Schooner's (Mostly Maritime) Layouts

[Schooner]

Wagon turnables and engineless shunting

 

I'm after examples of either of the above on layouts. If you can think of any, please could you post below?

 

I remember that there's a large depot (in 4mm?) with motorised wagon TTS and motorised vans simulating rope-and-capstan shunting.

 

There's the exceptional Moving Coal

which does some very clever stuff with weighted line and a small hook. There's an exhibition BLT which uses (real, I believe) gravity shunting...

 

I'm interested in how people have set up these TTs, particularly those for manual rather than motorised operation, and how they get wagons around the place having used them.

 

I've already mentioned the plan for loco-and-chain shunting to access the shed and the kickback, but for the latter in particular I was wondering about alternatives. I mentioned Magnorail elsewhere, but for wagons especially in 7mm it would need one hell of a magnet. On the plus side, for my purposes that magnet could just be on a loop of string in a slot in the baseboard lined with low-friction tape. Wind a handle clockwise to move the magnet right (dragging the wagons from the quayside road into the kickback) and the other way to get them out again.

 

Do we think this could ever work?  I think @mullie is pondering the same issues in 4mm, so any suggestions would have double the benefit!

 

Do we think that is even vaguely feasible? 

[Schooner]

Question 1: Why is there no 'Layout construction' subforum?

Er, nothing more to add to that really. We have planning, we have electrics, we don't have anything for the bit in between. Per che non?

 

Question 2: Cassettes Using the usual format...

Problem: The design of yard-long fiddlesticks/headshunt to act as the wings to the layout's main stage.

 

 

Factors: These are a yard long because a) PECO and b) that gives 700mm for 5 wagons and 200mm for a loco, which seems about right.

 

The other crucial dimension is depth. Given the height of the quayside, a little overlap with the tabletop etc, we're looking at about 200mm total fascia height. Therefore <200mm cassette height.

 

Anything which improves flexibility and ease of use gets extra points with this project, and I wondered what could be done within the above constraints to push these.

 

Towards a solution

Reading one of the Gauge O Guild's layout books, I read the nominal height gauge is 105mm. This gave me an idea... Dangerous, I know, but sometimes I just can't hold it back!

 

This is very much just an initial sketch*, but the idea looked something like:

*very initial, drawn on the train as a way of thinking out loud, it's far from perfect but I hope it's coherent.

 

Each cassette is made up of

• a scenic element (eg fence)
• 2 x identical 'train decks' (A1, A2 as labelled above)
• a structural spacer (B above)

located to each other by magnets (a magnetic fence? Thanks @Mikkel !), to the baseboard by...not sure yet, but something staunch and load-bearing, and to the ground with a e.g. camera tripod.

 

The train deck has length to match a section of PECO track, and depth to extend past the camera-tripod fitting on the underside. Its edges are bare, save for the inset magnets top and bottom. Its centre is of top-dressed cinder-ballasted track. Its ends have the fittings for connection to baseboard/end piece.

 

The spacer has length to match, and height to exceed the relevant height gauge. Again, magnets top and bottom; fittings to connect with baseboard/end piece in the ends.

 

Operation

In 'light' mode, the top train deck could be taken off a small stack of such cassettes, plugged into the layout and tripod and we're good to go. Play trains as per previous description. When the train deck swaps sides or gets rotated, so can the fence. 

 

In 'full' mode, a whole cassette is plugged in to each side of the layout. Each train deck can then represent a different location on the docks network; or immediate-use storage of other stock (eg moving from Midland to LSWR); or just look a bit prettier!

 

Current thinking is that two such cassettes gives me space for enough stock for the two initial companies for the foreseeable, would stack and stow neatly, and have a functional purpose whilst playing trains. I think.

 

Improvements

Next steps involve turning the idea/sketch into the best version it can be, and then seeing if that's a workable, practical, buildable thing. 

 

Thoughts on all the above, and help with the last bit, please.

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

 

 

 

[Mikkel]

This seems like one of those situations where the creator's mind in spinning so fast that the audience (me at least) is struggling to keep up!

