Jump to content

4ft x 6ft 00 Designs


Recommended Posts

The radii look right. TBH, I’d never noticed that there were ‘R’ numbers; as you’ll see on my sketches, I personally refer to them by the radius in inches, and my sketch plans always ‘over allow’, assigning track spacing at 100mm, length of a point 300mm etc, so that as I transfer to full size I always get nice surprises not nasty ones. I sketched ‘Paltry Circus’ to allow running around two coaches and a 4W/6W van, but in practice it permits running around of three coaches, for instance.

 

The Maldon website is ‘hand-crafted’, like the track. When I first got interested in this track, I drew-up some sketches, then went to see Ron to get a proper understanding of everything, before moving to detailed, scaled, designs, ordering, some of the assembly, and installation. Oh, and then, within two years, I changed every part of the track layout in the light of experience …….. it’s interesting how small tweaks to layouts can make a world of difference to operation, and I think I’d find going back to “set it hard in granite chipping and PVA” too restrictive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maldon track does now appear on Anyrail (it may need an update to appear).  I've only had a bit of time this afternoon, but I wanted to have a go at answering the question and got this far:

 

1593802970_CoarseOScale2.jpg.0f5ba1a058311fd148ad3f78dcbe7a4c.jpg

 

All curves are R1 unless stated, and straights are 18" or 36" unless stated (I cheated and 'drew' them from Atlas 40" lengths of flex track).  The plan is very loosely based on a simple test circuit in a shed from CJF's Small Plans, with the addition of a goods loop for shunting the sidings (while a clockwork train uses the main line?).  I've kept it simpler than my initial written suggestion for easier portability - deciding where baseboard joints go won't be too difficult.  It won't be the most exciting suggestion and only has one station of course, but tries to offer just a little bit more than a single circuit without becoming a twin-track race track.  This track isn't cheap, so a budget layout like this is still going to be quite an investment.  Interesting exercise,  Keith.

 

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating!
 

CAD and retro-0 seem things from different planets to me; I even worry about working in millimetres, using decimal scales,  but I get utterly confused if I try to use retro-British units and scales.

 

Cost? A serious issue. I could re-use the points that are currently on my study micro-terminus photo-plank, and I think I have one spare in stock, and could take one siding out of the main layout, which might yield sufficient for modest designs. I have plenty of straight rail and sleepers in stock, having bought a big lot NOS when a shop in Manchester closed down, so the pinch-point is curves, and I’m already thinking about ways to raise funds for those.

 

Maldon track is track for life, but you have to save-up for most of that life to afford it!

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

13 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

something like this ought to be possible...

Very good. I wonder if a couple of changes would add some operational interest:

 

Tweak the station on the lower side to have:

- an island platform on two through tracks on the outer side,

- lose the innermost platform and convert the innermost loop into a couple of terminating sidings to have some freight activity there

 

Yours, Mike.

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s very entertaining, and it does just fit.

 

My rough calculation of width, erring on the safe side, is:  (2x points = 24”) + (54” diameter) + (platform width including clearance from gauge face, say 3.75”) + (clearance from baseboard edge, say 2”) = 83.75”.

 

The terminus runaround is a bit tight, but this one definitely merits further examination.

 

Did you have to squeeze the flexitrack down below 27” radius anywhere, or was it simply that you used flexi because CAD won’t let you cut straight track to length?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Did you have to squeeze the flexitrack down below 27” radius anywhere, or was it simply that you used flexi because CAD won’t let you cut straight track to length?

All the curves are sectional track. Some of the flex might have a slight wiggle because of misalignments, but only to shift things across by 1cm or so. They're mostly because the sectional straights can't be cut in anyrail.

 

The terminus run round ought to work for 2+van, and anything longer can get a fresh loco on the back. You could cut the run round headshunt down for smaller locos only.

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

Two threads seem to be running through the discussion, probably due to the original premise of enlarging a 00 6x4 - namely that the baseboards end up too wide and the operating well ends up too small.

 

Nevertheless, I thought I'd go back to the old days and I've found two plans that might work. These both appeared in Peco plan books so I can't show them here but if you have copies of these you'll find them easily enough.

 

The first is plan 8 in "60 Plans for Small Railways", first edition (August 1958). This was designed by John Ahern and consists of an oval with two opposing termini on the long sides of the layout, both inside the oval. This is too tight for an operating well in 00 but there would be room in 0.

 

The second is plan P2 in "Track Plans", first edition (August 1964) and is a CJF design. This is also an oval but with a terminus outside the loop on one long side and a passing station that includes a reversing bay on the other. It is designed to be built on four 4x1 boards so in 0 gauge there would be a maximum reach across the corners of about 30" and the operating well would be 7' x 3'6".

 

Of course, these are not modern-style plans but that's the whole idea, isn't it?

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

54 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Of course, these are not modern-style plans


Well, that’s a relief!

 

I’ll look those up later - my old editions are squirrelled away. I vaguely recall how good the Ahern one is (many of the rest in that first edition are not much good, frankly), but I think it might use points of tighter equivalent radius than the ones I have access to.

 

I do have the recent/current edition of “60 Plans” (9th Impression, 2014) to hand, and anyone else who has it might want to

look at SP3 and wonder. It has full CJF typical. Upper level terminus, plus continuous run, with return loop, all in 4x6 in 00. The connecting gradient must be about 1:20, partly on c14” radius. It looks great fun, but I’m not convinced it would actually work: if I had money to burn, I’d buy Atlas track and build it in 0, just to find out!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I think it might use points of tighter equivalent radius than the ones I have access to.

