A garage, O scale and the Ploughley Hundred Light Railway (was Gawcott & Westbury Light Railway)

[34006]

Looks good to me.Keep you off the streets for a while.

 

ATB

Phil

[F-UnitMad]

On 19/12/2021 at 16:16, Ray H said:

a roundy O gauge layout in the (approx.) 17ft by 8ft garage.

To aid your planning, think in terms of an 8ft x 4ft board in OO. Proportionally you've got a slightly larger area, but you have to have an operating area in the middle.

 

[Ray H]

In the cold light of the following day . . . . . .

 

I’ve realised that as a self-contained unit, the industrial/light railway part of the layout needs somewhere to store/house/service its locos and coaches. I have four industrial locos and plan to have a couple of four wheeled coaches for passenger trains that can either run as a pair or singularly as part of a mixed train.

 

“Top” station has greater scope for accommodating such facilities, even more so if it moves further to the bottom left-hand corner of the plan (and over the hidden track). Moving Top station would also allow easement of the gradient up from the Mid(way) station which can’t be a bad thing.

 

The hidden track along the wall at bottom of the plan has to be about 6 inches out from the face of the wall because there’s a brick pillar protruding into the garage there. However, other than that I plan to keep that track as close to the wall as I can to maximise the radius of its curves at each end of the garage whilst recognising the significant overhang that will occur at the ends of the railcar as it enters or leaves the curves at each end of the layout.

 

A (removable) retaining wall behind “Bottom” station and its approach track will allow for recovery of any casualties on the hidden track.

 

Bottom station will benefit from the movement of Top station because Bottom station can be moved a little clockwise as well as further towards the bottom right of the plan.

 

Further easement of the gradient up to Top station should be possible by lifting Midway station and associated track work around an inch off the top of the baseboard. The hidden track would drop back down to baseboard level as could the Bottom terminus.

 

I know that I need to allow about four inches height separation between rail top of the lower track and the underside of the baseboard supporting the upper track. I can measure the lengths of locos and wagons.

 

Does anyone know the (average) length of four wheeled coaches? That information will help me calculate the length of run-round/passing loops.

 

Are there any recommendations for the tops and bottoms of gradients to minimise the effect of two wheels of (0-6-0T) locos leaving the track as the loco enters and leaves the gradients.

[goldfish]

33 minutes ago, Ray H said:

Does anyone know the (average) length of four wheeled coaches? That information will help me calculate the length of run-round/passing loops.

 

The up coming Dapol 4-wheel coaches will be 188mm over the buffer beams, if that helps.

 

[Ray H]

51 minutes ago, goldfish said:

The up coming Dapol 4-wheel coaches will be 188mm over the buffer beams, if that helps.

 

Thanks for that. It gives me something to work around. I'd forgotten about them.

 

I was thinking of using a coach from two different sources, a bit like bought second-hand. One of the Dapol ones would be a good starting point..

[doilum]

A couple of years ago I had a bit of a tidy up and knocked up a pair of four wheelers from left over Kirk panels..   Card roofs, recycled wagon running gear they were nothing special. Floated on the Bay of E just before Christmas, they made really stupid money. The surprise is that it has taken so long for a RTR model to appear.

[Ray H]

Thanks for that.

 

I'm still pondering what to do as I'm struggling to arrive at a plan that encompasses what I'd like to have. I'm also not totally convinced that what I think I want is what I'd be happy with if that makes sense.

 

I've tried terminus to fiddle yard in OO and that didn't satisfy me for too long. I had a roundy but that didn't last too long especially when the chance to have a bigger space arose and I took it. That led to a largely U shape (also OO) which probably lasted longer than anything else I've ever had including back in my much younger days.

 

In O gauge I've currently got an enhanced shunting puzzle - it uses 24 wagons and two locos - which keeps me amused when I can erect the baseboards, squeezed in the gap between the two legs of the U (but because of that there's little else I can do whilst it's in situ).

 

I tend to try and cram (for want of a better word) too much fiddle yard accommodation in the hope that I need only set the route and I can retrieve from or put a train into the fiddle yard although I also have in the back of my mind that the more stock I can have on the layout the less handling there is.

