Jump to content
 

Smithfield - a Minories Inspired Layout in 0 gauge


thegreenhowards
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

This thread will be a diary of the construction of a new 0 gauge layout by the East Surrey Model Railway Club, based in Merstham. It will be our first venture into 0 gauge for many years so many of us will be on a steep learning curve but we're looking forward to it.

 

The design requirements were:

1.      Needs to be capable of being set up quickly in the main clubroom away from those working on our other layouts.  It would need to be put away at the end of the evening to free the space for our main social and running evening.

2.      It should provide something different from our two 00 gauge layouts, one is a 'roundy roundy' and the other a Branch Line Terminus.

3.      It should be exhibitable.

4.      All rolling stock to be owned by members as for all our layouts.

5.      Create a plausible setting for existing members’ rolling stock.

6.      Allow us to try out new modelling methods and technologies.

 

With these design criteria we developed a plan based on the classic 00-gauge Minories design from 1957 by Cyril Freezer (former editor of Railway Modeller). Obviously done in 0 gauge it will be significantly larger and there was a desire for more goods action than the original Minories offered so we have ended up with the plan below.

 

559763155_MinoriesV680mmplatformsrunroundingoodsyard.jpg.ea8ab9b17680871e9b5dd92ea0b2e99c.jpg

The design uses two 1220*690 boards and two 1630 * 690 boards. Each pair of boards will fold onto each other for storage and transportation. The section on the right will be a narrow fiddle yard for use in the clubroom. It will be operated from the bottom of the plan but for exhibition purposes will be viewed from the top. We will build a separate fiddle yard board for exhibitions with some (as yet unspecified) goods activity in front.

 

I have a particular interest in the GNR/ LNER/ BE(E) while other 0 gauge interested club members are generally Southern focussed. So we decided it would be a joint station similar to Moorgate but shared between the GNR & LBSCR and their successors. It will be capable of being set in era 2,3,4 and 5 (i.e. pre grouping, big four or BR steam eras) and set in the City of London

 

We envisage an intensive service of suburban trains from both companies with a rush hour longer distance service of mainline stock and parcels, milk and goods trains. The cassette on the bottom left will hold an 0-6-0T, six wagons and a brake van and will represent through goods traffic to Billingsgate fish market and possibly other traffic for city based warehouses or transhipment to ships on the Thames. It will be on a falling gradient and disappear behind the station platforms similar to hotel curve at King's Cross. 

 

We are still considering a name for the layout. Street names in the City of London seem the most promising at the moment. Something like Tower Hill, Botolph Lane, Bank, Telegraph St or Tooley Bridge. 

 

We got as far as agreeing the broad principles in the early Autumn before Covid closed the club. Work has continued on the planning and we have recently started building baseboards (in my garage before London entered tier 3) and preparing for track laying. Now we are in tier 4, one member, Peter, is continuing to build the baseboards while I will be laying track.

 

As this is designed to be a diary of the construction, I will provide regular updates as and when we make significant progress. Comments are welcome on any aspect of the build. I'd particularly welcome suggestions for a name.

 

Andy

 

 

Edited by thegreenhowards
Typos
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Baseboard construction is fairly conventional. We are aiming to keep them light enough to be lifted onto racking in folded pairs when not in use. It will need to be put away after every session. Tops are 9mm ply with 4mm ply sandwich used for the long bracing and 9mm ply for the cross bracing.

 

The photo below shows the framing for one of the longer boards before the top is added. The taller 4mm ply on the sides is to form a basis for the retaining walls which will enclose the station.DSCF7717.JPG.d5a41c4f95e7e41fc8f165e118c9a092.JPG

 

This first board has since been completed and handed over to me for track laying. I have loosely laid the track as below. This is the main station throat board (the one with the signal box on the plan in my first post). The goods yard is only roughly laid out as I want to work back from the entry point once I have that shorter board.

 

IMG_2482-compressed.JPG.992502c22be4f7a3237fc964fd8056a1.JPG

 

And here with some stock to check clearances.

IMG_2483-compressed.JPG.bc07672d3e731b05738df7f5f65e10ae.JPG

 

Since those photos was taken this morning, I have marked the edges of the track for positioning cork underlay. Then I lifted the track and have glued down 3mm cork which can dry overnight.