 

The fence with magnets should work if you find the right strength, although the fence looks quite tall in the drawing - but that's probably just me not able to get my head around dimensions in 7mm scale 🙂

[Schooner]

🤣 Sorry! Hot iron; strike fast etc

 

Speaking of, this is looking suspiciously professional...

 

...and I shan't mention goings on in 4mm... averaging 2 additional wagons a day, and another couple rounds of experiments finally revealing a route to the final* go at ground cover for the back lanes. Oh, and working out how to damn the canal for a single deep pour of resin...

 

🎵Don't stop me now, I'm having a good time! 🎵🎸

 

*No, really. This time I mean it!

[Schooner]

The hypothetical O-gauge garage-filler

 

now has, I think, a viable (if still only roughly blocked out) storage level

Carriages in the station; wagons in the yard; locos in the MPD top-left.

 

This level provides a continuous run, represents 'the rest of the network' and gives a home to any Rule Oners.

 

Critique invited :)

 

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Schooner
Er, top right!

[Schooner]

7mm WIP - 'Victoria Quay'

Almost perfect, I've been poking the plan one final time to see what I can do to push track into every corner to make the most of the available space. 

 

Thanks to @drmditch's excellent suggestion, the quay is now settling into North Devon nicely - lying somewhere between Bideford and Barnstaple - so, with @BWsTrains's planted seeds germinating in my mind, I had a last look at South Devon to see if there was anything I should take with me on the move Up North.

 

The seed sprouts. Jetties.

 

at Hoodown sidings:

(no jetty visible, but it's the best pic I can find) and Kingswear itself:

 

 

A jetty would grant access to the top-right corner (where I could place the crane, making it more of a feature which would be nice), and draw the eye across the full depth of the layout.

 

Longer than the Hoodown jetty, a little shorter than the Kingswear first leg, the model would scale out to about 65' to Kingswear's c.90', or a relaxed three wagons-worth. Compare

 

In rough 3D:

I haven't quite worked out the 'scenic interest zig-zag' yet (I think I might have to shift the coaster left and have it overhanging the board), but I think the jetty helps rather than hinders, actually making the scene look bigger.

 

Intended to be modelled at low water, it adds a bit to the visuals of the scene, and would lend extra shenanigans and story-telling to the operational side of things, suggesting/allowing all-tides access.

 

Sneaking into the above is a separate idea I'm also gently playing with - that of using the magnetic cassette backscenes/rear view blocks for more than just a fence. Perhaps covering other locations eg. ice wharf

or low-relief warehousing, or even a wooden passenger platform, which could be attached as required/desired. Anyway, not the priority today.

 

Ummm...so...yeah, that's the idea.

 

Is it a good one?

 

Aware that in general less is more, and the trackwork is getting a little busier with those TT spurs...but... :)

 

 

FWIW, the shed at the front is currently likely to be 

with the platform facing the operator at the front, for loading horse vehicles. Railway wagons to be unloaded through the rear door across a couple of planks on trestles...?

 

Critique, please.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Schooner

[magmouse]

7 hours ago, Schooner said:

Critique, please.

Louis - I’m not sure what critique or advice I can offer. I think it is a very smart solution to minimum space, given your interests and intent for it.

 

One thought, possibly prompted by the blocky visualisations more than the plan itself, is to try to find some more subtle curves, rounded edges, and so on. I love the fact that the main axis of the quayside sidings are at an angle to the main rectangle of the baseboard, and the main line is a sweeping curve at the front, but I would be looking for a few more small ways to get away from rectilinearity. That may come through in the smaller decisions during the build process.

 

Nick.

 

[Mikkel]

18 hours ago, Schooner said:

In rough 3D:

I haven't quite worked out the 'scenic interest zig-zag' yet (I think I might have to shift the coaster left and have it overhanging the board), but I think the jetty helps rather than hinders, actually making the scene look bigger.

 

I really like this view, very clever as Nick says. Not sure about moving the coaster, I think it ties together the visual focal points at the sides. By "overhanging" do you mean part of it chopped off?

 

 

[Nick Holliday]

22 hours ago, Schooner said:

7mm WIP - 'Victoria Quay'

 

FWIW, the shed at the front is currently likely to be 

with the platform facing the operator at the front, for loading horse vehicles. Railway wagons to be unloaded through the rear door across a couple of planks on trestles...?

