BG John Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 I'm planning a small O gauge layout to run the Dapol K&ESR Terrier I've pre-ordered on. It will be my first effort in O since my Hornby tinplate days when I was very little! It will probably be the terminus of the proposed Kent & East Sussex Railway line from Robertsbridge to Pevensey, although it won't have made it all the way to Pevensey! The date will probably be pre WW1, but depends on the period the Terrier is modelled, as I don't want to mess around with it. I've knocked up a track plan in SCARM using Peco Code 124 track, and it just fits the two sheets of Knauf Spaceboard I have lying around, but at my proposed date, I think 60lb flat bottom rail spiked to the sleepers would be more appropriate. And cheaper than Peco too! I've been searching for data on rail sizes, but can't find what I'm looking for. So: 1) Can anyone help with rail codes and their equivalent prototype weights in 7mm scale, and what rail is available, especially something around 60lb rail? 2) Which of the various Track Standards is it best to use? 7mm is almost as complicated as 4mm! I don't want to alter the loco, and want to use readily available wheels on rolling stock. 3) I'll be doing the final plan using Templot, but as this is my first effort in 7mm (I've designed a few 4mm layouts), what would be the best turnout dimensions to use, that are suitable for my proposed track, and are roughly the size of Peco ones (or smaller if I can get away with it)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatB Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Not sure about the other points, but as far as rail section is concerned I doubt if you'd be too far off if you used old Peco Code 100 salvaged from knackered (ie cheap/free) secondhand Streamline. I know those of a more purist nature than I have been known to express dismay at the technically incorrect profile of the Peco rail, but I built an experimental turnout a while ago and it looked fine, as have Jim Read's efforts, shown on RMWeb in the past, using the same material. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 9, 2015 Hi John, 1. 60lb flat-bottom rail is 4.1/2" tall, so that equates to Code 103 in 7mm scale, so I suggest using Code 100. 2. Use 0-MF. 31.5mm gauge with 1.5mm flangeways. 3. Use the straight switches in Templot, mostly 9ft switches with say 1:6 or 1:7 crossings. They need to be modelled with loose-heels to look the part for a Light Railway. Peco turnouts in 0 gauge can be approximated using GWR 9ft curved switches and 1:7 crossings: More info about the above here: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_postx.php?post_id=5690 And a download file for Templot, although I wouldn't recommend copying it exactly, it's not very prototypical exactly like that. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 Not sure about the other points, but as far as rail section is concerned I doubt if you'd be too far off if you used old Peco Code 100 salvaged from knackered (ie cheap/free) secondhand Streamline. I know those of a more purist nature than I have been known to express dismay at the technically incorrect profile of the Peco rail, but I built an experimental turnout a while ago and it looked fine, as have Jim Read's efforts, shown on RMWeb in the past, using the same material. Thanks Pat. All Jim Read's photos seem to have disappeared though, so I can't see what he achieved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 Hi John, 1. 60lb flat-bottom rail is 4.1/2" tall, so that equates to Code 103 in 7mm scale, so I suggest using Code 100. 2. Use 0-MF. 31.5mm gauge with 1.5mm flangeways. 3. Use the straight switches in Templot, mostly 9ft switches with say 1:6 or 1:7 crossings. They need to be modelled with loose-heels to look the part for a Light Railway. Peco turnouts in 0 gauge can be approximated using GWR 9ft curved switches and 1:7 crossings: More info about the above here: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_postx.php?post_id=5690 And a download file for Templot, although I wouldn't recommend copying it exactly, it's not very prototypical exactly like that. regards, Martin. Thanks Martin. I'll try it later. I don't want an exact copy of Peco points, but something that fits in about the same space. This is what I've come up with so far in SCARM, in 2400 x 500mm, and Peco fits, but doesn't flow as nicely as I'd like. It seems to be quite a tight fit, so I need to shape it carefully, and do a few trial full size prints. I won't start building it yet though, as I need more than the one wagon that is on its way to get a feel for how well it works! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted May 9, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 9, 2015 A couple of decades ago I built a small 0 gauge light railway using Peco code 100 on pcb sleepers and it looked okay to my mind. I'll try and see if I can find a few shots of it worth posting to show what such track might look like. In order to get the maximum in I used wye points throughout, drawn up using a ruling radius of 7', (well before Templot arrived, or at least when I became aware of it). This does require some thought with regard to the actual track plan, but saves considerable space/allows you to get more in. The only bind with using flat bottom is of course the extra amount of filing needed with both the blades and stock rails in comparison with bullhead, but the Peco code 100 is reasonably easy to work with a decent sized file. Izzy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 but the Peco code 100 is reasonably easy to work with a decent sized file. Especially if you buy a couple of nice new files and only use them for filing rail (those steel bars on my cell window really did a number on my files.