I've just looked at the Ahern plan again and the original is 6'6" x 4', so perhaps not quite as good as I thought.

 

Scaling from the plan suggests that the minimum curve radius is 18" so the points could well be the same.

 

Although many plans appeared in subsequent editions, sometimes modified, this particular one didn't.

 

19 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I do have the recent/current edition of “60 Plans” (9th Impression, 2014) to hand, and anyone else who has it might want to

look at SP3 and wonder.

...and it's actually all in 6' x 3'3"!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, a simplification of Zomboid’s excellent concept, which I think would have ‘more room to breathe’, and can be made to respect simple baseboard dimensions. I’m pretty sure that  ‘on the board’ I could fiddle it to allow three coaches (400mm over head stocks) to be run-around by my largest tank engine, but only trying it full-size will prove whether end-swings and things work. It might also be possible to fiddle in more siding accommodation by using a Y point, but again, that’s a thing to try full-size.

 

I messed the sketch up, so you need to mentally shift the lower station 200mm due south.

 

 

C395C472-FC33-428C-BD95-25447304B7AE.jpeg
 

And, a further variation, flipped.

 

08885C3C-A728-4B85-9866-AEB96C916278.jpeg.dbe13908159c0f3623d152d62f4da5ef.jpeg

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/10/2021 at 18:30, Nearholmer said:

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.

 

 

The Central Line did the same thing!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/10/2021 at 12:59, Nearholmer said:

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.

 

That sounds Super-4 or earlier-ish but I suppose that's the equivalent 00 vibe.

 

Could you do something Ffarquar-like, as @Nile has been doing in 009, in 3 ft x 2 ft or thereabouts? End-to-end and continuous run:

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d love to do Dean/Ffarquhar, but it gets really awkward with reaching distances, as discussed further back up thread. It also looks pretty challenging in terms of the jigsaw-puzzle pieces of baseboard, both storing them and transporting them - things pretty quickly get big and unwieldy in 0 if you’re not careful.

 

Im not saying ‘no’ to anything at this stage, but the simpler ones are, well, simpler.

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

How about a version of ‘Bredon’? I believe there’s a setrack  version in one of the latest Peco plans 

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

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

And, a further variation, flipped.

 

08885C3C-A728-4B85-9866-AEB96C916278.jpeg.dbe13908159c0f3623d152d62f4da5ef.jpeg

 

I think @Zomboid's scheme requires some choices to be made.  In this version it looks like a good set up for passenger operation and loco capacity is also generous, but as I read it there is only a single goods siding at the through station, which will hold the goods train between runs but not much more.  That sounds like it might be better suited to the running characteristics of some of the locos (can you shunt at all with clockwork?) but it does mean freight operation is token only.

 

The other version is better suited to one goods plus one passenger train, but has less loco and carriage capacity.  You pays yer money ect ect*

 

*as any fule kno

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

OK, a simplification of Zomboid’s excellent concept, which I think would have ‘more room to breathe’,

Looks much better with less track. Though obviously less shunting to be done as a result.

 

(I may find myself with the option of an 8x6 shed in the not too distant future, into which something like that in HO might be fun)

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

You pays yer money ect ect*


Very true.

 

The most recent version I’ve shown would work very well for meetings/exhibitions, where having a couple of rakes of coaches, and the ability to swap between perhaps as many as six locos is a winning formula - plenty of movement and lots of shiny things to look at. At home, having more shunting opportunities is better. 
 

There is only about one design of clockwork loco that you can shunt really effectively with: the Walker-Fenn. I do have one, but the bad news is that it has seriously old-fashioned wheel-sets, with a b-t-b not much more than an inch, and absolutely ginormous flanges, and won’t run through my pointwork! So, I shunt electric.

 

 

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

2 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The most recent version I’ve shown would work very well for meetings/exhibitions, where having a couple of rakes of coaches, and the ability to swap between perhaps as many as six locos is a winning formula - plenty of movement and lots of shiny things to look at.

 

But that sounds like a call for a double oval with two or three trailing sidings off each line - the sort of thing one sees on Gauge 1 live steam demo layouts at exhibitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody else can do that, in fact many people already do, usually as ‘loose lay’ using tinplate track.

 

Its just struck me that by removing the loco shed, and replacing it with a goods shed, the problem is largely solved, so the thing to do is have one of each, and swap them at will.

 

Likewise the island station could be removed and the single platform wayside station that I have, and some more ‘goods ’ set-dressing substituted.

 

Things don’t have to be screwed or glued in place on Coarse-0.

 

We haven’t had many pictures, so here’s a nice Gauge 1 island station - this is the sort of thing that we’d need here.

 

 

 

 

F439E031-AE77-4DC7-B89D-4AD97DDACEF8.jpeg
 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'Sherwood Section' was completely clockwork, and included shunting, multiple stations etc. Whilst it was of course in a much larger area, it shows that with care, clockwork doesn't just have to be 'round and round until the spring winds down'....

 

I believe the majority of mechanisms used on Sherwood were Meccano. Of course, Sherwood was 30-50 years ago and I daresay that even if the exact same locos (if they survived) were to be used now, they would not perform as well now as they did then owing to the ravages of time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the Sherwood locos had Walker-Fenn or Walker-Fenn-like governors fitted to them, although I don’t know specifically about the shunters, one of which was a little Bonzone Peckett, which I doubt you could fit a governor into.

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 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...