 

Andy

 

 

Edited by thegreenhowards
captioning third photo
  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Good to see something actually arising from the rambling (and entertaining) "General Minories" thread.  We'll all be keen to hear in due course how you get on with your kick-back goods set-up!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 21/12/2020 at 21:22, thegreenhowards said:

 

We are still considering a name for the layout. Street names in the City of London seem the most promising at the moment. Something like Tower Hill, Botolph Lane, Bank, Telegraph St or Tooley Bridge.

Andy

 

 

It's looking very good Andy. As for names, any idea which railway it would be most associated with? 

Cyril Freezer always said that he chose a name that sounded City of London without intending to define its location with the real Minories.

 

The Cities of London and Westminster were originally very opposed to letting any of those nasty new fangled railway things into their respective territories. The termini that eventually were built witihn their city precints were only allowed to penetrate them a short way so your terminus would likely be on the side of the city from which your railway came and that may suggest names.  Think of the lines to Victoria, Charing Cross, Blackfriars and Cannon Street coming in from the south but to stations not far from the original banks of the river (a bit further for Victoria but it followed the route of the Grosvenor Canal from the river and was built on the site of the canal's basin) Fenchurch Street coming in a little way  from the East and ditto Liverpool Street from the North East and the Metropitan more or less running along the City of London's northern border.  That may tend to give some ideas for a name but Bank is probably too central. Think also of where a railway would or would not be allowed to knock existing buidlngs down. Basically you can knock down common dwellings and factories but forget about anything like the Inns of Court or any of the guilds. Charing Cross for example was built where Warren's Blacking Factory, that Charles Dickens worked in as a young man, used to stand  and, before the Embankment was built to cover Bazalgette's new sewer in 1865, the banks of the Thames were marshy and insalubrious.

The City of London itself seemed to make an exception on its western side with Ludgate Hill and High Holborn stations and the viaduct over Fleet Steet (all now gone) obscuring St. Pauls Cathedral but that more or less followed the line of the River Fleet (known in its lower reaches as the Holbourne)

 

For anything coming from the north London Wall comes to mind- I think that was the imaginary London terminus in a BBC radio drama series a good few years ago. Think also what name a railway company might or might not want to  diginify its City of London terminus with. Bishopsgate Station sounds alright (except that Liverpool Street Stn. occupies most of the ward) but Cheapside. Cripplegate or Houndsditch Station doesn't.  Lime Street - just to the east of Liverpool St. is available but maybe too associated with that other Lime Street Station.

Edited by Pacific231G
radio drama
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Thanks David,

 

We're thinking a LBSCR/ GNR joint station (for member's interest reasons) which I was assuming might have been an extension of the Moorgate line  but alternatively could have worked across from the Blackfriars area. I think we're going to be struggling for a 100% credible back story so will have to be a bit loose on the facts. 

 

London Wall was my original suggestion but was vetoed by one of out members because he works for a company called London Wall and he thought it would get too confusing/ remind him of work!

 

Andy

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

A bit of progress this afternoon.

 

IMG_2498-compressed.jpg.acc48492daa6d3733df2d25910a15b59.jpg

 

It may not look very different from yesterday's offering but since then, all the track has been lifted, the cork laid and the track put back down with droppers to every rail (it's being wired for DCC).

 

Andy

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
48 minutes ago, WM183 said:

This looks like it will be a fun layout! I am a bit envious of having enough room to do this!

Thanks. 
 

I don’t have enough room but we are very lucky to have a fair bit of space in our club rooms. Even so, it is going to be set up in the area club members use for watching the 00 (and drinking tea) on a normal club night, so it will have to set up and pack down every time we use it. 
 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Premium

I didn’t make any progress over Christmas as my wife thought the dining room should be used for dining - fancy that! But I did get a delivery of the second baseboard from fellow club member, Peter, and I have done some more track laying this week. 
 

I started by laying the track out roughly and marking where I needed to lay cork. The cork was then glued down with PVA and left to dry overnight under some weight - I knew all these railway books would come in useful!

 

72B72016-CBDF-4138-964B-535055576356.jpeg.28c4fc04feb1b712b6caad6de902c2c0.jpeg

 

Yesterday afternoon the cork looked quite neat.

2F82BC35-2FEB-4EA7-A513-A66B819DC121.jpeg.b00ab157cb53256aa76434da0b970a2e.jpeg
 

This morning I have been track laying. The soldered copper clad strips at the baseboard edge have been a bit awkward and took several soldering tweaks to get smooth enough. The rest went down pretty easily. So we now have this.