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 A couple of decades ago I built a small 0 gauge light railway using Peco code 100 on pcb sleepers and it looked okay to my mind. I'll try and see if I can find a few shots of it worth posting to show what such track might look like. In order to get the maximum in I used wye points throughout, drawn up using a ruling radius of 7', (well before Templot arrived, or at least when I became aware of it). This does require some thought with regard to the actual track plan, but saves considerable space/allows you to get more in. The only bind with using flat bottom is of course the extra amount of filing needed with both the blades and stock rails in comparison with bullhead, but the Peco code 100 is reasonably easy to work with a decent sized file. Izzy I used one Y point in my plan, and it certainly helps, but with Templot I can have them all curving in whatever direction works best. Having the track at an angle to the baseboard makes it fit better, but means I need to curve everything to get both ends as near to a right-angle going into the fiddle yard as possible. It will be a terminus, but I want the option to be able to make it a through station in the future. I don't really like filing anything over code 75 bullhead. I bodged up a couple of dummy code 100 flat bottom points in OO recently, and the filing was a pain. I might have to resort to violence and use my bench sander! I probably won't start track building until the Terrier turns up, just in case it doesn't and I end up with a layout with no loco! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 I built this track using code 75 flat bottom on copper clad sleepers about 30 years ago. Although code 100 is bigger, the gauge will only be 3.42mm wider, and there will be far less rail needed with no 18.83mm gauge included! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSB Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Karlgarin produce Code 100 rail to 7mm scale proportions:- http://www.karlgarin.com/whatsnew.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 Karlgarin produce Code 100 rail to 7mm scale proportions:- http://www.karlgarin.com/whatsnew.htm Thanks. Is it worth paying the extra over the price of Peco rail? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted May 10, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 10, 2015 Managed to find a couple of shots. Not brilliant, but gives an idea of what Peco code 100 looks like used in 7mm. The flangeways are narrower than usual because I used my own track standards, 32mm gauge but with 29.8mm b-t-b. This was way before alternatives such as 0-MF arose. anyway, hope thay are of use, Izzy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 Managed to find a couple of shots. Not brilliant, but gives an idea of what Peco code 100 looks like used in 7mm. The flangeways are narrower than usual because I used my own track standards, 32mm gauge but with 29.8mm b-t-b. This was way before alternatives such as 0-MF arose. anyway, hope thay are of use, Izzy Thanks Izzy. It's a lovely layout. What size is/was it? I'm still trying to get my head round the size of O gauge! Until I saw the last picture my brain was thinking 4mm broad gauge! My next impression was that maybe it's a bit neat, and the sleepers for what I want need to be much rougher. So the rails look fine, but maybe I need an alternative to copper clad sleepers, which raises the question of what to use, and how to fix them. I'll have to wait until I get hold of some early K&ESR photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatB Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 You could always go with ash ballast most the way to the rail tops. That way it doesn't matter much what you use for sleepers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 You could always go with ash ballast most the way to the rail tops. That way it doesn't matter much what you use for sleepers. The first step is to find out how the K&ESR was originally ballasted. Then consider whether the never built Pevensey line would have been built the same way, or if I can get away with whatever makes the job easiest! Of course the big question is what dates the Dapol Terrier is correct for, so I don't have to mess around with it, then get the track right to suit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted May 10, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 10, 2015 Thanks Izzy. It's a lovely layout. What size is/was it? I'm still trying to get my head round the size of O gauge! Until I saw the last picture my brain was thinking 4mm broad gauge! My next impression was that maybe it's a bit neat, and the sleepers for what I want need to be much rougher. So the rails look fine, but maybe I need an alternative to copper clad sleepers, which raises the question of what to use, and how to fix them. I'll have to wait until I get hold of some early K&ESR photos. Thanks. Yes, I enjoyed building and running it. It was built on three 1.0m x 0.5m boards - two for terminus/one for the fiddle - with another 0.6m x 0.5m added later to extend the headshunt for more siding space and for the (working) sand hopper. So 11'9" in total and just possible to erect in the 12' long spare room when available. A bit too neat, yes I suppose it was looking at the photos, and compared to the typical falling to bits type, but a lot of branch lines built under the light rlys act were similar, many using bullhead track, the K&ESR doing so in later years. I'm sure you'll have fun with 0 gauge once you come to terms with it. It is a case where less can be more, but the size and weights involved do sometimes require a different approach to the smaller scales. Izzy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 You'll find this of interest then....