Deliberately Old-Fashioned 0 Scale - Chapter 1

[St Enodoc]

5 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Here are most of the key parts of what was Birlstone, and the main circuit:

 

Paltry Circus is snugly crated-up and in repose for the foreseeable.

 

Baseboards for the new, smaller layout should start their journey south from Yorkshire tomorrow.

 

“The old order changeth, yielding place to new, 

And God fulfils Himself in many ways, 

Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.”

Nice vintage Golden Virginia tin.

[Hroth]

6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Nice vintage Golden Virginia tin.

All the Golden Virginia tins I have are rusty from fulfilling their intended use as containers for nuts and bolts, etc, in the garage or on the boat...

[Ben B]

20 minutes ago, Hroth said:

All the Golden Virginia tins I have are rusty from fulfilling their intended use as containers for nuts and bolts, etc, in the garage or on the boat...

 

As a former DT Technician, I hold with the theory that it isn't a proper workshop unless there's a -slightly rusting- vintage tin of random screws, nuts, and bolts on a shelf somewhere

[Nearholmer]

Agree, but that tin contains nothing random. It contains all the expensive brass screws that are used to hold the track in place, and the red tin contains all the expensive nickel-silver rail-joiners.

 

The room does contain many other random collections housed in jam jars, plastic pots, other old baccy tins etc, though, which should reassure readers.

[Hroth]

Ah! Jam jars...

 

Mine contain sorted loose change. They're getting to the point where I will have to start making multiple journeys to the bank to cash them in. Especially the ones containing "coppers"...

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

When I was an apprentice (a long time ago in time, space and career choice) our first task was to build our own tin box - the hinge being the real challenge of course.  Still have mine, in the garage containing a supply of spare fuses and other bits and pieces, some inherited from my grandfather.

The tin has fared quite well, but some of the contents are now quite rusted!

[Nearholmer]

Those things survive, don’t they?

My best small hacksaw is a needlessly complex one made when I was a trainee, and I have a brass square (filing bevelled edges), a screwdriver now adapted to remove Bassett-Lowke wheel nuts (parallel turning and knurling), tap holder and die Stock (taper turning, turning on two axes, and milling), copper pot (not sure what skill that tested), and multiple other things. Sadly, the electric motor, and various electronic controllers, that we also had to make are long lost.

 

All good experience, but none of it taught me the thing that I lack, and which makes for a true craftsman: patience. Hence, I’ve always been fairly quick, and fairly slapdash, when it comes to handiwork, and was always as much a project manager as an engineer.

[Nearholmer]

Every cloud has a silver lining, and the silver lining of the vast number of clouds, seemingly perpetual gales, and not insignificant amount of rain over the past two weeks is that I’ve used odd hours to progress the new layout, when in better weather I’d have been out cycling.

 

 

I’m at the “apparent chaos” stage, but underneath the chaos, have varnished the sides and painted the tops of the boards, and fitted the necessary hinges, so am actually on the brink of being ready to start laying track. There will probably now be a pause for other business, but I might loose lay the track to check a few things on Friday, if I get a couple of hours.

 

 

[F-UnitMad]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

I’m at the “apparent chaos” stage,

There are other stages? That's the only one I'm ever at!! 

 

In fact there's nothing 'apparent' about it, in my case!! 

[Hroth]

On 16/02/2022 at 10:41, Nearholmer said:

Those things survive, don’t they?

My best small hacksaw is a needlessly complex one made when I was a trainee, and I have a brass square (filing bevelled edges), a screwdriver now adapted to remove Bassett-Lowke wheel nuts (parallel turning and knurling), tap holder and die Stock (taper turning, turning on two axes, and milling), copper pot (not sure what skill that tested), and multiple other things. Sadly, the electric motor, and various electronic controllers, that we also had to make are long lost.

 

All good experience, but none of it taught me the thing that I lack, and which makes for a true craftsman: patience. Hence, I’ve always been fairly quick, and fairly slapdash, when it comes to handiwork, and was always as much a project manager as an engineer.

 

Before my "career trajectory" took me in a completely different direction, I did O level Workshop Theory and Practice (aka Metalwork) at school. I still have pieces that I made, including screwdrivers, engineers clamps and a small adjustable spanner. I still use the screwdrivers on occasion, the others are a bit clunky.... However, the subject is one that I recall with a great deal of affection.

 

Nice to see the baseboard chaos resolving into order!

 

[Nearholmer]

I promised a bit of mockery today, so here it is.

 

Track is simply plonked down, no fishplates, just to check for gross problems, and to work out where on the layout to start laying track, which is possibly a question unique to this format.

 

From outside, it looks what it is, a really tiny layout, but from inside it feels as if it’s going to work a treat.

 

The other thing this has practised is “set-up and break-down”, which is important given that it is going to live in a shared-use room. With a bit of practise, I reckon no more than half an hour to do one or the other, and do-able without causing myself back strain.

 

A further test will be to see how (whether!) it fits in the car OK. I foresee some ingenuity being necessary!

