Cambrian and GWR 0 Gauge layout -Revised Plans

[Stubby47]

You could reduce your incline gradient by having your main line set at a height half way between the terminus track height and the line that passes under the terminus, so you'd two get gentler slopes rather than one steep one.

[Donw]

You could reduce your incline gradient by having your main line set at a height half way between the terminus track height and the line that passes under the terminus, so you'd two get gentler slopes rather than one steep one.

Makes sense Stu but at 1:48 to obtain 6in clearance takes 24ft, splitting it still needs 12ft  so it would be quite tight. However your ealier comments have pointed to a way to avoid the problem I think.

 

The other thing which is just personal preference is that the GWR line would be comming over the mountains the Cambrian line would be comming from the coast so to have the GWr line going down and the Cambrian climbing would feel wrong.

 

Don

[Donw]

Well I have had a bit of a ponder and come up with a couple of plans. I have added a scale bar between them as I realised I have no idea at what size you would view them. Having drawn them by hand on A3 paper I then took a photo as the scanner is not accessible at the moment.

 

 

Comment are welcome

Don

 

 

[Isambard Kingdom Brunel]

Hi if you are interested in Welsh Railways please express an interest at

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/80056-special-interest-group-railways-in-wales/&do=findComment&comment=1272387

 

Thanks

[Stubby47]

Don,

 

What about moving the 4 road FY to the end of the layout and replacing  it with an on-scene factory ?

 

Stu

 

 

[Donw]

Thank you Stu you seem to be able to think of things I haven't.

Don

[daifly]

What about moving the 4 road FY to the end of the layout and replacing it with an on-scene factory ?

 

It looks OK on paper but first measure the distance into the FY corners and then measure your 'reach'. I suspect that you'll find it a struggle to get close enough to be able to uncouple or re-rail something that's 4ft or more away from you.

Dave

Edited December 24, 2013 by daifly

[3 link]

One thing that has not been discussed up to now ( I think ), is the size of a 7mm turnout. It is very important to take these sizes into consideration especially any that are being laid on a curved section of line, they will take up a lot of space, believe me I've been there.

 

Martyn.

[Donw]

Guilty as charged Paul. I have been a bit lax in drawing the turnouts. For the yard I find 1:5.5 turnouts work ok and I will use straight switches which are a little shorter, a 12ft 1:5.5 has a lead about 6ft 4in less than a GW B6 so saving about 45mm. For the crossover 12ft 1:6 will only save about half that. In practice the FY yard the curve would be rather tight but I do not think I will adopt the idea because I would prefer to have a reasonable bit of mainline between the station and the FY.

Don

[ChrisN]

Don,

I ike the bottom pan with the Stu variant.  The reason being is that it gives two turntabes and there seems to be more track.  I know 'less is more' but maybe not in this case. 

 

I would consider the comments though about reach as 4ft is too far.  This would give the top one an advantage although personnally I am not a fan of cassettes.

 

How close is the track to the walls?  Is it too close for clearance or is it the way you have drawn it?

 

On the top plan is that a diamond crossing just outside the station?  If so how will you mask it to obscure the cassette?

[Simond]

Don,

 

Couple of thoughts

 

Reaching over corners - you could move your t/t and have a gap behind the backscene into which you can "duck under" - not something you'd want to do very frequently, but certainly a possibility. Whether you'd be able to get the t/t in somewhere else, I'm not sure.

 

Curved turnouts - I have been doing some planning for the loco shed for Porth Dinllaen, and I started in my usual TurboCad, doing board outlines, etc., then went over to Templot to do the track plan in detail. This rather surprised me - curved turnouts take up much more space than I expected, but I guess you would still save space by using them - my problem was to keep a minimum radius that my 2-8-0's & 4-6-0's will go round - about 1800mm. I'd really recommend Templot - it is not easy to learn, indeed, it can be downright frustrating at times - but once you get your head around it, I think it will allow you make your errors "virtually", which is considerably cheaper and less frustrating than finding that your layout doesn't work when you've spent time & money on it. And it's now a free download...

 

I like the through station in your upper plan, but the lower plan, as modified by Stu, does offer the opportunity to do terminus to fy via through station all on one level. I think you have enough length in the upper plan in order to be able to get the height difference you would need to cross one line over/under the other.

 

Hope it helps

Merry Christmas

SD

[Donw]

Thanks for your comments Chris

 

Yes I would have liked two turntables at least probably three as one in the FY is useful to avoid handling stock (could be avoided with separate loco cassettes )

 

I suggested cassettes for the top plan as I didn't think there was enough room for a traverser or turnouts for a fan of sidings. The same may be true for the sidings suggested by Stu.

 

Most of the places were the track is shown close to the walls are areas with no scenery. Elsewhere it may be a bit tight minimal scenery may be necessary to avoid reducing the radius

 

The intention was to use a road bridge to hide the fact that the tracks cross in the diamond as they are supposed to be miles apart. If I didn't use the diamond the space for the cassettes would be too short.

 

Don

[Stubby47]

Don,

Do you have enough length in the track running over the stairs to drop a second line to a lower level, so you can have hidden sidings under the south station ?

Edited December 26, 2013 by Stubby47

[Donw]

Don,

Do you have enough length in the track running over the stairs to drop a second line to a lower level, so you can have hidden sidings under the south station ?

If the line came off back where the entrance to the fy was intended then it could drop down under the other and round to sidings under the station. It would reduced the headroom under the landing and I am not sure how easy if would be to access the FY with a station over the top.

Don

[Stubby47]

I guess access requirements depend on whether they are just hidden sidings or a stock exchange area. Would a traverser extending out from under the station be a better choice ?