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 Thanks. Yes, I enjoyed building and running it. It was built on three 1.0m x 0.5m boards - two for terminus/one for the fiddle - with another 0.6m x 0.5m added later to extend the headshunt for more siding space and for the (working) sand hopper. So 11'9" in total and just possible to erect in the 12' long spare room when available. So almost the size I'm planning. It makes it look like a loop and two sidings might be a bit crowded for my 0.5m wide boards. I'll have to see how a full size print from Templot looks when I've done it. I've got some months to plan, but would like to get the baseboards built before then, before the Spaceboard gets damaged (or finds another use!). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 You'll find this of interest then....... Interesting, but too modern and on chaired track! Still worth watching though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted May 11, 2015 Author Share Posted May 11, 2015 Looking at photos of the original track, the base of the rail seems to be about the same width as the head, so something like Peco Code 100 is the wrong profile. It appears to be more like the profile of bullhead rail. The second photo on this link shows it quite clearly: http://colonelstephenssociety.co.uk/the%20colonels%20railways/rother%20valley%20railway%20-%20kent%20%26%20east%20sussex%20railway/keslr%20railcar.html It looks easier to work with than normal flatbottom rail, but who makes the nearest match? The original track was 58½lb Vignoles section flatbottom on half round sleepers, but judging by a 1907 photo of Northiam, it looks like it was replaced by chaired track on the main line very early, but survived in sidings for a long time. It also looks as though both types of track were ballasted over the sleepers on the main line, making some of the track building much easier, but the sleepers were very visible on at least the pointwork in sidings. This is getting interesting, and it's fortunate I'm only planning a small layout! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 This O Gauge is rather big! It will take some getting used to, so it's lucky this layout is being planned around a very small loco! The first bit of rolling stock turned up today, so I suppose I'm committed to it now. Nice wagon, but I'm not sure such a low value load would have been carried all the way from Midland territory to a sleepy corner of Sussex. Fortunately, much of it fell out in the post, and the rest won't be hard to remove. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 I decided that this was a bit big for my first dabble in O gauge, so started planning something even smaller, but now I'm back to this one. What made the difference was the generosity of a fellow RMwebber, who passed on some of his old track that was gathering dust in his loft. He also sent me some old coaches. The track needs quite a lot of work, but it's encouraged me to lower my standards and not aim for the correct track, but to compromise to keep the project more manageable. It will be ballasted over the sleepers anyway, so won't be very noticeable. I'll go mad with spiked flatbottom and half round sleepers next time! The coaches aren't correct, but I've been thinking of ways to make them look the part. Well two of them anyway, as the big blue one is a bit of a challenge . So an element of freelancing has crept in, and the line will probably have been built by a separate company, with Colonel Stephens as engineer, so I can paint anything that's not 100% genuine K&ESR in a fictitious livery. I'm not sure about O-MF yet. I may well use it for track that I have to alter, but anything I don't need to change can stay as standard O gauge. The important thing is to get on and do something. So far, I've bought a few wagons on eBay, and built a mock-up of the station building that I've written about on my blog. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overner Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 I'm planning a small O gauge layout to run the Dapol K&ESR Terrier I've pre-ordered on. It will be my first effort in O since my Hornby tinplate days when I was very little! It will probably be the terminus of the proposed Kent & East Sussex Railway line from Robertsbridge to Pevensey, although it won't have made it all the way to Pevensey! The date will probably be pre WW1, but depends on the period the Terrier is modelled, as I don't want to mess around with it. I've knocked up a track plan in SCARM using Peco Code 124 track, and it just fits the two sheets of Knauf Spaceboard I have lying around, but at my proposed date, I think 60lb flat bottom rail spiked to the sleepers would be more appropriate. And cheaper than Peco too! I've been searching for data on rail sizes, but can't find what I'm looking for. So: 1) Can anyone help with rail codes and their equivalent prototype weights in 7mm scale, and what rail is available, especially something around 60lb rail? 2) Which of the various Track Standards is it best to use? 7mm is almost as complicated as 4mm! I don't want to alter the loco, and want to use readily available wheels on rolling stock. 3) I'll be doing the final plan using Templot, but as this is my first effort in 7mm (I've designed a few 4mm layouts), what would be the best turnout dimensions to use, that are suitable for my proposed track, and are roughly the size of Peco ones (or smaller if I can get away with it)? For details of flat bottom rail weights and sizes, prototype and model, check out the table on www.kalgarin.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.