan using the "Piano Line" principle *. This avoids the extra length required for the fiddle yard by bringing the main line in half way along the runround loop. In theory that means that the entire layout only needs to be twice as long as the longest train plus the clearance length of a single turnout.  In practice you'd probably allow a bit more to enable the "main" line to disappear convincingly under an overbridge ot something. This is my rendering of Goonhilly's track plan on a 6inch grid and it's 9ft 6ins long

   From the plan the entrance looks a bit unconvincing but it actually works quite well

 

The passenger train was as I recall limited to a single coach autotrain but, with three or four more feet to play with, you might be able to use a three coach train and I generally prefer versions of the Piano Line where the passenger platform is on the main loop rather than as a bay like Tim Hil's la Planche Port

 

This is six feet long by twelve inches (plus the actual dock basin) and based on a five foot long plan of mine. but with medium rather than short Peco points.

The entrance at Goonhilly is more space efficient and there is a near prototype with the Bristol Docks Railway.

Were I doing this in 0 gauge (or even if I wasn't) and particularly for a home layout I'd be tempted to replace the cassette with a sector plate fed from a couple of staging track behind the scenery and, with judicious use of "spare" locos that might avoid having to handle stock altogether. As an urban layout with a GW theme I could see this as a scruffy but quite busy commuter branch terminus crammed in alongside one of the more obscure London, Bristol or Cardiff riverside wharfs.  If the trains have to be loco hauled rather than push-pull then there's quite a lot of shunting involved. 

 

*If you've not heard of it the Piano Line was a secondary layout built by the Rev. P,H. Heath, who was one of the pioneers of using TT-3 stuff to model narrow gauge in 00n3 . It appeared as a "Holiday Project" in the July 1965 Railway Modeller.

 

Adding an extra siding increases its potential considerably and, though it seems a bit improbable, I've found three or four metre gauge termini in France that were based on this principle, generally to shoehorn themselves into the forecourt of a main line station though in one case on a quayside.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest WM183]

Redacted

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted

[Guest WM183]

Redacted

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted

[Guest WM183]

Redacted

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted

[brossard]

Very impressive progress.  I assume the buffers are mostly drilled.  I had a kit that required the WM buffer housings to be drilled by the builder.  I gave up, the housings could not be held by finger tightly enough (and it was agony).  Trying to hold them in pliers damaged them.  Sometimes it is better to buy them in.

 

John

[Guest WM183]

Redacted

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted

[brossard]

Slaters have a fair selection of buffers, which have lost wax cast brass housings and steel heads.  I like these a lot despite the bores needing to be cleared.

 

Another source is Invertrain who have a large range of buffers.  These use WM housings and steel heads.  These too are good.

 

Couplings are another thing to watch.  Slaters also have very good couplings esp. if you want instanter (Parkside provide a plastic link which seems wrong to me).  Slaters do a working screw coupling but I think I prefer Dapol, although the spring is wimbly.

 

John

[Guest WM183]

Redacted

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted

[brossard]

Agree, Slaters' would do well to photograph their stock.  

 

I daresay Invertrain buffers may well be the same as are in your kit.  However, my experience with Invertrain buffers is that they are mostly ready to use and usually come assembled.  I have had to do some light reaming to get the buffer heads to move easily.

 

This hobby is not kind to fingers and hands.

 

John

[Guest WM183]

Redacted

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted

[34006]

I see no problems here,only opportunities!

 

atb

Phil

[David Bell]

Looks like you have plenty to do!

David

[David Bell]

Your Connoissuer Macaw has reminded me I have one of these kits salted away somewhere. I must look it out!

Cheers

 David

 

[Guest WM183]

Redacted

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted

[Deano747]

23 hours ago, WM183 said:

I have a problem.

 

Admittedly it's a good problem to have.

 

The problem I see is that they are 4mm kits!! Not that that is really a problem other than you're building 7mm?

 

Regards, Deano.

[Guest WM183]

Redacted

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted

[Deano747]

Hi Amanda

 

Lucky you for having the options!

Like you, and many others, I started in 4mm (OO/HO) as a kid. I then had a dabble into 18.83 gauge (P4, of course, but I could never match the detail of such, but I liked the look of true gauge and building track)

Age catching up and eyesight not quite as good, I subsequently moved to 7mm and have never regretted it.

I am still not up to the fine detailing like many on here (like the professional builders; envy, envy!!) but I do enjoy the larger scale.

At the end of the day of course it's personal; preference, space, finances, etc....

Go for what gives you most enjoyment.

 

Regards, Deano.

 

Edit: To say, I'm aware it's not just the professional builders that are capable of adding fine detail, there are many hobby modellers equally capable!! (Just not me!)

Edited December 5, 2020 by Deano747

[Guest WM183]

Redacted

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted

[Hal Nail]

On 03/12/2020 at 16:15, WM183 said:

Invertrain lists "GWR/BR heavy duty self contained" buffers that look the ticket, but the castings aren't any better really than those in the Connoisseur kit, which are quite nice. The drilling thing is just hard on the poor fingers!

Slaters dont make this type and in my opinion many of those that do are not very good.

 

Peco do them (parallel shank type) which are quite nice but they are not cheap - I used them on my china clay wagon (page 10 and 11 on my thread). I'd carry on with what you already have personally 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Hal Nail

[Guest WM183]

Redacted

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted

[Guest WM183]

TRedacted

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted

[Guest WM183]

Redacted

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted