4ft x 6ft 00 Designs

[Nearholmer]

Honesty first: this isn’t really about a 4ft x 6ft 00 layout, but I thought that would elicit more responses than what it’s really about, which would bamboozle many at first glance.

 

What I’m after are ideas for a 7ft x 10ft 6in layout in Coarse-0, so the equivalent of 4ft x 6ft in 00.

 

I’ve got plenty of thoughts, and all the relevant CJF books, but RMWebbers are creative people, so I thought I’d poll the collective.

 

The idea is to build a portable layout, to run both clockwork and electric, so it needs to be continuous, with operation from the middle. The biggest constraint is points, in that only one radius of turnout is available, the equivalent of 22” radius at 00, and these come in plain left or right, or a Y. Minimum curve radius that I want to use is the equivalent of 15” in 00.

 

The vibe is much more Hornby Dublo c1955 than modern finescale, and I want to be able to have one goods train and one passenger train on the layout, although not running simultaneously. A basic ‘scalectrix track’, a double track circuit, will fit, but I find those very boring, so something more creative would be good.

 

Another way of looking at is to think what you’d build as a ‘fold down over the bed’ layout for a 12yo (my mental age!) in 00.

 

Suggestions please.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Zomboid]

Could you do the two stations, end to end round 3 sides with the 4th side for doing laps? How long are your trains?

[Nearholmer]

a) I don’t think so, having tried, but you’re welcome to try, because you might find a wrinkle that I haven’t.

 

b) work on three coaches plus a 4-4-0 or 0-6-0, each at 10” in 00, but, if you can find a way of ramming-in the above, I’d settle for big tank engines and two coaches plus a van.

[KingEdwardII]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

this isn’t really about a 4ft x 6ft 00 layout

Boo, hiss 

 

Now you're really treading into nostalgia territory - my first layout was a 4' x 6' 00 Hornby Dublo layout, 2 rail, circa 1964. All on one single baseboard, ready to be placed on floor or table for playing some serious trains.

 

Of course, there is in reality a big difference between an 00 layout and the equivalent in 0 gauge - the layout gets bigger but you don't! The practical effect is that a central well is not really doable in 00 - and you can reach across to any point from the sides as long as the board ain't against a wall. In 0 gauge, the central well is pretty near mandatory. You're not going to be able to reach across 7' from the edges - and it's highly likely that some of the edges will be against a wall!

 

So many designs in 00 aim to run a track around the outside and then make use of all that space in the centre. Not really possible in 0 gauge because of that need for the central well.

 

I suppose that the basic design for you is a continuous loop - but do you want single track or double track? I am looking at my early 1960s Hornby Dublo track plans book as I write this, since your limitation to one fixed size for turnouts is perhaps more akin to those. They have some variations where all the significant trackwork is on one long side, representing a station, with the other long side simply plain running lines.

 

One trick they use is that with their minimum size set-track radii of 15" and 17" (if I remember correctly) they are able to get a straight section into the 4' width and can then put turnouts into those straight sections to bring sidings into the area within the main loop. One question is whether you can tolerate such tight radii in your layout?

 

Yours,  Mike.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Portable?  Tell us more!  

 

Are we talking sectional for occasional dismantling and storage, or transportable for exhibitions / meets, where transport becomes the constraint for board size and it may help if sections are matched in size.  Carrying weight is also more of a factor (many are the tales of exhibition layouts where there’s help available at a Venue, but not necessarily on return home late on a Sunday night).

 

Are there any domestic constraints when setting up at home, and is there a door opening into (or out from) the space - it would be a good ‘target’ for where to place a lift-out / crawl under.  If there is a door to go through, is it standard size?

Biggest challenge (other than that of avoiding the obvious schematics) is probably the absence of curved points.  Interesting to note that an equivalent 3 coach train plus 4-4-0 locomotive is also 40” long in OO (using 57’ coaches) so in that sense you do have a little bit more space (incorrect - misunderstanding on my part: see next post)

Edited October 20, 2021 by Keith Addenbrooke
Correction

[Nearholmer]

23 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Are we talking sectional for occasional dismantling and storage, or transportable for exhibitions / meets

Yes. In fact that line of thought was what started all this whirring round in my head.