 

92FA44A9-B72B-4EF6-80A4-A4692A49F93C.jpeg.7ac945628bc62ee0460a7f0af2ec0a29.jpeg2707BED3-6643-46B2-8789-E9E5360AEB42.jpeg.d9f97d8f6b1e199c21facc704af40e4e.jpeg
 

I have soldered droppers to every bit of track, so the next job will be to join them up. Then I hope to be able to test some trains.

 

 

 

Edited by thegreenhowards
Typo
  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

More progress today. I turned the layout on it’s side for easy access for wiring - so much better than scrabbling around underneath the boards. I have now connected all the droppers. The end pieces of track are not fixed in because I’m waiting for the next board so I can lay across the join and cut afterwards.

 

C8400423-5F82-4A3E-A93F-47FCF42997C7.jpeg.3c1bc6fc0e84a45adc242fdb614f71d4.jpeg
 

The points are going to be manually operated, hopefully using the DCC Concepts point rodding. So I have powered the frogs using a mix of Gaugemaster autofrogs and a Tam Valley ‘dual frog juicer’. Although I’m very pleased with the Gaugemaster autofrogs in ‘00’, I’m not sure they will be up to ‘0’ gauge as they are rated at 2Amps. Hence, I’m trying both for now and will see which works best. if the GM units are OK it will be much cheaper. Here is a closer view of the frog wiring.

 

8CA4DC79-0987-4F4A-8C7E-3BE5E3C7E5C9.jpeg.67edeb0d686966e9fe3520907450dd7c.jpeg
 

I’ve run out if Autfrogs for now so the two points on the other board are unpowered for now and I’m relying on the loco coasting over the dead frog. 
 

When  I connected power to test it I had the dreaded short circuit. That turned out to be some solder bridging the gap on the copper clad sleeper at the baseboard edge. Obvious really but I had to undo a lot of wiring before I narrowed down the cause. 
 

I have to say the double slip wiring was very easy with autofrogs. Just connect the BUS to each frog via an autofrog and hard wire the outer rails to the BUS and it all worked perfectly.

 

Here is a short video of my J50 testing all the track. The books are improvised buffer stops.


I really need the next board before I can make much more progress as laying the track across the joint is the next job. That will lead back into the goods yard which will be in the space on the right hand side in the video. I can mock up the goods yard track but don’t want to fix anything until I’ve checked the geometry with the neighbouring board.

Edited by thegreenhowards
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

those baseboards are cracking from Peter, and that trackwork looks solid Andy, looking forward to starting the scenery and running some LBSC, and GNR stock on this baby sometime after all this madness :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
44 minutes ago, woko said:

those baseboards are cracking from Peter, and that trackwork looks solid Andy, looking forward to starting the scenery and running some LBSC, and GNR stock on this baby sometime after all this madness :)

So I get ‘solid’ and Peter gets ‘cracking’, I know my place! To be fair Peter’s baseboards are very good. 

 

I agree I can’t wait to get back together to run some stuff and be able to make some decisions.
 

You are about to get a phone call from Peter about 3D printing some bigger point rodding stools.

 

 

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • RMweb Premium

Not much to report for a couple of weeks but on Thursday, Peter delivered the next baseboard. He sent me a few photos of it under construction which show the quality of his workmanship. Not everyone's cup of tea, so if you don't like woodwork switch off now, but for an average woodworker like myself they show some lovely craftmanship, so I hope some of you appreciate them. 

 

DSCF7721.JPG.e5a57fdae3f6381fbfa853868c07157a.JPG

 

DSCF7722.JPG.a8aa0e1ca570c6619acd70ba05f1d5f4.JPG

 

DSCF7723.JPG.9421af8cf8195c1d25efd92cc339afe1.JPG

 

DSCF7724.JPG.925647ab2d3ba02a0f7e0f129fd29523.JPG

 

It has been 'quarantined' in the garage for a couple of days. But today I brought it in and started roughly laying track. This is to check the positioning prior to gluing down cork. I have almost finished this - this is the state of play. I can only (easily) fit two of the four scenic baseboards in my dining room; there will be another 4 foot board beyond the one you can see which will have straight tracks to the end of the platforms on it. The bits of wood sticking up represent the platforms. 8cm for the one sided platform on the left and 10.5cm for the double sided platform on the right. The tracks for the two main platforms have a very gentle reverse curve to add interest and provide enough space for a platform at the near end between them and the descending goods line.

