009 Clearances

[figworthy]

I'm looking into adding a 009 section to my layout, but I haven't yet found any reference material for the clearances needed for platforms, bridges etc. Could anyone point me at one ?

 

Thanks

 

 

Adrian

[PLD]

There isn't an easy single answer to that one.

 

It depends entirely on the rolling stock you intend to run. A 2ft - 2ft 6in gauge line (as typically represented by 009) could use stock anywhere between 4ft wide (some miniatures) and 8ft wide (Vale of Rheidol and colonial types)...

 

Then do you intend to run bogie coaches or only small 4-wheel wagons, how tight are your curves etc etc...

['CHARD]

Is this a decision you intend to make based on research before acquiring any stock?

 

I would've thought that normally, clearances would be accurately worked out after an initial process of placing by eye, and some trial and error. You presumably have a view that there is sufficient space - why not sort out some Crazy Track paper templates to tick that box and at the same time work out possible track configurations. That way you'll be able to see I'm sure if there is adequate room for the other essential structures and paraphernalia associated with your NG line.

[halfwit]

I'm afraid that narrow gauge stock is so varied that the only real way is to aquire the stock that you want and plan around it.

Platforms on the narrow gauge tended to be at track level anyway so that parts easy enough!

[invercloy]

Join http://ngrm-online.com and you'll see plenty of photos of 009 stock and just how varied it can be.

 

There are lots of kits to choose from though, so choosing one size won't limit what you can get hold of much.

[figworthy]

I'm looking into adding a 009 section to my layout, but I haven't yet found any reference material for the clearances needed for platforms, bridges etc. Could anyone point me at one ?

 

Thanks

 

 

Adrian

 

Wow, thanks for the quick replies.

 

I've not got any stock yet (I'm starting to think about that as well), but I'm envisaging mainly 4 wheel wagons, mainly open, and the odd van. Basically quarry type stuff (yes, I know, very original ).

 

I'm currently roughing out a terminal which I would like to be mixed gauge, where the 009 will be entering via a tunnel, so the vertical clearance is important. At the moment the baseboard is set to give 60mm (OK for 00), but if I can reduce that a bit, it will help flatten the entry gradient for the 00.

 

 

Adrian

[BernardTPM]

Your clearances will probably depend on how you envisage the line came about. If it was designed from the outset as a loco-hauled line then adequate clearances would be made to accomodate a 'standard' narrow gauge locomotive of the period, so you're unlikely to have less than 9 foot (scale) height so an adequate cab can be provided without having to sink it below footplate level. If it was originally horse drawn when built then clearances are likely to be more restricted - building tunnels is expensive, so they would tend to be built as small as practical for the traffic. Then they would be expensive to enlarge if of any significant length, so building smaller locomotives may be the cheaper option. Adding (paying) passenger trains into the equation tends mainly to affect sideways clearances as the Board of Trade inspectors would require enough clearance to allow for a door accidentally opening (or require all doors to be locked before a train departs).

[figworthy]

Your clearances will probably depend on how you envisage the line came about. If it was designed from the outset as a loco-hauled line then adequate clearances would be made to accomodate a 'standard' narrow gauge locomotive of the period, so you're unlikely to have less than 9 foot (scale) height so an adequate cab can be provided without having to sink it below footplate level. If it was originally horse drawn when built then clearances are likely to be more restricted - building tunnels is expensive, so they would tend to be built as small as practical for the traffic. Then they would be expensive to enlarge if of any significant length, so building smaller locomotives may be the cheaper option. Adding (paying) passenger trains into the equation tends mainly to affect sideways clearances as the Board of Trade inspectors would require enough clearance to allow for a door accidentally opening (or require all doors to be locked before a train departs).

 

Thanks Bernard.

 

FIgworthy is intended to cover roughly 1945-1970 (tail end of the big 4, BR steam and green diesel).

 

I think that the narrow gauge line will be an extension to an internal line that the local quarry had years ago (which could have been hand or horse worked). The new line was probably built in the 1920-30s (could it have been done without an act of parliament ?) with the quarry buying up second hand stuff from North Wales. Passengers would only be company employees travelling for work purposes (perhaps a works service as some of the coal mines used to run). Not sure yet if they actually bought any carriages, or if people would travel in goods or brake vehicles. The end that I'm looking thinking about at the moment will allow transshipment to standard gauge (the local roads preclude the use of road transport). Of course in more recent times, it might start to get enthusiasts showing an interest in it.

 

So, the bit that I'm looking at at the moment would have been built as a freight only line worked by steam. The tunnel is there as much as anything to allow me to get from one side of the layout to the other with relative ease. Stock is likely to be from a mixture of different railway companies or quarries. From what you are saying, if I allow for a 10ft scale height (40mm), then I ought to be OK. I'm intending having a good look around at Warley next month so fine tuning things like vertical clearances can wait until after that, but what I've picked up here so far is useful.

 

 

Adrian

[BernardTPM]

If it was built in the 1920s there's a fair chance that use would be made of ex-WD stock, like the Ashover. If the line was on the quarry's own land and wasn't for public carriage then I don't think any kind of official 'approval' would be needed. Certainly an Act of Parliament is unlikely as the Light Railway Act of 1896 would cover such lines where they were public carriers (that would cover goods and/or passengers). It is likely that, had it survived in private ownership until the 1960s steam would have been replaced with diesels traction, though the Bowaters line (today's Sittingbourne & Kemsley) was largely steam until the late 1960s - stuff like Simplexes and Rustons; perhaps that's where the preservationists might step in, a bit like the early days at Leighton Buzzard.

[figworthy]

If it was built in the 1920s there's a fair chance that use would be made of ex-WD stock, like the Ashover. If the line was on the quarry's own land and wasn't for public carriage then I don't think any kind of official 'approval' would be needed. Certainly an Act of Parliament is unlikely as the Light Railway Act of 1896 would cover such lines where they were public carriers (that would cover goods and/or passengers). It is likely that, had it survived in private ownership until the 1960s steam would have been replaced with diesels traction, though the Bowaters line (today's Sittingbourne & Kemsley) was largely steam until the late 1960s - stuff like Simplexes and Rustons; perhaps that's where the preservationists might step in, a bit like the early days at Leighton Buzzard.

 

Thanks again. I'd forgotten about the possibility of ex-WD stock, so that will be something else to look at.

 

 

Adrian