 

 

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I promised a bit of mockery today, so here it is.

 

Track is simply plonked down, no fishplates, just to check for gross problems, and to work out where on the layout to start laying track, which is possibly a question unique to this format.

 

From outside, it looks what it is, a really tiny layout, but from inside it feels as if it’s going to work a treat.

 

The other thing this has practised is “set-up and break-down”, which is important given that it is going to live in a shared-use room. With a bit of practise, I reckon no more than half an hour to do one or the other, and do-able without causing myself back strain.

 

A further test will be to see how (whether!) it fits in the car OK. I foresee some ingenuity being necessary!

 

 

Proper job train set.

[Streamliner]

18 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I promised a bit of mockery today, so here it is.

 

Track is simply plonked down, no fishplates, just to check for gross problems, and to work out where on the layout to start laying track, which is possibly a question unique to this format.

 

From outside, it looks what it is, a really tiny layout, but from inside it feels as if it’s going to work a treat.

 

The other thing this has practised is “set-up and break-down”, which is important given that it is going to live in a shared-use room. With a bit of practise, I reckon no more than half an hour to do one or the other, and do-able without causing myself back strain.

 

A further test will be to see how (whether!) it fits in the car OK. I foresee some ingenuity being necessary!

 

 

Watching with interest as I am thinking of creating something similar, but a more modular layout (thinking on the lines of the demonstration track used for the Leeds Stedman trust). Can I ask what overall dimensions you are working to and what size did you limit each section to?

Do you plan to incorporate/add any buildings or structures?

Thanks

[Nearholmer]

Hello,

 

overall this is 2.1m x 3.0m, made from four end sections each 1.05m x 0.75m, and two side sections each 1.5m x 0.45m.

 

The overall size is dictated by the space available in the room, and is frankly very small, forcing the use of very tight (27” radius) curves.

 

Yes, there will be “scenic development” in the old-fashioned style.

 

The big issue for portable layouts in 0, whether that be coarse, fine, or super-fine, is that either the jigsaw puzzle pieces get uncomfortably large, or the puzzle has oodles of pieces, and oodles of tracks crossing joints. Once you get beyond a small terminus to fiddle-yard setup, it all gets rather chunky!

 

Question 1: have you got a team of hearty mates to help lug the layout about, or is it going to be mostly you doing the schlepping? That makes a huge difference.

Question 2: are you looking to create a layout with operational interest (play value!) or a test/demonstration circuit? That choice tends to dictate the complexity of the challenge, ‘scalextric tracks’ being a lot simpler.

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Streamliner]

Thank you,

Answer 1. It really needs to be sections that are manageable for one, so that will probably dictate section sizes. It also means if more than one then it can be put together a lot quicker.

 

Answer 2. Primarily somewhere to run some trains, so more of a demonstration/test track. Initial outline would be a fairly simple double oval, with some additional storage sidings. So I could take over a room for running for the day or even the weekend. There needs to be some play value but as you say it really needs to be kept fairly simple.

 

I am still at the contemplating stage, thinking of starting with 6 primary sections (like you have chosen, however that may need to be 8 given the increased radius) using peco set track and with the ability to add more (4 additional) sections later to increase the size and fill a larger space on occasion. 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Streamliner
Updated

[Nearholmer]

Are you going to be running coarse-scale trains? If so, the ordinary 0 gauge Peco set-track may not be suitable, certainly the points won’t. Peco SM32 is compatible with most coarse-0 though, and I think the set-track curves for that are 30” radius.

 

Regarding module sizes, I would say that the sizes I’ve used, or the classic 1.2m x 0.6m, are about the largest/heaviest that are reasonable to carry about, and would ideally go smaller and lighter, but that tends to result in oodles of sections in 0. If I was building for 00, I would limit to 1m x 0.5m, which is a really, truly easy to handle size. A bit depends on construction method; the truly trad ones on my old layout included two 1.2m x 0.6m, which were as heavy as lead, being made on frames of very dense 3.5” x 1” (finished size) timber ….….. I think I was feeling very retro when I chose to do it that way! They’ve gone to a new home, and unless the guy parks an aircraft carrier on them, they should last forever.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Streamliner]

I run predominantly 2 rail, with the majority of my rolling stock being finescale (or classic stock that has been re-wheeled to 2 rail finescale) however I also have a good selection of unaltered modern coarse scale locos.

 

The coarse scale locos I have all seem to run fine on my peco test track, as the more modern (ie Ace Trains, Seven Mill and Bassett Lowke) wheels standards are finer these days, so do not foul the track.

Obviously (as you say) points are a different matter and will have to be altered, so that they can cope with either or both modern coarse and finescale locos. I could also limit the use of points if I have to on some sections (eg inner or outer run).