 

I've recently been looking at a couple of plans in the Gauge O Guild's plans for small layouts. Both have a relatively large shunting area - i.e. plenty of places to put wagons - and both would fit the (garage) space I have. In fact I could have each one on its own side of the garage.

 

My "problem" is that I have a selection of small BR and industrial locos - that I basically bought because I couldn't resist the deal!

 

What grates is using both together on a layout which is why latterly I was looking at a an idea where there was a basic self contained single track BR branch along which a railcar could potter with the occasional inter-leaving with a freight train whose destination was an exchange siding. An industrial loco could reclaim the consist from the siding, shunt it about a bit and then take it to one or two other yards for a bit more shunting.

 

In addition, the railcar would pause at a Halt on the BR line and the industrial railway would do a Colonel Stephens and have a couple of 4-wheeled coaches that provided a rudimentary passenger service on the industrial side of things.

 

Back to pondering!

[Ray H]

After a while concentrating on disposal of the OO gauge stock I dusted down my limited Templot knowledge and have come up with this (which has been subject to a subsequent realisation - see below).

 

 

The yellow part circle at top right is the door into the garage. There will be some kind of access here into the centre of the layout.

 

The two yellow rectangles between tracks are the platforms and the two bulges on the outside of the outer track are (a) [top] a gas pipe, which I'd prefer not to have to take a section out of, and (b) [bottom] the ubiquitous brick pillar at least one of which always seems to inherit a garage.

 

I started off with a layout completely on the level with a flat crossing at each end that I'd make with diamond crossings (and, possibly, a single slip) to give a kind of folded figure eight. I soon realised that there seemed to be no chance to get a flat crossing on the right-hand end of the plan.

 

Consequently, I reluctantly started to plan around the inner curve at the right hand end being a dead end short stub track. This would be the BR link with the railcar and freight trains being manually put on or taken off the track as necessary.

 

I then remembered that I'd earlier thought of a two tier layout so why not change this?

 

The BR link stub track would now become the (BR) fiddle yard with a couple of sidings under an upper level. BR trains would emanate from here and travel anti-clockwise to the interchange station at the top of the plan. There are a couple of sidings here for the BR loco to shunt and a couple on the Light Railway side of the platform for their locos to shunt.

 

Light railway trains would continue the journey anti-clockwise still at baseboard level and pass under a bridge carrying a higher track. Once clear of the bridge the track would steadily rise and complete a full circumnavigation of the garage to become the higher track over the aforementioned bridge. The track would level out just before the bridge and run into the upper station.

 

A rough calculation suggested the incline would be at around 1 in 80.

 

This looked like a workable option even though I subsequently realised that I'd have to forego the continuous run.

 

There was then another light bulb moment when I realised that if I delayed the start of the gradient until the track was running parallel to the wall at the bottom of the plan after passing under the bridge, I could add a left hand point here that could pass under the high level station and connect with the fiddle yard track to re-instate the continuous run.

 

There would be an opposing point on this link that would lead to the fiddle yard sidings under the open edge of the upper station. This arrangement was a late addition to the plan and was also left out as it would complicate the drawing above.

[Ray H]

The OO layout isn't due to vacate the garage for another three weeks so I have plenty of thinking time and time to ask questions!

 

The OO layout was more or less fully signalled. I'd like to do similar with the O gauge.

 

I envisage the BR line being worked as one engine in steam so signalling is unnecessary. The link to the Light Railway (LR) being by way of crossovers and worked by ground frames released by the BR train staff.

 

I'm not sure what signalling the Light Railway would have nor how any freight stock would be transferred between BR and LR tracks. I'd certainly aim for the single line between the two LR stations being worked by train staff possibly also under one engine in steam. Would the BR loco move freight stock onto/off of the LR or would the LR loco do the transfers by running onto the BR side of the station?

 

Would there be a signaller/shunter here to take charge of the various movements and would it be a BR or LR person?

