Deliberately Old-Fashioned 0 Scale - Chapter 1

[F-UnitMad]

What wonderful, I might say 'magical' little film.  I haven't enjoyed myself so much in a long time. 

 

It had a very considerable charm, and, a level of realism, through sound, steam, snow and light, that you won't fine in a finescale system!

Charm? Yes. Realism? No, I don't agree. But Atmosphere..?? Absolutely, in bucket loads!!

[Donw]

There are different forms of Realism running trains outside with the breeze the smells and sounds of nature has a realism missing on indoor layouts. The sights and sounds and smells can take you back to days trainspotting in one's youth. A coal burning live steamer it quite different from one with an electric motor in the firebox.  A live steamer makes all sorts of water being boiled noises which you can get on the footplate of its bigger bretheren.

 

Don

[Simond]

Trouble with all this nostalgia is that it leads one down paths that would normally remain untrodden.

 

Way back in something like 1964, my Christmas present was a large brown cardboard box containing one of those transformer-controllers with a lever regulator, an extensive collection of HD 3-rail, an 0-6-2 of North Eastern appearance (not that I’d have known) a dozen or so wagons, five tinplate coaches and a Maroon Dutchess....

 

Then at Reading last Saturday...

 

 

Well, as Mrs Non-Smoker said, “it was a bargain”

 

There’s a bag of detail bits to sort the chassis out too

 

Best

Simon

Edited December 5, 2017 by Simond

[Nearholmer]

I don't know about everyone else, but one of my favourite parts of model railway magazines are the track plans, by means of which it is possible to play trains on other people's layouts.

 

So, here is the 'final' version of mine. It is roughly correct in proportions, but, as you will see, I'm no genius when it comes to quick sketches in PowerPoint while riding on a train, so there are a few 'lumps' in it! At some point I will get round to drawing it properly.

 

Those wishing to play trains should note that it is all designed around three car trains hauled by nothing larger than a 4-4-0. Bigger trains can be run, but they can't go to Paltry Circus. And, you have to imagine a wall along the back of the platform at Birlstone; there is no platform face on the curved road.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Edwardian]

I, too, like track plans in magazines, and tend to turn to them first.

 

Good to see how it all fits together.  Do the trains run from Birlstone, complete a circuit and thence into Paltry Circus?

[Nearholmer]

That's pretty much the basic service, and by using the loops, 'up' and 'down' trains can cross en-route. The number of circuits depends on mood, it's sometimes one, but it might be many.

 

Goods trains originate from some distant marshalling yard (the fiddle siding behind PC), and only serve Birlstone. The newspaper and mail train (down only) runs from PC, going back as an empty van train, but it is a bit of a nuisance, because there isn't really a good place to stable the stock. I'm thinking of adding milk-tank traffic too, which could just about be done.

 

It works best with tank engines, or Mr Holmes' Met electrics, because the release length at PC is very short, which means that a pilot is needed with tender engines.

[Northroader]

What’s the overall size, please?

[Nearholmer]

Roughly 3m x 5m, or 9ft x 16ft.

 

If you think in 00 terms, it's analogous to a typical CJF 8ft x4ft layout, using small radius point-work.

[woodenhead]

I don't know about everyone else, but one of my favourite parts of model railway magazines are the track plans, by means of which it is possible to play trains on other people's layouts.

 

So, here is the 'final' version of mine. It is roughly correct in proportions, but, as you will see, I'm no genius when it comes to quick sketches in PowerPoint while riding on a train, so there are a few 'lumps' in it! At some point I will get round to drawing it properly.

 

Those wishing to play trains should note that it is all designed around three car trains hauled by nothing larger than a 4-4-0. Bigger trains can be run, but they can't go to Paltry Circus. And, you have to imagine a wall along the back of the platform at Birlstone; there is no platform face on the curved road.

 

 

I, too, like track plans in magazines, and tend to turn to them first.