 

So, for planning purposes, imagine: there is room to set-up at home; the parts do need to be fairly easily carried through a 2ft 6in opening domestic interior door; crawling for access is not allowed (I can, but I’d worry about some potential ‘volunteer’ operators), so easy facility to ‘flap up’ one corner to walk inside, is required.

 

The train lengths are given above in “equivalent 00”, not 0; in actual 0 the train is about 6ft long. I just thought that everyone was more used to designing “train set layouts” in 00, and that if I started talking 0, people would whizz off into 6ft radius curves and all that fine-scale jazz.

[Nearholmer]

47 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

One question is whether you can tolerate such tight radii in your layout?

27” is my preferred minimum radius in Coarse-0, so equivalent to 15” in 00. I can obtain 31” radius, or 34”, too, and I actually already have a lot of 38” radius, which matches the points, but I think that’s too broad for this application. The real challenge here is that the points I use don’t match the radius of curve I think we will need.

 

There is just enough room to get a point on the straight at the apex of the end-curve if using minimum radius, so yes, that Dublo trick is allowed (encouraged, in fact).

 

As I said earlier, I don’t really like ‘scalectrix’ layouts, with two ovals as the core, and my main layout is single-track.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Yes. In fact that line of thought was what started all this whirring round in my head.

 

So, for planning purposes, imagine: there is room to set-up at home; the parts do need to be fairly easily carried through a 2ft 6in opening domestic interior door; crawling for access is not allowed (I can, but I’d worry about some potential ‘volunteer’ operators), so easy facility to ‘flap up’ one corner to walk inside, is required.

 

The train lengths are given above in “equivalent 00”, not 0; in actual 0 the train is about 6ft long. I just thought that everyone was more used to designing “train set layouts” in 00, and that if I started talking 0, people would whizz off into 6ft radius curves and all that fine-scale jazz.

Thanks - my apologies for not paying attention on coach lengths - I was thinking of shortie coarse O-scale coaches, sorry (I didn’t know how long they are ).  In terms of my ‘starter for ten’ suggestion then:

 

1.  Open grid framework.

2.  Detachable ‘swing-in’ corner section for access (a ‘roll-in’ section on castors can work well for O-Scale)

3.  Two separate overlapping single track circuits at different levels - one for passenger trains, with a commuter platform on one long side and a trailing point carriage siding on the other.

4.  Goods circuit on the other level with a couple of trailing sidings.

5.  Urban scenery - vertical retaining walls and tracks cross-crossing at different levels were normal, platforms no longer than train length and commuter stations where not every train stops are normal, as is having the carriage siding away from the actual station (it would really be to hold stock for the off-scene terminus).

6.  Hope no-one notices trains generally circle in one direction only on each circuit.

7.  May be easier to design if the passenger circuit goes on the upper level, with low level goods facilities?

8.  Single track station pilot / shunter stub siding in one corner?

 

Biggest drawback - visually works best from the inside, so less attractive at shows if viewed from the outside (though I have seen it done using lower tables and people looking down).  Assumes most rolling stock is manually swapped over.

 

Keith.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Kris]

How well do course O gauge models cope with gradients? You could try a folded figure of 8 to increase your running length. 

[Nearholmer]

Some of the electrics are good on hills, some aren’t, it depends on whether the wheels are plated, which makes them slippery, and some of the rolling stock is very draggy, having crude bearings.

Clockwork really doesn’t get on with steep gradients - the trad design for outdoor clockwork railways was to put the stations at the tops of shallow hills, which aids acceleration on starting, and tames things as the train enters and comes to a stop.

 

Running clockwork is quite different from running electric, because, with a few exceptions, the locos tend to go like a bat out of hell in the middle of a run, but have very little stamina - three times round what we are talking about here is considered respectable.

[Harlequin]

Do tracks have to cross baseboard joints at right angles?

