'O' gauge ? first tentative steps. Corrugated goods shed part 3: Painting and weathering

[David Siddall]

I've been mulling O gauge track and signalling plans for a while pending a first attempt in the 'senior scale' and encouraged by Matloughe's thread 'Changing up to 7mm scale' have finally plucked up courage to post a plan of what I'm proposing in the hope that those with rather more experience will be prepared to give me the benefit of their advice. I've got 18' if I use the diagonal of the spare bedroom which equals three 6' x 3' boards (one of which must be easily demountable).

The concept is a cross-country, single track secondary line which has been partially closed by cutting back to an intermediate station featuring a spur which generates a viable amount of freight traffic. The era I'm proposing covers the late 50s through to the start of the 'blue' period on the Western Region of BR so traffic will be primarily freight with the most rudimentary passenger services (mixed trains in the steam era). The location is as yet undetermined but I like the idea of the southern Welsh Marches or western Cotswolds as 1474 apparently remained in BR un-lined black until withdrawal (at Gloucester?) in September 1964. Milk traffic Hemyock-style featuring Slaters tank wagons also appeals.

The plan features a pair of sector plates (or possibly traversers), the smaller one standing in for one pair of loop points and so allowing maximum scenic length but I have a feeling there should be at least one more set of 'catch points', and I'm not entirely certain about the signalling plan. Any thoughts???

[Matloughe]

I always find it worrying when my name is brought up in conversation - usually its never for a good thing.

 

Looks good, are you planning to use Peco track or build your own? One thing that helped for me was printing it out at full size and then - literally playing with the stock to see what will fit where. then adjustments can be made. Looking at the signalling - I'm not an expert by any means but I would suggest your 'Distant' should be a Left-hand Bracket, with Home Signals to access the Bay & Main platform roads - and a subsidiary signal beneath the main to access the run-around loop. I am sure however I have got something wrong, the starters look fine perhaps a catch point at the end of the run-around loop with a controlling signal allowing access onto the mainline? I am not familiar with WR Practice.

 

I like the flowing arc of the plan - looks alot more fluid then set-track curves and straights. What sort of traffic are you envisaging on the line?

 

I look forwards to seeing more.

Cheers,

~ Gary

[Allegheny1600]

Hi David,

Sounds like a very nice concept there and I like the look of your initial plan!

If I may?

A couple of points!

1. Where the spur line leaves the main(?), it looks like the point crosses the baseboard joint - a big No-No! If you can try to avoid this wherever possible!

2. I realise that the drawing is only a sketch but the boards look more like 6' by 18", rather than 6' by 3'! Sorry to be 'picky' but if the boards were 18" wide, you would struggle to get all those tracks in!

3. Is there any way that one of the traverser/Sector plate boards could pass through a doorway? I have actually seen such a concept in the "Railway Modeller" and it looked great! That way, any train from one traverser has somewhere to go at the other end of the layout!

Finally (sorry!), are you sure that a 6' by 3' board is ever going to be "easily demountable"?

 

I'm really sorry to go on and I really don't wish to discourage you (AT ALL!), just trying to help in the most practical way possible!

Positives!

It's a great size for a first 0 gauge layout that should give you a lot of fun building and operating it.

It's a fairly popular sort of location that should you wish to go RTR, there a quite a few products available (& coming!) to help you get moving along (obviously, there's a lot of everything if you wish to kit or scratch-build!).

Plenty of people on here and in the GoG who can help you!

I doubt you ever regret going to 0 scale - I love it!!!

All the very best,

John E.

[edcayton]

Can I suggest moving the points in the top right of the plan away from the baseboard jpont?

 

Ed

[David Siddall]

I always find it worrying when my name is brought up in conversation - usually its never for a good thing.

 

Cheers,

~ Gary

 

Considering what you've achieved so far Gary (v. impressive) I thought a credit there wholly appropriate :-)

 

Always wanted a curving track layout and my plan is to build the track using C&L components (7mm 'turnout in a bag' is on my Christmas list). Using the diagonal also seems to give me the maximum working length within the room.

 

Bit like you I'm not 100% certain what the traffic will be but it'll definitely include milk. Several heavily weathered Slaters 6-wheel tankers plus an ex-Southern BY van already exist in my imagination giving the haulage option of everything from 14xx tanks through Class 03s, and in the later period 'Baby Warships' and Hymeks. As for the rest I'm not sure yet but it would need to explain the line's partial survival into the early 70s.