 

Good to see how it all fits together.  Do the trains run from Birlstone, complete a circuit and thence into Paltry Circus?

 

It seems to be a common interest, I am always disappointed when a layout is sans track plan and I scoop up books of track plans as I can run them in my minds eye.

[Northroader]

Mind you a CJF 8x4 would have a double track oval?

[Nearholmer]

Yes, and sometimes I regret not doing that, but overall, I think what I’ve done avoids it looking utterly cramped and utterly ‘train set’, although others would probably differ from me on that.

[Donw]

CJF wouldn't have been able to resist having a platform serving the curved road as well. A through/terminus was one of his favourites. I think it looks a good plan and with an urban setting should look quite busy despite the single track which I think will not be obvious. Tricks like extending sidings under bridges or into tunnels can give the impression of double track providing of course you ignore the fact the train looks to be running wrong road. In urban settings though some routes require just that. 3mx5m is a nice space for a layout. It looks as though I will have to make do with 11ft8in x9ft  3.55mx 2.74m in new money.

 

Don

[woodenhead]

CJF wouldn't have been able to resist having a platform serving the curved road as well. A through/terminus was one of his favourites. I think it looks a good plan and with an urban setting should look quite busy despite the single track which I think will not be obvious. Tricks like extending sidings under bridges or into tunnels can give the impression of double track providing of course you ignore the fact the train looks to be running wrong road. In urban settings though some routes require just that. 3mx5m is a nice space for a layout. It looks as though I will have to make do with 11ft8in x9ft  3.55mx 2.74m in new money.

 

Don

If you look at the original plan on page 1 it was very much a CJF style with a platform on the curved road.

[Nearholmer]

Yes, I have been through multiple iterations with this, and it still isn't totally settled. I decided on a 'through terminus', which I thought I'd invented myself, until realising that I'd subconsciously got the idea from CJF, but then realised it was going to make the layout too 'platform dominated', and hence smaller.

 

Even now, the idea isn't written-off, but neither is the idea of turning the curved road nearest the platform at Birlstone into a straight bay, and having just a single through road.

 

Views on the alternatives would be welcome. Nothing is firmly set in plywood yet, but I do want to move on to making Birlstone look a little more complete soon.

 

One thing I'm not too worried about is attempting to give the illusion of double track. There is no shame in single track, and certainly when operating on my own, I can't focus on more that one train movement at a time anyway; I'm a bear of very little brain when it comes to multi-tasking.

[Northroader]

Agreed, you go to a show with a Hornby / Lionel collectors line, multiple ovals with a train on each oval in frantic motion, which looks impressive, but in the peace and quiet of your own home having a single line which can take a train of a siding here and there to another one would give enjoyable operation, and the pointwork for the leads out of the sidings would be hell to organise in double track.

Here’s a blast from the past, what they were doing the year I was born, slightly bigger than yours. Would you want to do it? Don’t think so.

[Nearholmer]

Those 'quart in a pint pot' layout ideas always seemed to have gradients, on fairly tight curves, that stretched the limits of practicality.

 

That one has a climb of 1.5" in about 48" at the to right, and climbs 5" in about 15', so, once allowance is made for transitions, was probably based on a ruling gradient of c1:30, with 36" radius curves, which might just about be OK, but might lead to a lot of heartache, or the need to operate at 'bonkers' speeds to make use of momentum.

 

My feeling is that 'could' and 'should' are very different things when it comes to gradients less than about 1:60; I'm a 'layout conservative' on that score. Try coupling-up in that daft little terminus at tom RHS!

 

And, the reach from the operating we'll to the far corner is about 5ft, which isn't too clever.

 

Mr Twining made exceedingly good stained-glass windows, and locomotives, and a host of other wonders, but as a layout designer ......... hmmm. Oddly enough, Greenly didn't design very good layouts either. I've got a little book by him on the topic, and it is great on high-level theory, but very weak on practical designs. The best 'ancient' ones were entries to competitions in the MRN.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Nearholmer

[St Enodoc]

Those 'quart in a pint pot' layout ideas always seemed to have gradients, on fairly tight curves, that stretched the limits of practicality.