978584345_FullSizeRender-compressed1.JPG.0952a5769487652612d441d79cba3538.JPG

 

Here I show it with some stock. On the left the N1 is emerging from the descending line with a short transfer goods. This line will go into a tunnel similar to hotel curve at King's Cross and then on to a hidden cassette on the next board representing goods to Billingsgate fish market and maybe a Thameside wharf. The Gresley non corridor stock is in the two main platforms. The lines on the right are a short platform for parcels and some peak services and a headshunt for the goods yard. 

 

I'm not intending to lay the goods yard at this stage as I think we need a club meeting to agree the finer details.

FullSizeRender-compressed.JPG.05953d6f56a4d52026faf6cdc4702393.JPG

 

Any comments welcome.

 

Andy

Edited by thegreenhowards
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

More progress over the last couple of days. There may not be much visible difference, but since my last update, I’ve marked the alignments, lifted the track, laid cork, replaced the track and soldered in copper clad sleepers and screws for the baseboard joints. As before the goods yard track on the bottom right is only laid in place for an impression. I’m waiting until the club can get together again to discuss and agree the final track layout in the yard. As a reminder, there will be another 4 foot board beyond this one (far end from camera) which will contain a hidden cassette for the descending line on the left and (visible) extensions of the platforms for the other lines.
 

CD3D4FF1-99E2-4EF9-B18B-063C54C6EF55.jpeg.e68dda71d813e15c5e77421f7ff0af22.jpeg

 

Two points of interest. Firstly, after some phone discussions with fellow club member, Peter about the layout of the goods headshunt (extreme RH track) I decided to try a wye point in order to create some separation between the headshunt and platform 3 to allow for overall roof supports and to mark it our as separate from the passenger station. The wye proved too extreme, so I went back to a RH point, but did some ‘butchery’ on the point to create a sort of 1/4:3/4 wye. I hope this photo shows the result. It’s allowed the curve to continue onto the goods headshunt and thereby create some separation.

 

ACDC744B-C0CD-4940-8973-77DF98714278.jpeg.b87ff679760845ae7ce4eab3efa12e7e.jpeg
 

Secondly, having never laid O gauge track or built a portable layout before, I was unsure about arrangements for the track passing over the baseboard join. So, I’ve rather learnt ‘on the job’!970C493C-6EE0-4C42-BDF0-250C7B913F6E.jpeg.24215d512eccb1999d0ff63a38b570c2.jpeg

 

On the previous baseboard joints I did have some double sleepers (one on each board) which looked rather ugly. So I decided to try to avoid that here.

 

The track on the left was first and here I put in a single copper clad sleeper on one side of the joint with two screws on the other side. The track was soldered down to the sleeper and the two screws. It looks better than a double sleeper but the diagonal/ offset sleeper looks strange.

 

For the two main platforms, I used the same tactic but here the track crosses at right angles so it works well.

 

For the track leading into platform 3 and the goods headshunt I tried an alternative approach laying two copper clad sleepers perpendicular to the track at standard sleeper spacing. This resulted in a secure joint bottom left and top right but with a track overhang bottom right and top left. In these places I used a screw and soldered down to that.

 

Having done all this, O gauge track seems so robust compared with OO that I’m wondering whether I could just leave the plastic sleepers in place. Any comments on what I have done would be welcome. I’d be loath to rip up what I’ve done, but will incorporate any lessons for the next board.

 

Tomorrow, I’ll start the wiring of the end of the five foot board and the whole of the four foot one.

 

Andy, 

 

Edited by thegreenhowards
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Though they'd  be unlikely to line up so conveniently, would using the closer sleepr spacing at panel ends do it? You'd still have some rail proud of the sleeper on each side but maybe in O scale it would be less vulnerable (of course once started with that you'd have to have two closer sleepers for every panel !). I seem to remember that, when it was first built, the Tallylyn didn't bother with fishplates. The BoT inspector was naturally not happy with that but it apparently took donkey's years for the platelayers to work their way along the whole line hand drilling two holes for the fishplates in every rail end so before they finished it obviously worked for some time. 