 

I could understand why an LR home signal might be required here but as the train staff effectively permits entry onto the relevant single line, would a starting signal be required on either set of tracks?

 

I could also see that a home signal might be required at the upper station. Would any other signals be required?

[Nearholmer]

If the LR has passenger services, it will need to be block worked, probably by telephone block, and the signalling may be very simple, as little as a ‘home’ protecting each station from each direction, authority to enter each section being given by the train staff/ticket.

 

I would expect access to the exchange siding to be by key on the train staff on both BR and the LR. Having both theoretically able to access it once wouldn’t be a risk, because the two guards/shunters could coordinate.

Edited January 8, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Ray H]

I was hoping that I might get away with just a single signal, thanks.

 

And another question generally.

 

I've not made my mind up about the lower level baseboard but I have a question about the upper level which will be around 13ft long and a little under 2ft wide.  I'm planning to have a separation of at least 6 inches between the two baseboard surface levels. I could afford to steepen the gradient a little to increase that measurement.

 

What is the minimum support framing that I would need to strengthen the upper level's baseboard? This level will comprise three or four 4ft long by just under 2ft wide.

[Nearholmer]

Disappointing news, I'm afraid.

 

I checked the MoT requirements, and by the date you are interested in, starter signals were require on LRs.

 

Section B.—Paras. 1 to 3. Block System.—An acceptable apparatus, where  such is necessary at all, for providing an adequate interval of space between following trains will be some form of telephone instrument. Paras. 4 to 18. Signalling.—Home and starting signals only for each direction at stations on single lines which are staff or electric token posts will be necessary. Distant signals will not be necessary unless stop signals cannot be seen for a distance of a quarter of a mile. Distant signals in such circumstances may be of the unworked type.

[Dodger]

Hi Ray,

I have only just read the posts on this thread and they strike a chord with me.

I started 7mm some 16 months ago and have three layouts at the moment. A Micro Layout, a 9' x 18" end to end and a 24' x 9' 'U' shaped layout in my loft. I have found that the two smaller layouts get used more often due to their user friendly size. I use 3 link couplings and have found I was spending more time walking up and down the loft uncoupling wagons than I was actually operating the layout. I made the layout into a 'U' to enable me to turn around and uncouple stock.  I have never tried Dinham Couplings and believe there is an alternative option that is compatible with Dingham called  Flippem. Dingham are, I believe going to be produced  by the Gauge O Guild and the Flippem by a Gauge O guild member. It may be worth your while having a look at the Gauge O Guild website and also the 7mm Scale Society if you have not already done so.

The members of the 7mm Scale Society have helped and encouraged me a lot . 

Have a look at my two small layouts - Pascoe's Siding and Landkey Yard both have YouTube videos and can be accessed through the Layouts threads on the 7MM scale Society site.

All the best and I look forward to more of your posts.

Stay safe

Roger    

[MarcD]

Hi Roger,

I'm the chap with the new coupling system. Just to let you know that I'm not a member of the Gauge O Guild, however I am a member of both the S7 group and the 7mm Society.

 

The couplings will be available to order towards the end of the month for a February delivery date. 

 

Marc

[Ray H]

Thanks for your post Roger.

 

I certainly found that a conventional end to end soon became unattractive when I had one soon after re-starting modelling post a break of a few decades.

 

I've already made the switch to Dingham's which are fine on my O gauge shunting layout. They'd have worked even better if I had realised that what was in the assembly instructions was there for a reason . I plan to give Marc's new style a try because of the sub forty inch curves on the planned layout.

 

The current plan does allow me to spin round on my chair to work either side and I'm sure that I can come up with a puzzle type method of operating at least one station if not both.

 

Although the OO layout is basically an extended U shape, its scale meant that the two stations on opposite sides of the garage seemed far enough apart to be reasonably realistic. That was never going to be the case (to me, anyway) with a single level O gauge layout. This is a large part of the reasoning behind the plan as it stands - the circumnavigation of the garage should take at least a minute, and possibly more.

 

The point work at least will be home made using PCB sleepering and built using Templot templates. I built all the points on the OO layout and have done a few three ways in O gauge.

