rake length - prototypical or shorter?

[Bloxley]

I just wanted some opinions on rake lengths. I am after a rake of HHA wagons, but with prototypical rakes being 20 wagons long, I fear it would look too big on a layout. So what do you all do? compress the rake to say 8 wagons? or just run really long trains? My main concern is the length of passing loops, sidings etc. 

 

obviously blank space is compressed in virtually all model railways but how about trains... do you compress those also?

 

Cheers Bloxley - aka tom

[fulton]

Interesting question, I have modelled a prototype location but have compressed it by 40%, while I am happy to reduce the length of a factory unit to fit, I would not reduce the length of wagons or locos to fit, so have to run shorter trains. It would be really nice to run scale length, but then I think would I really like to have to look after such a big layout.

[Dungrange]

I'd say yes, go for a shorter rake.  I like long trains, so I'd make them as long as possible - a train that is meant to be 20 wagons looks stupid if you try to replicate such a train with only three wagons.  However, if you have had to shorten loops so that they are half the length that they are in real life, then the trains should also be half the prototypical length so that they fit in the loops (as the prototypical trains usually do).

 

As for justifying the shorter train, I'd make up a story that the trains on this particular line are shorter than average either because the loops are shorter than average or because there is gradient on the line that limits haulage capacity or a viaduct with a weight limit or some other operating constraint that means 20 wagons trains cannot be accommodated on this particular line.  It may even be that the constraint is at the origin or destination of this particular service where the siding or loop lengths are inadequate.

[Steven B]

It's perfectly possible to be prototypical and have a short rake of HAA. Wagons returning from repair would be tripped back to yards in much smaller numbers than a "standard full" length rake.

Have a look in the "Prototype for everything" thread, and that dedicated to Accurascale's HAA - there are plenty of prototypical short rakes of wagons.

 

E.g. 12 HAA, 1 HEA and a TTA:

 

or thirteen HAA and three class 37:

Triple Headed 37s by Stephen Dance, on Flickr

 

Steven B

[Calnefoxile]

 

The answer to this is simple, go N Gauge 

 

It makes having a full length rake much simpler, in your case a full rake of HAA's can be up to 42 wagons, but pretty standard rake is around 36 which measures out at roughly 96" including Loco, A 7+2 HST is roughly 5 1/2 ft.

 

Cheers

 

Neal.

[Bloxley]

Unfortuanately its HHA not HAA wagons im after... these are 20m ling in real life, so approximately 240mm in oo scale. So a rake of 20 is 5 metres??? Even a rake of 10 is huge!!! 

 

Your right the logical choice is to go down a scale to N. But i really want OO. 

 

Using these wagons even a shunting layout is rather large lol

 

Main reason for wanting HHA in particular is i lived near rugeley power station for 20ish years and saw these trains run regular. 

[Chris M]

I used to build 00 layouts but I moved to N in 2012. I wouldn’t go back because I love being able to run over 30 wagons in a freight train and 10-11 coaches in an express passenger. Something which is not possible I. A reasonable space in 00. Also you can get all that wonderful scenery in. 
 

it has to be said that, because the trains have more vehicles, N gauge works out more expensive.

 

 

[Chris M]

Freight trains are also good in N. You get used to it being smaller than 00 after a while. The detail on the modern stock is pretty good.

 

I have to say that these days when I see an 00 layout the trains do look rather short.

 

[Bloxley]

That is a great layout and seeing things like that definitely make me want a N scale layout. but i love scratchbuilding and not sure I could cope in N scale.... that is likely the number one reason holding me back from N scale. 

[Pete the Elaner]

Run what looks reasonable.

Most layouts are either compressed or based on a closed-in location, so correct length trains can look too long.

If you are using 20m wagons, then these probably compare with freightliner flats or TEA tankers.

I have 2 sets of 5 freightliners. I would rather keep them in sets of 5 because this is correct, but 15 is too long for my fiddle yard.

For my tankers, 12 seems to look long, but not too long.

[Bloxley]

yeah they would be comparable in length to the flats and tankers you have. do you have a photo of what you run? So I can get an idea of what a train of that length would look like?

 

Cheers

[Pete the Elaner]

1 minute ago, Bloxley said:

yeah they would be comparable in length to the flats and tankers you have. do you have a photo of what you run? So I can get an idea of what a train of that length would look like?

 

Cheers

Sounds like a good excuse for some layout photography. I'll be back shortly.

[Reorte]

Mock some up - just print out some pictures of them on bits of paper and cut them out - and place them in the space you've got and decide whether or not you're happy with the length of rake you can accommodate when you (sort of) see them in the flesh.

[Dungrange]

It might help if you look at a photograph of the prototype.  I think the train in the photograph linked below is 18 HHA.  The wagons at the front are quite clearly defined, whereas the wagons at the rear of the train are much less distinct.  If you were to remove the last five or even six wagons, I think you'd still capture the 'essence' of the service - ie it wouldn't look noticeably short.  However, if you were to try and replicate this service with just eight wagons, it would look to me like a half length train.  In general, I tend to think that as long as you model about two thirds of a train, it tends to look okay (or at least it does to my eyes).

 

https://www.jules-merlin27.com/Railways/Claycross/i-tGGhtjf/A

 

[Pete the Elaner]

At just ove 7', the scenic section on my layout is short, but it is a scale length section of the WCML. My camera was placed on the bridge at one end of the scenic section.