 

A better option might be something like this 

IMG_0037.JPG.566b654d99d083b8f89db6a263a4dc33.JPG

I can't remember where I got this from, an exhibition bring and buy stand I think, and it was cut or milled on double sided copper clad to match Peco H0 track (i.e. bog standard Streamline). The rails are soldered to what are in effect longitudinal sleepers  so  that when you cut them at the rail join they are on a solid structure right up to the end. 

In O gauge they probably wouldn't need to be more than say three sleepers wide on each side so six in all  and though I don't know who made mine ( I have two of these panels with two on each)  the FFMF (the French national federation of Model Railway Clubs)  produced something like this in H0 and designed for Peco Streamline track but as a double track unit. This was made as a product for its members some years ago and was very likely aimed at one of their module standards but it must have been found to work. I think it was a limited run product so individuals members were only allowed to buy something like two of them each.     

 

Edited by Pacific231G
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

Though they'd  be unlikely to line up so conveniently, would using the closer sleepr spacing at panel ends do it? You'd still have some rail proud of the sleeper on each side but maybe in O scale it would be less vulnerable (of course once started with that you'd have to have two closer sleepers for every panel !). I seem to remember that, when it was first built, the Tallylyn didn't bother with fishplates. The BoT inspector was naturally not happy with that but it apparently took donkey's years for the platelayers to work their way along the whole line hand drilling two holes for the fishplates in every rail end so before they finished it obviously worked for some time. 

 

A better option might be something like this 

IMG_0037.JPG.566b654d99d083b8f89db6a263a4dc33.JPG

I can't remember where I got this from, an exhibition bring and buy stand I think, and it was cut or milled on double sided copper clad to match Peco H0 track (i.e. bog standard Streamline). The rails are soldered to what are in effect longitudinal sleepers  so  that when you cut them at the rail join they are on a solid structure right up to the end. 

In O gauge they probably wouldn't need to be more than say three sleepers wide on each side so six in all  and though I don't know who made mine ( I have two of these panels with two on each)  the FFMF (the French national federation of Model Railway Clubs)  produced something like this in H0 and designed for Peco Streamline track but as a double track unit. This was made as a product for its members some years ago and was very likely aimed at one of their module standards but it must have been found to work. I think it was a limited run product so individuals members were only allowed to buy something like two of them each.     

 

Thanks for that info. Your product sounds like a slightly less sophisticated and probably significantly better value version of this Modeltech rail aligner which has been released recently.

 

https://www.modeltech.uk

 

It’s £10 for a pair covering two tracks in O gauge which seems quite steep compared with a couple of bits of copper clad but I’ve ordered one packet which I intend to try on the layout as a test. I will use them for the joint between the last scenic board and the fiddle yard as that will get the most traffic at the highest speeds to alignment is the most critical. I will report back on their use in due course.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Model Tech product looks useful as it provides horizontal and vertical alignment at board ends as  well as anchoring the rails. (I think something similar is used to align the tracks on train ferry decks  wih those on the ramp The copper clad only provides anchoring so some other way of accurately aligning  the two boards would be needed   However, I'm not sure how it would look when painted and weathered on visible sections. I am looking at this product to connect the fiddle yard on my H0 and H0m layout as at the moment I rely on slightly loose track on the end of the fiddle yard and loose rail joiners  for mechanical alignment. 

However, without some cunning carpentry I don't think these would work for track that's not perpendicular or very close to it to the board ends. The copper clad could be cut at a modest angle as the rails are soldered right up to the join- probably more so with wider sleeper spacing than Peco's H0 scale 600mm spacing (centre to centre)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

The Model Tech product looks useful as it provides horizontal and vertical alignment at board ends as  well as anchoring the rails. (I think something similar is used to align the tracks on train ferry decks  wih those on the ramp The copper clad only provides anchoring so some other way of accurately aligning  the two boards would be needed   However, I'm not sure how it would look when painted and weathered on visible sections. I am looking at this product to connect the fiddle yard on my H0 and H0m layout as at the moment I rely on slightly loose track on the end of the fiddle yard and loose rail joiners  for mechanical alignment. 

However, without some cunning carpentry I don't think these would work for track that's not perpendicular or very close to it to the board ends. The copper clad could be cut at a modest angle as the rails are soldered right up to the join- probably more so with wider sleeper spacing than Peco's H0 scale 600mm spacing (centre to centre)

 

I agree about the perpendicular requirement. I’m intending to use them where the track enters the fiddle yard (extreme bottom right on the plan in post 1) where it is perpendicular.

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...