 

My current thinking is to use baseboard kits, at least for the base level. I'll worry about the upper level later on.

[Ray H]

11 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Disappointing news, I'm afraid.

 

I checked the MoT requirements, and by the date you are interested in, starter signals were require on LRs.

 

Section B.—Paras. 1 to 3. Block System.—An acceptable apparatus, where  such is necessary at all, for providing an adequate interval of space between following trains will be some form of telephone instrument. Paras. 4 to 18. Signalling.—Home and starting signals only for each direction at stations on single lines which are staff or electric token posts will be necessary. Distant signals will not be necessary unless stop signals cannot be seen for a distance of a quarter of a mile. Distant signals in such circumstances may be of the unworked type.

 

Thanks for taking the trouble to check that out even if it isn't news I necessarily wanted to hear. 

 

I used the Scalefour lever frames on the OO layout and wanted something similar for the new layout. The MSE lever frame kits look to be a bit more substantial - we've got one on the club layout - so I was going to give one of them a try. Fortunately, each kit has seven levers which, conveniently, fits with the 5 point levers and (now) two signal levers that I'll need for each station!

 

Now, can I swing it so that the home and starting signals are on the same post? I'm sure I've seen a picture of that on a light railway, somewhere.

[Nearholmer]

Tenterden Town could well be the one you are thinking of.

 

Top home routes to left platform, bottom one to right, and the starter I think applied to both, although possibly only the right.

 

Notice how the signal post is after the LC gates when approaching from The Rolvenden direction, so the gate diamonds d has to be ‘read’ as a signal too.

 

 

 

 

[Ray H]

The plan is still basically the same. What I had forgotten was to mark the baseboard joins on the Templot drawing. Having done so I then found that I needed to move a few points around so that they didn't span two boards.

 

I've also added the point on the outer track near to bottom left of the drawing. This will be connected the the loose end of the inner most curved track at the right hand end of the plan thereby providing a continuous run. This track (along with the fiddle yard) is not shown on the plan.

 

I'm planning to use Grainge & Hodder's baseboards. Their standard depth is 100mm which is OK for the lower track level. However, if I stick with that for the higher level boards I'll need to significantly increase the gradient between the two levels to allow trains to move underneath,

 

An eight inch difference between the two surface levels will need a roughly 1 in 50 gradient (ignoring any framing of the upper board). I reckon I need a minimum of 6 inches of free air space under the lowest part of the upper baseboard. Combining this measurement with the 100mm will require around a 1 in 40 gradient. Because there will be tracks on the lower level under the higher level boards I also need to think about accessing any miscreant rolling stock, some of which may be almost 2ft from the front edge of the baseboard. This makes me think that I ought to plan for an eight inch gap rather than a six inch space between the boards.

 

 

The three upper boards (for the station at the bottom of the plan) will be slightly offset to the right from the lower board ends. Equally, the framing for the upper boards won't be resting on anything; I envisage the underside of the top boards needing to rest on and be screwed to wooden "pillars" or similar. The boards can also be narrower than the lower boards as the outer rail track will be climbing between the back of the upper boards and the adjacent wall.

 

I don't know whether to just use a thicker plain board (with no framing) or ask for the depth of the framing to be less than normal for the upper board.

 

The outer curve at the right hand end is partially over a radiator. This never caused any problems on the OO layout but I do need to allow for it. Consequently I may cut some holes in that board to allow the warmth to rise.

 

I forgot that the interchange station - the one at the top of the plan - is a through station so I'll need two home and two starting signals which will require a couple of extra levers on the frame.

 

With the OO layout's departure still some three weeks away I think I'm going to make a start on point construction once I've sorted out the  baseboards. 

 

[F-UnitMad]

7 hours ago, Ray H said:

The outer curve at the right hand end is partially over a radiator. This never caused any problems on the OO layout but I do need to allow for it.

I once had a layout where part was over a radiator. I put some of that thermal foil for fitting behind radiators under the board. It helped deflect heat into the middle of the room.