I don't know if this is useful for what you had in mind.

You can see the train needed 3 shots to capture it all. The tanker in the foreground of pic 2 is only just visible in the tunnel of pic 1 & the containers in pic 3 are just under the bridge in the background of pic 2.

This train only has 10 flat wagons but I feel the compact nature of the layout makes it look like more, but maybe not the 20-30 in a typical train.

[Bloxley]

that is fantastic, I think you have just given me the eureka moment i needed.... if you can't see all "20" wagons in a shot... you can effectively hide the fact it is a shorter than normal train. If the scenic section only is long enough for 10 wagons why do i need to run 20, when 10 will be out of view. I could get by with just one or 2 wagons longer than the actual viewing area and hopefully it will give the impression of a much longer train.

 

thats been a massive help.

 

Cheers

[Bloxley]

13 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

It might help if you look at a photograph of the prototype.  I think the train in the photograph linked below is 18 HHA.  The wagons at the front are quite clearly defined, whereas the wagons at the rear of the train are much less distinct.  If you were to remove the last five or even six wagons, I think you'd still capture the 'essence' of the service - ie it wouldn't look noticeably short.  However, if you were to try and replicate this service with just eight wagons, it would look to me like a half length train.  In general, I tend to think that as long as you model about two thirds of a train, it tends to look okay (or at least it does to my eyes).

 

https://www.jules-merlin27.com/Railways/Claycross/i-tGGhtjf/A

 

never saw your reply before i replied above. but yes this is exactly my thinking now! just need to convince the other half that 13 or 14 wagons at £40 a pop are essential now

[Pete the Elaner]

I found that funny to be honest because as I was taking the photos, I wondered if they would be much help at all.

I'm glad they were though.

My scale length HST seems to look far too long, perhaps this is exaggerated because all the coaches are so similar?

I should have a 14-coach APT on it by the end of the year. That will seem to go on forever.

[Reorte]

1 minute ago, Pete the Elaner said:

My scale length HST seems to look far too long, perhaps this is exaggerated because all the coaches are so similar?

 

I suppose we're not all that used to seeing full-length trains in reality from vantage points where we can see and appreciate the entire length of the train. It's odd how our usual viewpoints can distort our perspective; road markings are a good example - try finding a "SLOW" marking on an aerial view to appreciate how elongated it really is.

[Pete the Elaner]

25 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

I suppose we're not all that used to seeing full-length trains in reality from vantage points where we can see and appreciate the entire length of the train. It's odd how our usual viewpoints can distort our perspective; road markings are a good example - try finding a "SLOW" marking on an aerial view to appreciate how elongated it really is.

 

Very true.

We also rarely look down on the real railway like we do on models. I found this noticeable in the helicopter shots used for the Michael Portillo TV programmes. I felt they looked a much lighter brown, particularly in the 4'.

[Reorte]

20 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Very true.

We also rarely look down on the real railway like we do on models. I found this noticeable in the helicopter shots used for the Michael Portillo TV programmes. I felt they looked a much lighter brown, particularly in the 4'.

 

I like to crouch down and look at layouts from a closer to familiar perspective; it can give a very different view (and often makes a good layout look even better). Bit hard on the knees when you're over 6' tall and overweight though!

[F-UnitMad]

1 hour ago, Bloxley said:

that is fantastic, I think you have just given me the eureka moment i needed.... if you can't see all "20" wagons in a shot... you can effectively hide the fact it is a shorter than normal train. If the scenic section only is long enough for 10 wagons why do i need to run 20, when 10 will be out of view. I could get by with just one or 2 wagons longer than the actual viewing area and hopefully it will give the impression of a much longer train.

 

thats been a massive help.

 

Cheers

Beat me to it, sort of, as I've seen that advice written before, somewhere. If both ends of a train are out of sight, how long the whole train is gets disguised to an extent. It might have been to do with American models & layouts. When a real main line freight train over there can easily be 120 cars long, even the Basement Empire modellers can struggle to get close!!

On the other hand I find watching a whole train like that going past - real or model - (via DVDs or YouTube in my case) can get pretty tedious after a while, and I'm sort of glad I don't have the room to try it myself!!

 

[Michael Hodgson]

There is a limit on any layout.

 

On a round and round layout, you reach the absolute limit when you have so many wagons that the train engine is banking its own the brake van.

[BR60103]

One of the American magazines, some time ago, wrote that a train looked long if your eye couldn't see both ends at once. They then did some work with eye height above baseboard and angle of view. An N scale train needed to be twice as many cars as HO/OO.

And this will also be affected by how far back you stand.

 

[Grizz]

Scale length trains are my preferred choice and these days I am lucky enough to be able to run some. 
 

About 25 years ago I built a OO round n round layout in a small roof space. On one side of the layout I wanted a station with 2 main platform faces (UP and DOWN roads), long enough to take Intercity loco hauled trains with 7 plus coaches, but this then meant that it would have taken up almost the whole of one side of the available space and I then couldn’t fit in the S&C I needed to cross into the adjacent yard and single bay platform. 
 

An old mate suggested building the station up above the track, so that the loco and three coaches were visible when the train was waiting at the platform starter. Meanwhile the rest of the train was waiting under the station buildings / town, which was in effect was the curved track which I didn’t want to view anyway. It gave the impression that the 7 coach train was stopped with the whole train in the station. A much scaled back version of how the country end of Birmingham New Street used to look, with just the loco and a few coaches poking at the end.