 

Critique, please.

Unfortunately, it should be the other way round.  The platform should face the track, allowing easy unloading of wagon(s) and providing clearance for doors to open, and the non-platform side faces the yard, and horse-drawn wagons would be backed up to the shed, making loading very simple, straight from the shed.

As this view of Fittleworth shows:

 

I think the staging at the yard side is a later addition, perhaps to help loading motor vehicles.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Nick Holliday

[The Stationmaster]

North Devon, twixt Barnstaple and Bideford = Fremington Quay .  Once a busy spot including visiting coastal colliers.

 

http://www.devon-holiday.com/information/fremington.htm

 

Now if you're looking a Kingswear/Dartmouth for inspiration there's the excellent 'alongside tug' ferry working across to Kingswear from lower down Dartmouth  (bottom left corner of the map you posted above).  Not to be confused, of course,  with the old railway ferry service which ran from much further upstream on the Dartmouth side  As you're into chain shunting there's a  sort of marine example for you with that ferry!!

[Schooner]

Thanks chaps and chapettes, rapid and useful feedback much appreciated :)

 

15 hours ago, magmouse said:

...try to find some more subtle curves, rounded edges, and so on.

100%, thanks for the reminder. I'm hopeful that this should be possible by having fences and 'set decoration' items following the curve of the tracks, and use them to soften/blend edges and corners more than is immediately obvious on the rather rough 3D render!

 

5 hours ago, Mikkel said:

By "overhanging" do you mean part of it chopped off?

I hope not! The model I'm using for the forseeable is a rather nicely built (if tired, and with a couple of - to my eyes - rather glaring errors) fully functional RC model, which came complete with transmitter. Unauthorised shipbreaking very much frowned upon by the local Harbour Authority!

 

I literally meant placing it more to the shed end for balance/viewblock/eye-guidance, which might mean part of the hull overhangs the edge of the baseboard. No more than that :) One of the joys of having a free-standing layout on a table is there's some wiggleroom around where the layout actually starts and ends :)

 

A side note, but perhaps relevant: part of the reasoning for modelling the scene at low tide is so full-hull ship models can be easily moved, removed, replaced etc. It's entirely possible that this layout will be my 'layout of a lifetime' and so factoring in a couple of areas for long-term modelling interest (see also the 'sceneic wings' idea hinted at above) is one of the design criteria.

 

1 hour ago, Nick Holliday said:

As this view of Fittleworth shows:

Lovely images, good to see the shed as it was when being used in anger!

 

1 hour ago, Nick Holliday said:

Unfortunately, it should be the other way round.

Noted, and agreed...but...this is one of those times should can take a running jump :)

 

Unless those more knowledgeable find it truly jarring, in which case a re-think will be required, the shed cannot have a rail platform because of the curve (and the depth of the platform is effectively wasted focal depth, as the operator cannot see it from normal viewing angles). Hence (un-)loading over planks on trestles, which I think would be an excusable solution to the problem in the kind of place I'm hoping to evoke?

 

If that's the case then the platform is 'spare'. Either it can be left unused or, my preference for breaking up the block-shape of the shed stuck on the front and a little scene built around it to demonstrate why it's there.

 

Plausible, or spell-breaking?

 

42 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

North Devon, twixt Barnstaple and Bideford = Fremington Quay .

Nailed it!

Add in the Bideford, Westward Ho! and Appledore Railway (which always wanted a connection with the LSWR at Bideford) for passenger inspiration/excuse and it's a very fertile area, with well-defined and demonstrable traffic flows by sea and rail. Ideal all round for a first stab at the scheme, and building a stock set around Dapol's new O Gauge B4 :)

 

Re Dartmouth Lower Ferry, I literally don't know anyone who works at sea and knows about it who doesn't want to have a go - for a week or two at least! One of the many loveable things about the place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Schooner]

7mm - Vicky Quay - Wagon Turntables

 

I've spent a little while hunting down kits and producers and parts and things and stuff. Nothing has leapt out at me as being 'right', although this is close in name

https://www.kitwoodhillmodels.com/o-scale-wagon-turntable/ but would, ideally, require reducing in diameter to meet my needs. This is close in diameter https://www.kitwoodhillmodels.com/on30-3-5turntable/ but would require regauging.