 

What is the minimum spacing between track centres in straight sections and in curves?

 

What angle of divergence do the 22" turnouts achieve?

 

[Nearholmer]

a) ideally, but you will find that gets challenging. It is possible to go through all the “soldering to brass screws and sawing through” business to allow awkward crossings, but with three rails of hard, code 200 NS to cut, it’s anything but my favourite occupation!

 

b) 94mm in 0 in reality, call it 2” if you are planning in 00. I do my rough plans for 0 on squared paper with tracks at 100mm spacing, then am always on the winning side as I translate to reality. A crossover made from two points sets the 94mm, and the curve radii go up in 94mm increments. It is possible to go down a long way below 94mm on straights, I have bits on my main layout down to 75mm, and one could go tighter still, but it requires cunning use of curves to get to it.

 

c) 18 degrees. The real things in 0 are segments of a circle, with the outer rail at 38 (and some tiny fraction that I can’t remember) inch radius. All of the curves I use come as 18 degree segments, but I’m happy to saw bits off to make less.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

20 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

a) ideally, but you will find that gets challenging. It is possible to go through all the “soldering to brass screws and sawing through” business to allow awkward crossings, but with three rails of hard, code 200 NS to cut, it’s anything but my favourite occupation!

 

b) 94mm in 0 in reality, call it 2” if you are planning in 00. I do my rough plans for 0 on squared paper with tracks at 100mm spacing, then am always on the winning side as I translate to reality. A crossover made from two points sets the 94mm, and the curve radii go up in 94mm increments. It is possible to go down a long way below 94mm on straights, I have bits on my main layout down to 75mm, and one could go tighter still, but it requires cunning use of curves to get to it.

 

c) 18 degrees. The real things in 0 are segments of a circle, with the outer rail at 38 (and some tiny fraction that I can’t remember) inch radius. All of the curves I use come as 18 degree segments, but I’m happy to saw bits off to make less.

Is this Maldon track?

[Nearholmer]

Yes.

 

If I used Atlas, this would be a whole lot simpler!

Edited October 20, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Harlequin]

Just to see what might be possible, here's a rough version of CJF's design, "Coldean", from the "PSL book of model railway track plans":

 

 

There are lots of things that need to be checked and tweaked, including an annoying disconnection in the main station run round loop.

It would only support trains of the "tank loco, 2 coaches and a van" type - if I've scaled everything correctly.

I haven't thought about how the baseboards might work.

 

An interesting feature of this design is the Maurice Dean fiddle yard, making it great for two operators and quickly ringing the changes when putting on a show.

 

[Mopoke]

This one had me reaching for my well worn copy of CJF's "Track Plans" 2nd edition (1974 reprint) to find a plan that impressed teenage me with it's achievable simplicity and operational cleverness.

Plan P.2 which CJF explains was inspired by "early O gauge practice" features a terminus along the outside of one long side leading to a single track circuit through a station on the opposite side with a crossing loop and a long bay platform where trains terminate. All the fun of point to point operation with intermediate train crossing or just sit back and watch them roll by...

 

Cheers,

Glenn.

 

 

[Zomboid]

10 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Yes.

 

If I used Atlas, this would be a whole lot simpler!

Indeed, the Atlas track is in the Anyrail library, but Maldon is not.

 

@Harlequin has drawn pretty much what I would have had a go at anyway. Though access to that back corner needs thought if it's a room-filler.

[Nearholmer]

Many thanks gentlemen, especially to Harlequin for the drawing (I knew you wouldn’t be able to resist!).

 

If erected in the study/visitor bedroom at home, Dean FY versions with the station curved into the middle have a tendency to get too wide across the corner to be practical. With the baseboard set 750mm above the floor, I can sensibly only reach 1000mm. But, it might be possible to get a Bembridge-type terminus in, and still be able to reach across. Worth further sketching, because I do like the ‘play value’ of a terminus.

 

The dimensions of the points are:

 

 

Here’s what they look like, with a proper vintage train too.