[Mike Bellamy]

18 hours ago, Ray H said:

I'm planning to use Grainge & Hodder's baseboards. Their standard depth is 100mm which is OK for the lower track level. . . . . . . . ask for the depth of the framing to be less than normal for the upper board.

 

I know from work G&H have done for a friend that they will custom cut baseboards for you - perhaps if the frame depth is reduced, they may suggest additional cross pieces to provide extra strength?  My friend did his own CAD design etc and all G&H did was to put it through the laser cutter.

 

[Nearholmer]

For the upper level, I would suggest a structure a bit like a flush-panel door: a frame of very light timber, maybe 25mm x12mm, skinned with 6mm ply, glued and pinned, on both sides. It makes a seriously rigid structure, with very shallow construction depth. Cheap ply is good enough for this.

 

Taking the door thought further, I’d suggest having it hinge-up, like a car bonnet, to allow access to the hidden track, rather than building higher, in order to keep the gradient to a minimum.

[Mol_PMB]

Agreed that when building multiple levels it's really important to have access to the underside of each level.

Nearholmer's solution sounds good.

My personal preferred approach in this circumstance would be L-girder construction throughout, but that does require a personal inclination and tools for carpentry.

 

To me, the trackplan looks very busy - you have certainly managed to squeeze a lot in. Is there adequate clearance between the closely-spaced sidings?

 

[Nearholmer]

L-girder would work better, because then you could get at that hidden track from below, but I understand the brief to be based on G&H ‘flat top’ modular boards.

 

I’ve been keeping schtum on sidings, but will speak now: too many, and too short, I feel, but that will come out in the wash as track is laid, and is partly a matter of personal preference anyway.

[Ray H]

Cheers for the observations, much appreciated.

 

The flush door idea for the upper level is something that I hadn't considered. I'd need to butt joint panels end to end to get the 12ft run. In fact I might be tempted to go for three x 4ft long boards purely because the OO layout comprises several 7ft - 8ft boards and they're needing a van to shift them. A case of once bitten etc..

 

How could I join boards of this type end to end?

 

I appreciate the comments on the number of sidings. I enjoy the head scratching that is necessary sometimes in order to get the wagons where they need to be hence the number of sidings.

 

I'd like to start building some of the pointwork whilst I'm waiting for the baseboards to arrive - I think the OO layout will be gone before the new boards arrive.

Looking at the plan in light of the above comments I'd be interested to hear which sidings should go.

 

I'm thinking that the two adjacent ones at bottom left could be reduced to one and the pair at the inside of the curve adjacent to the access door could also drop to one.

 

I haven't decided on the maximum length of the freight trains yet although something around six plus brake van is the most likely.

 

I was thinking that two of the three adjacent sidings towards bottom right could be the loco shed. I have four locos for the light railway and was planning to leave them on the layout semi-permanently. I also need somewhere to park odd coaches and thought they could go on the third track

 

The lower of these three sidings can be moved further away from the other two tracks as the outer track will still be low enough to be ignored.

 

My current thinking for the flap across the access door is to have it as a drop in (although I haven't worked out where to lay it when not in use). Its shape and the fact that the two tracks on it are at different levels make me think that hinging would be difficult.

[Mol_PMB]

I only see two adjacent sidings bottom right, the other one is the headshunt for the run-round loop. At present the track spacing of all three lines is so close that the vehicles on them would be almost touching, there's certainly no space for a shed wall between them.

I would say that 80mm between centres is the minimum prototypical spacing for sidings, there's just enough space between them for your miniature shunter to walk between the tracks to apply/release brakes and couple/uncouple. But in reality, wider spacings would be normal in a goods yard. 

 

Your horizontal grid looks to be at 150mm spacing which is about the length of one small wagon in O gauge. Even a small 4-wheel or 6-wheel coach will be twice that length, smallish locos somewhere in between.

So many of the sidings are only long enough for one or two wagons (once clearances to adjacent tracks at points have been considered).

 

I think hinging the access flap might not be as difficult as you think. The hinges must be above the level of the highest track. Because the opposite end of the flap is at 90 degrees to the hinge line, it will just 'scissor' down.