[Donw]

Yes Stu if I made a traverser that could be pulled right out so that I could either swap or place the engine onto the other end and possibly swap remove or add loads to the goods it would work. I did think about one of those traversers that could also be rotated but I think for the length I want it would be too tight with the baseboards the other side. Something to think about.

Don

[Stubby47]

Don't forget a rotating traverser would be lower than the baseboards on the other side, so could be designed to swing underneath.

 

Also, taking a leaf from Ron Hegg's layout, the traverser could be mounted on a four-wheel trolley, which would help with rotating and could provide extra storage.

Stu

[ChrisN]

Thanks for your comments Chris

 

Yes I would have liked two turntables at least probably three as one in the FY is useful to avoid handling stock (could be avoided with separate loco cassettes )

 

I suggested cassettes for the top plan as I didn't think there was enough room for a traverser or turnouts for a fan of sidings. The same may be true for the sidings suggested by Stu.

 

Most of the places were the track is shown close to the walls are areas with no scenery. Elsewhere it may be a bit tight minimal scenery may be necessary to avoid reducing the radius

 

The intention was to use a road bridge to hide the fact that the tracks cross in the diamond as they are supposed to be miles apart. If I didn't use the diamond the space for the cassettes would be too short.

 

Don

 

Don,

Sounds good and you have obviously thought it through.  As you are asking for comments I like to ask the obvious as sometimes it is so obvious we all miss it.

 

I found out last night reading my Christmas present of a New History of the Cambrian Railway that the GWR had running powers from Dolgelley to Barmouth which they never exercised.  You probably knew this but it does if history is being massaged allow GWR engines along the line to the Cambrian Station.

[Donw]

Don,

Sounds good and you have obviously thought it through.  As you are asking for comments I like to ask the obvious as sometimes it is so obvious we all miss it.

 

I found out last night reading my Christmas present of a New History of the Cambrian Railway that the GWR had running powers from Dolgelley to Barmouth which they never exercised.  You probably knew this but it does if history is being massaged allow GWR engines along the line to the Cambrian Station.

I was aware of the possible running powers. I believe there was a clause in the act to allow the GWR to invoke the running powers if the Cambrian could not cope with the traffic so the Cambrian made sure it did. I felt it would be more interesting to change the engines when operating properly but wanted a continous run when I just wanted to watch a train run.

Don

[Donw]

Rescuing my books from a somewhat damp garage (roof leaks in heavy rain and water flowed through when the stream overflowed) and checking they were ok (not all the mags though) I looked in the Wild Swan Coast lines 1 &2 . I realised that at one time at Dolgelly there was a middle crossover at the platform ends while the loop carried further on which I don't think I will be able to fit it without it looking cramped. It may affect the signalling diagram.

Looking at volume one I glanced at the track diagram for Aberystwyth and had a thought if I decided the end curves would be too tight I could have a terminus to fiddle yard down the 30ft length. The GWR side of Aber was rather restricted prior to the grouping. However just supposing the GW had got to Barmouth first or perhaps to Portmaddoc  and built a terminus which was then used by the Cambrian trains with a reversal to carry on down the coast. Could be interesting but I would lose the countimous run.

Don

[ChrisN]

I was aware of the possible running powers. I believe there was a clause in the act to allow the GWR to invoke the running powers if the Cambrian could not cope with the traffic so the Cambrian made sure it did. I felt it would be more interesting to change the engines when operating properly but wanted a continous run when I just wanted to watch a train run.

Don

 

Don,

Yes, I seem to remember now you saying that earlier in the thread but I had forgotten.  I think you are right about changing engines as it will certainly add to the operational interest.  I think watching trains just run is also good as I am sure I would be frustrated with an end to end, station to Fiddle yard.

 

The running powers would help me run GWR trains into Traeth Mawr which is the next station up from Barmouth, (you have to look very closely at the map to see it), although not sure about that yet.  At the start GWR locos may be all I have.

Edited December 28, 2013 by ChrisN

[Andrew P]

Hi Don, just popped in again for another update, you seem to have lots of very good ideas coming together.

 

All the best for 2014.

Andy.

[David Siddall]

Much as the drawing of plans is an enjoyable part of our hobby I have found that ultimately it's about getting something (even if its paper templates) onto a baseboard to see if it looks and feels right. For me, two-dimensional plans don't really take into account three-dimensional proportions and whether something's pleasing on the eye.

 

I can't help thinking, bearing in mind this is 7mm scale, that reducing the trackwork by about 50% would still produce a totally rewarding layout in the space available. It would also give trains time to travel from A to B and allow you to incorporate some scenery. Just a thought...

 

D

 

PS: 'East Dean' gets the balance pretty well spot on IMO

[daifly]

Much as the drawing of plans is an enjoyable part of our hobby I have found that ultimately it's about getting something (even if its paper templates) onto a baseboard to see if it looks and feels right. For me, two-dimensional plans don't really take into account three-dimensional proportions and whether something's pleasing on the eye.

David

 

That's exactly why my proposed layout Aldbourne is stalled at the moment. Having created and printed the plan at full size in Templot, I found that what seemed like a good idea on a sheet of A4 was not what I wanted when expanded to 12' x 3'. I find myself removing track to allow more space for scenic work to give a sense of place and of why the railway was there at all.

 

Less is certainly more. East Dean, Penhydd and others all illustrate that so well.

 

Dave

[Donw]

Laying track is not practical yet. They have finished the skirting etc now so the next task will be the decorating getting a mist coat on the plastered walls. I have been trying to get some feel for it. I don't think I could reasonably reduce the through station nor the terminus. I think the only way to simplify it would be to have only one station. If I retain the through station then the fiddle yard will be bigger and I doubt I will get much more senic bits. I could go for a terminus to FY.

Don