 

 

And, finally for now, here’s a sketch of a very simple one that I made, based on a plan for an even smaller space that I did for a fellow RMWebber, but stretched a bit. It doesn’t have as much operational scope as some of the suggestions though: 

 

[Nearholmer]

 

This could be built as two large ‘pasting table’ setups for the ends, plus two ‘bridging pieces’, and, subject to checking, I think it could all pack into the car.

 

The dairy would be an up-sized tribute to the ever-popular Bilteezi factory/dairy, and the engine shed a plywood version of the Airfix one!

 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Harlequin]

Yes, Sorry, I really couldn't resist! I hope everyone else is going to have a go.

 

So another condition is that all track has to fully accessible from the operating well.

 

My turnouts are ~309mm long so I need to remake them and probably all the curved sections. (I suspect because I set the radius of the centre line rather than the outer rail.) Is there a website with the full specs for Maldon track? If I can get them right maybe I can upload a kit of parts that people can use in their own drawing programs.

 

[Nearholmer]

This is the Maldon website https://www.maldontrack.com Detailed drawings of the points are buried in an instruction PDF on the ‘track kits’ page.

 

You will see that, theoretically, other points are available, including curved ones, but Ron makes all this stuff by hand, so they work out unaffordable (to me anyway) and on long lead times.

 

Certainly if this was set-up at home, which it has to be for construction and testing, I’m afraid there would be no room round the outside (unless I put it in the sitting room, in which case ‘No flowers; donations to the NSPCC’).

[Keith Addenbrooke]

8 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Just to see what might be possible, here's a rough version of CJF's design, "Coldean", from the "PSL book of model railway track plans":

 

 

There are lots of things that need to be checked and tweaked, including an annoying disconnection in the main station run round loop.

It would only support trains of the "tank loco, 2 coaches and a van" type - if I've scaled everything correctly.

I haven't thought about how the baseboards might work.

 

An interesting feature of this design is the Maurice Dean fiddle yard, making it great for two operators and quickly ringing the changes when putting on a show.

 

My first thought on seeing this was “Wow!” - I had no idea you could get this much into the space: shows what might be possible.  My second thought though was - as @Zomboid noted above and has now been discussed - it is a very long reach into the station corner.  
 

Which led me to my third thought, if I may be permitted an aside: this design also shows the problem with CJF’s plan in 6’ x 4’ for OO: the hole in the middle was very small!  So by upscaling to O there’s room for the operator to breathe as a plus point.

 

Three thoughts in one day is probably my limit I’m afraid,  but there clearly are possibilities.

[KingEdwardII]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Here’s what they look like, with a proper vintage train too.

This takes me back to my cousins' layout, also in the early '60s. They had an 0 gauge 3-rail Hornby setup with a number of locos and plenty of rolling stock. 

 

Your Maldon track looks much more convincing than the original Hornby stuff.

 

As others have commented, it is amazing what you can fit in to the space, although I agree with you that Harlequin's Coldean probably has too much in the top left corner, making it too long of a stretch from the central well. But I think Coldean assumes access to the top edge from the outside, for the fiddle yard.

 

Your design rightly takes into account the division into moveable baseboards, simplifying the design to enable workable track joints.

 

Yours,  Mike.

[Nearholmer]

I’m supposed to be fixing up shelves this morning, and have only got one done so far, because this keeps distracting me!

 

Right, no more today after this one.

 

A quick bash at end-to-end, with roundy-round. The terminus at the top looks unfeasible, but I know it isn’t, because it’s my existing ‘Paltry Circus’.

 

I’m not sure I like this one though, because it lacks goods facilities and looks strictly for tank engines, whereas the simple one I posted earlier covers those off. And, do I really want to build a copy of a station I already built??

 

Maybe this is one for somebody else.

 

 

[Harlequin]

@Nearholmer Does this look right?

 

<Deleted image because I discovered it was wrong.>

 

(Those are the centre line radii.)

 

The Maldon site isn't exactly clear, labelling every detail as "R4". Or does "R4" refer to a track standard?

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Harlequin
Wrong information