 

That one has a climb of 1.5" in about 48" at the to right, and climbs 5" in about 15', so, once allowance is made for transitions, was probably based on a ruling gradient of c1:30, with 36" radius curves, which might just about be OK, but might lead to a lot of heartache, or the need to operate at 'bonkers' speeds to make use of momentum.

 

My feeling is that 'could' and 'should' are very different things when it comes to gradients less than about 1:60; I'm a 'layout conservative' on that score.

 

And, the reach from the operating we'll to the far corner is about 5ft, which isn't too clever.

 

Mr Twining made exceedingly good stained-glass windows, and locomotives, and a host of other wonders, but as a layout designer ......... hmmm.

I was thinking the same Kevin. The worst place seems to be on the left where the connection to the goods shed and loco depot seems to be quite impracticable.

[Nearholmer]

To further debate on what exactly I ought to do at Birlstone, a snap of the area, taken during a visit to load the tumble dryer.

 

Thoughts?

[boxerbayrailway]

I like your plan.  Nothing wrong with single track,  in fact I find them more interesting to operate.  My railway is  9.5 x 14 ft.  I find it a nice size and I doubt I'd 

want anything larger,  even if I had the money and space,  there is never enough time.  Plus when you start getting too big,  then space tends to be wasted.

 

When I was a kid I'd love to look through all the magazine layout articles and go straight to the track plan / diagram to see what the builder's idea for his railway was,  I still

find this to be the case.  I've gotten more then a few good tips from looking at other modellers plans.

 

Felix

[Donw]

To further debate on what exactly I ought to do at Birlstone, a snap of the area, taken during a visit to load the tumble dryer.

 

Thoughts?

 I think a wider platform with a face of the through curving track could work nicely room for a station building in the corner too. I could see a train leaving Paltry Circus run a lap or two before stopping at the curving platform then another lap or two before pulling into the terminal road.

 

Don

[woodenhead]

Would the curve compromise a platform?

[Nearholmer]

A platform on the curve would need generous clearances, to avoid it getting whacked by long coaches, but since it would be on the side hidden from view by the train, the big gaps that will result shouldn't cause offence - what they eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over!

 

Mr Holmes has also been strongly advocating the platform on the curve, and he has a very long record of being right in everything he says, so.......

 

Any further opinions?

[St Enodoc]

A platform on the curve would need generous clearances, to avoid it getting whacked by long coaches, but since it would be on the side hidden from view by the train, the big gaps that will result shouldn't cause offence - what they eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over!

 

Mr Holmes has also been strongly advocating the platform on the curve, and he has a very long record of being right in everything he says, so.......

 

Any further opinions?

I think it's worth a try. Mock it up first. If you do it, it would be a good throwback to CJF.

[Edwardian]

I also like the idea of giving a curved platform a go.

 

I also agree re gradients.  I am a little reluctant to consider the complexities of linked multiple levels, and have no wish to strain the motors of my models. That said, split level layouts can add visual and operational interest, but I don't think I'd want anything steeper than 1 in 80 on a layout of mine.

[Stephen 28]

A platform on the curve would need generous clearances, to avoid it getting whacked by long coaches, but since it would be on the side hidden from view by the train, the big gaps that will result shouldn't cause offence - what they eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over!

Mr Holmes has also been strongly advocating the platform on the curve, and he has a very long record of being right in everything he says, so.......

Any further opinions?

Rather than a curved platform, what about a straight one serving the inside line only, positioned roughly where the name "Birlstone" appears on your plan? This could either link to the main platform via a footbridge (appeals visually) or be treated as a separate station entirely - anything from a sort of Waterloo East/Kings Cross Thameslink to a Crewe counterpoint to Birlstone's Euston?