 

I have no desire for motorising, nor need for immediate crank (eg) operation. So the kits are £40 for the wrong thing, half of which I won't use. Add the cost of these changes and the time taken to fit them, and the shine comes off the idea of using a kit pretty fast. 

 

What are the alternatives?

 

What about 

using a tapered roller bearing?

 

The outer track can be secured to the baseboard at the appropriate level quite simply. The TT deck can be secured to the inner track quite simply. There's scope for equally simple central drive shaft* attachment. Drop the deck into the hole, and we're done! What could possibly...

 

Anyway, two of the poshest bearings I can find (at 40-50mm O.D. for the c.80-85mm TT deck?) are less than half the price of one kit; freeing funds for the extra work required in track- and deck-making. I think this might represent good value but would welcome external input from...well, anyone, but particularly those of an engineering bent.

 

In terms of operation, given it only needs to rotate through 90degs, I'm thinking mechanical (scale?) indexing with a stop-block (quay) and bar (TT deck) and rotatation by loco and chain (onto wagon as is prototypical or bollard on the the TT deck if the wagon proves too unstable, which seems likely). Wagon to be chain shunted in and out of the TT spurs anyway, so it's not much extra fuss and turns the whole operation into a separate little game. A nice 10-15min change from the 10-20 minute inglenook puzzle**.

 

Watcha reckon?

*To mesh with a worm gear driven by a brass handwheel on the layout fascia. Future scheme #74

**A quick reminder that I'm planning to operate the layout in two modes: the Exchange (which is a 'pure' inglenook shunting puzzle)and the Shunt (the spotting of wagons in the correct locations). To succeed each of these modes will have to have the right balance of challenge and longevity and so having quite involved shunting moves suits well...I think!

[Schooner]

A change of scene

 

The other week I proffered an adaptation of @dseagull's plan for a rural Sussex BLT

 

I quite liked it - for myself - and have kept returning to fiddle with it. It's settled down to a couple of options, which I thought I'd post here for comment. To set the scene, we're in a 12'x8' shed, door on the left of the plan, windows at the lower edge the neighbourhood of the Devon/Cornwall border, looking at a small riverside mineral railway and quay (I had Calstock in mind)

over which runs a newer line to a BLT. Bridge to be significantly less grand than that over the Tamar at Calstock!

 

Set around 1905, this would give plenty of scope for the Victorian industrials I'm so fond of to scuttle about the lower level (datum), working the Inglenook puzzle, or trundling away out of sight around the bend in the river. The circle is half on a hinged (drop-down) board, acts as a run-round loop, and is fed by a 2' cassette. Planned to emerge from a tunnel (over which runs the 'main line'), with the hinge masked by warehousing and village with the ground rising from a line roughly in parallel with the river from the LH of the hinge to the main line junction/crossing the toe of each curved turnout.

 

Meanwhile, some thoroughly ancient local stock and thoroughly modern long-distance through traffic could use the station, and marshal and trip wagons for the industry in the lower-right corner. Could be a pleasant and engaging place to spend some time. This station has one primary platform, basic goods facilities, and some useful storage space. This includes a secondary platform, for peak traffic or carriage storage, and a long kickback storage siding to facilitate exchange, specials, empties management etc. The upper level/main line is served by a 3' cassette, meaning even the longest possible trains should look nicely in proportion with the c.5' platform.

 

Plan A, versions 1

and 2

The only difference is the arrangement of the loop. Each gives a distinct feel, and operational hints - 1 feeling more like a departure platform (no bad thing!), 2 like a carriage siding/overflow. I did have half a thought about the station being used by two companies, with a platform each, but it felt overly TryHard even by my usual standards!

 

The running line is that further from the viewer, of course, with the loop being nearer and off which comes the 'long back siding' towards the front of the layout. Again, I like this for keeping things in proportion - trains will always be running in front of something and behind something else which I hope should embed them convincingly in the scene.