 

Set track is 40" radius, although I am not yet 'set' on that, as I'm fairly sure some of my locos will struggle or need nearer a minimum of 50" radius (possibly even more) and I don't wish to limit (or have to alter) too many of my locos. Clearly I need to check the minimum needed for all my locos, so that I fully understand what limitations/restrictions there are there and how many affected (at 40", 50" or 60" radius) and I accept a few may not be suitable. I will use the set track I have now to initially identify these issues/locos before investigating them further.

 

I also need to check the car space (did you consider this?) as it would be nice to have the capability show a modular layout and such a shame not to be able to do that easily.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Streamliner
Correction

[Nearholmer]

22 minutes ago, Streamliner said:

Obviously (as you say) points are a different matter and will have to be altered, so that they can cope with either or both modern coarse and finescale locos. I could also limit the use of points if I have to on some sections (eg inner or outer run).

The only dependable way to create universal points, able to properly accept both coarse and fine wheels, is to make them yourself, I’m afraid, since nobody makes them commercially. I have seen a few people do it, and they both look and run well. Some users have got away with taking the check-rails off of modern Peco 0 gauge points to admit modern coarse scale wheels, but I cannot believe that it results in smooth running, and must flirt with the probability of derailments at facing points.

 

Did I consider car transport? Yes, but it’s going to be a glove-tight fit to get the layout, some trains, and me into the car, unless I borrow my good lady’s “family bus”.

 

 

[Streamliner]

Good point... Ref layout, stock and driver in one car... Lmao, yes always gonna be a tight fit! Some planning and ingenuity required there.

 

I will need to research points and see how others may have achieved it. I would prefer to just modify rtr points rather than build, so I will use an old one to see if it's achievable.

 

How are you planning to set up to get the required height? Don't really want lots of legs taking up space. 

It looks like you have the capacity, so is there any particular reason you choose not to go for a double track?

Thanks

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Streamliner

[Nearholmer]

30 minutes ago, Streamliner said:

How are you planning to set up to get the required height? Don't really want lots of legs taking up space. 

It looks like you have the capacity, so is there any particular reason you choose not to go for a double track?

 

At home, I will use primarily trestle legs. I was going to make my own, but while researching options, I came upon some abosultely lovely legs(!) from Stanley, available from Screwfix. They are c750mm tall, and two trestles fold, and clip together, to form an easily carried package. They are made from steel, and rated for 400kg a pair, so they should be strong enough! You can glimpse them in the photo. I also considered Stanley's basic folding plastic trestles, but they are pretty flimsy, and the price difference was only £5/pair, which made the decision easy. I also looked at telescopic aluminium legs designed for seat-boxes used by anglers, and they definitely have potential for model railway applications, but the long ones needed are not easy to obtain.

 

Why not two-tracks? I like to "play trains with a purpose", rather than just trundle trains round, so needed to squeeze a terminal station into this (it will be on the right-hand side in the photo above). The track plan for that area is still a bit fluid in my mind; I'm not sure I like where its at currently, and am cogitating another idea, or rather two other ideas, presently.

[Streamliner]

Those trestles look good, great load capacity and they fold down rather neatly too, they look like a very good choice. The only negative could be that they are not height adjustable.

 

I agree, it really is worth having a few options or features to add some focus, create a degree of problem solving and to give extra operational interest. All of which can be tough in a limited space though.

Thanks

[Nearholmer]

Have you see the thread where we debated the design of the track plan for this layout?

 

There are a lot of ideas for "sqaushed up" coarse-0 layouts in here, including a particulary brilliant one by Harlequin, and MetH's excellent one for an only slightly bigger space, which uses Atlas 2ft radius points. As usual with RMWeb threads, it does go off at a few tangents!

[Metropolitan H]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Have you see the thread where we debated the design of the track plan for this layout?

 

There are a lot of ideas for "sqaushed up" coarse-0 layouts in here, including a particulary brilliant one by Harlequin, and MetH's excellent one for an only slightly bigger space, which uses Atlas 2ft radius points. As usual with RMWeb threads, it does go off at a few tangents!

Beg pardon, but the Atlas turnouts on Gutter Lane - see below - are 27" radius (2ft 3in in real money), as are the smallest radius cxurves. The larger radius curves are 31.5 inch.

 

 

One day I will get started on the platforms / buildings / bridges / etc - including at least two buses to sit on bridges and maybe a double-deck tramcar!

 

I'm watching this thread with interest to see how well the deliberate shrinking below my tight confines works out? - At least I can get a pacific and three 35cm coaches into each of the "rest of the world" loops and the bay platform!

 

Regards

Chris H

[Nearholmer]

The 27” radius turnouts certainly allow a lot more flexibility, and save space, compared with the 38” radius ones I’m using, so my quart is bigger, as well as my pint-pot being smaller, so this is definitely going to have a branch line, rather than secondary main line, feel to it.

 

BTW, RF has sent me his prototype 27” radius point to look at, and I’m afraid it doesn’t pass muster. I feared that the basic design couldn’t be squeezed-down that far, and I was right. Will show you.

[rockershovel]

Those steel Stanley trestles are really good. I've got a couple of sets and they are very robust