 

Plan B adds some minor loco facilities

which I like for play value, but which also gives a good reason to keep that area open right to the back, making the most of the generous depth of scene. No need for a shed I don't think, just a waiting road and perhaps the other with pit, coal and water?

 

In terms of georgraphy, we've already covered the RH riverbank, but on the left something similar is planned, with the ground rising steadily from the river at the front (datum) to the station (c.+100mm) to the lower-left corner (c.+200mm). This means the ground will be sloping down significantly at the front, with the railway on a staunch embankment, and cut into the hillside at the back. Signs of a hill-top village in the lower left corner; riverside industry in the lower-right, but all the front to be quite open and green. Recently landscaped with the bright ballast providing a stark contrast to the older riverside quay.

 

This should support my (becoming usual) trick of having the dominant features in the edges and particularly back corners (so one must view them in the context of the largest possible viewing distance) and something of particular visual interest front and centre (so the section of layout with least visual depth becomes all backscene), with the railway almost incidentally linking them up and drawing the eye back and forth.

 

One could go further, and turn the kickback into a proper tramway exchange siding:

but a) this would take some sceneic management to deal with, b) it risks making the station too busy c) it's superfluous - I've no need of more shunting options than I can handle by myself, and between the quay and the BLT I've got plenty to do!

 

Some rough and ready 3D renders from inside SCARM which may or may not be helpful:

 

Before anyone says it: yes, reach to the back is a concern. But...! It's a single length of track on each level (templates required to avoid kinks on the 2nd radius lower level quayside run) and if the bridge were removable then I could make its supports structural to take an access/reach board of some sort, without having to resort to one of those trolley things Americans use to service their monster 4-level empires. Buildings will need placed and an occasional hoover; track an annual wipe with graphite. Worth keeping an eye on but not, I think, a deal breaker.

 

What have I missed? What do you think?

[Schooner]

This

is brilliant, and makes all my schemes look modest! Crucially it's jammed full of useful information on an evidently productive approach, highly recommended :) 

[Schooner]

Quickly tucking a new idea for a (maxi-) tabletop harbourside BLT here for safekeeping. I've more to do on it, but critique is welcome as ever.

 

[Schooner]

Further development of the Cornish-ish shed-filler:

 

The funny block between the (wooden, low) harbour platform and the baseboard edge is a low-relief warehouse end. This is to separate the inglenook quayside scene and break up the platform length to the operator, thus

Nook

 

Harbour Branch

 

The helixes drop to a storage level, the first go at which below:

 

It's over-complicated, and I'd welcome ideas on simplification. 

 

Upper helix, to main line

 

Lower helix and return loop.

 

Thoughts?

[magmouse]

Wowza! You’re right, there is a lot going on there. My biggest concern I think is that trains would spend more time off stage than on, which might be a bit frustrating. You’d be waiting for a train to come up the spiral for a while before it actually appears. Perhaps that would build a train-spotter-like sense of anticipation…

 

Nick.

[The Johnster]

I like the idea of having to wait a bit for the train to appear, corresponds to real life and there is too much instant gratification in the modern world...

 

Might be an idea to thin out the fiddle yards a bit, to allow room to get fingers between stock on adjacent roads with limited headroom.  I normally of the view that you can't have too much storage, but you need to be able to get at it as well!  There are some very short roads on the upper fy, which could probably be done without and you'd save on turnouts.

[Schooner]

7 hours ago, magmouse said:

Perhaps that would build a train-spotter-like sense of anticipation…

Indeed! I thought about this quite a lot on a version with a hidden (well, masked) junction for a return loop - does one sit watching a tunnel mouth in eager antici-

...-pation, or watch a train as it disappears? Surely the former, I felt.

 

Anyway, the operating plan for the layout is actually just 4 trains serving the 'network' 1 posh passenger (bogies/6w, tender engine), 1 long-haul freight and 2 local mixed (4 wheel, tank engine) plus the harbour service (ancient 4 wheelers). This means lots of time between trains but a lot to do to get stock to the right place at the right time. Time and tide...! So really I don't think it'd be much of a bother having to wait ten seconds for a train to appear, it'll be a nice breather!

 

Obviously, as I have space to store a decent roster temptation would get the better of me to fill it, but the idea is for a place with a daily prestige train (final portion from London, perhaps?) and national goods or two, and perhaps ten local services a day. Quiet, but busy for the shunters.

 

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

corresponds to real life and there is too much instant gratification in the modern world...

Indeed, one must always strive to avoid premature gratification!

 

Other points are, as ever, well made and well taken. Definitely a case of seeing what I can do in the space before deciding what I should do. The loops are probably the essential bit, with the yards being optional. In terms of crane shunting, the idea would be to do as much of that as possible in the open via cassette, the storage sidings and loops being hands-free, all being well.

 

Slight update whilst waiting for paint to dry:

Loops now work as intended, with access from all to both up and down lines and return loop, and a longer lead into the Harbour Helix now allowing a <2% gradient, matching (I believe) the helix

Edited August 4, 2023 by Schooner
Edit: As I've mentioned stock a quick reminder that I'm looking at c. 1890s GWR. Tender engines might be 2-4-0 Stellas or 4-4-0 Dukes. Bogie stock of 38-43 ft, not 70-odd!

[Annie]

5 hours ago, Schooner said:

Other points are, as ever, well made and well taken. Definitely a case of seeing what I can do in the space before deciding what I should do. The loops are probably the essential bit, with the yards being optional. In terms of crane shunting, the idea would be to do as much of that as possible in the open via cassette, the storage sidings and loops being hands-free, all being well.

 

Slight update whilst waiting for paint to dry:

Loops now work as intended, with access from all to both up and down lines and return loop, and a longer lead into the Harbour Helix now allowing a <2% gradient, matching (I believe) the helix

Gosh!  😲  I am speechless.

[Schooner]

Oops, sorry @Annie!

Edited August 5, 2023 by Schooner

[Schooner]

Just in case the iterations are of interest, this scheme now works pretty much as intended and is, I think, about as functionally tidy as it can be:

 

I've not worried about making alignments as pretty as possible etc, just untangling routes. Any advances gratefully accepted, as always :)

 

Now to see if any other ideas work out better...!

 

EDIT: @magmouse it's about 3 minutes to run from mainline to harbour branch via the storage level, including 180mm elevation change at each end. Sounds a lot, but I reckon having waved the (eg.) trip working off, that's time for a slurp of tea, get settled at the new operating position, check route setting and then wait for the trip to hove into view without it becoming too tedious. Not quite the stock I have in mind, but useful to run a train about the place to see what happens:

 

 

 

Edited August 5, 2023 by Schooner

[RobinofLoxley]

I'm not convinced those storage lines under the helix really work. I know the stock is smaller, your fingers might be thicker..

[Annie]

20 hours ago, Schooner said:

Oops, sorry @Annie!

I've seen helixes used before and they can be a good solution, only if they are too small a radius there will be a lot of drag on the drawbar of any locomotive climbing up them.  The many storage sidings are fair enough if that's what you want for the timetable you're planning on running, but if they are under an upper level of the layout how easy will it be to reach in past other rolling stock to sort out a derailment?

[Schooner]

All good points, thank you.

 

3 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

your fingers might be thicker..

Yes, very true!

 

1 hour ago, Annie said:

the timetable you're planning on running

I can't imagine needing even half the loop storage

let alone the two yards! But it's nice to know that even if constrained by Peco geometry they're an option... :)

 

1 hour ago, Annie said:

but if they are under an upper level of the layout how easy will it be to reach in past other rolling stock to sort out a derailment?

You're right, and this would likely be a tricky balance - far enough under the upper level for acceptable access; but not so far under that it's impossible to get underneath. Envisaged as open-frame construction, but I'd like to be able to get into the helix and given other aspects this would be better done from the bottom than the top.

 

1 hour ago, Annie said:

if they are too small a radius there will be a lot of drag on the drawbar of any locomotive climbing up them. 

This is the crucial thing. I'd never even considered a helix of less than 4' (ideally 6') diameter, but recently saw that many kits are based around R2 so thought I'd see what options they unlock! I have hopes that my choice of time and place would help (you know the drill, short trains of short stock), but testing longer wheelbase locos like the Stella or Duke on the gradient transitions and an R2 helix would be essential before committing.