 

Thanks for the thoughts re. signalling. An earlier RMWeb enquiry (Ground Signals) revealed that rationalisation of GWR secondary and branch signalling started as far back as the 1930s so need to do some more prototype research on what could realistically still be in place right up to the end of my chosen era (...not a lot apparently!). At the moment I'm using Martin Loader's superb Fairford branch website as my inspiration which shows small intermediate signal boxes still operational into the 60s when most elsewhere had been replaced by ground-frames.

 

BFN... David

[David Siddall]

Thanks John, all constructive suggestions and much appreciated. Definitely a sketch plan at this stage which will be refined over the coming weeks. Then it'll be time to do battle with XrackCad (again). Both you and Ed rightly highlight avoiding turnouts over baseboard joints... don't worry I've learned that lesson having built numerous OO and N layouts over the years! They'll be positioned better in due course.

 

Re. baseboards, my last OO layout had 6' x 2' open-top, ply-girder boards and they were rigid yet light enough for one person to lift and manoeuvre so plan to use the same technique again. Making the main fiddle-yard board quickly and easily demountable is a 'diplomatic' consideration.

 

My 'master plan' suggests that this was a through station before the line was partially closed so no requirement for onward running in the direction of the short sector plate/traverser, however lots of reversal and shunting opportunities. I've seen the 'extending out through the door' idea but in our case this would block access to other rooms when in use so would definitely be 'frowned upon'.

 

Thanks again... David

[bobslob]

I would recomend the C&L option, of making your own track, its very easy once you get your head round it all, and it look so much better, and i find making the track very relaxing, apart from threading the chairs! I like the plan. Look forward to some updates.

[David Siddall]

Have abandoned XTrackCad after several deeply frustrating attempts and returned to my beloved Illustrator ...I appear to have forgotten that graphic designers and CAD don't always mix since my last attempt! The result is a refined track plan which now sits on correctly scaled 6' x 2' boards, albeit they may end up 6' x 2' 6" to accommodate more scenery if I can evolve an economical cutting plan for the timber???.

 

Track-wise I've added a further catch point to protect the spur and its associated siding and re-positioned one offending point so it no longer sits quite so close to a baseboard joint.

 

I'm still mithering over the bracket signal though and wondering whether it wouldn't have been rationalised out of existence during the cut-back of this is imaginary line in the 50s ...despite Fairford Branch photographic evidence to suggest it might have survived? However, since I fully intend all signals to be operational (including the ground signals) I fancy that the bracket would 1) be a challenge - I've done it in 'OO' using solenoids so surely will be able to do it better in 'O' using servos?); and 2) make an attractive infrastructure feature. Especially as I have every intention of modelling the point rodding and signal wires!

 

Hey ho... unless someone spots an absolute howler I think it's time to bite the bullet and create the cutting list for Avon Plywood (a bit of a trek but worth it from previous experience); and to complete clearing the room in which the layout's going to reside. The shift from armchair modelling to actually getting going is, I find, always a bit nerve-wracking and but if I don't make a start I guess I'll never be in with much of a chance of ever finishing.

 

 

...and before anyone mentions it, yes I have mispositioned the left-hand scenic break (the dotted line)! It's not supposed to run 'though' the over-bridges but behind them to hide the main fiddle yard!

[Poggy1165]

My thought is the distant may be a tad close to the station. In real life it would surely be quite a way back beyond the overbridge, maybe half a mile or so. The bracket? Well, you don't need a full size arm for anything that isn't a passenger line, I'm not sure if the top siding is bay (for passenger trains) or not. If it is there wouldn't normally be a catch point. More to the point, if this was originally a through station, the starter would have been on the lower track - unless of course this is a single platform station with a loop for goods trains only. Anyway, chances are they'd have to review the signalling arrangements when they lopped the through line. If you really want a bracket it could go on the loop, with goods arms, controlling access to the branch.

 

Another thought. What is controlling access from the main line to the loop? I presume goods trains will want to run onto the loop then propel down the branch. I think you could get away with another disc signal for this, maybe a double disc for loop and 'bay'. Or put a bracket home signal on the far side of the bridge with a goods arm for the loop.

[David Siddall]

Thanks Poggy, much appreciated, that's exactly the sort of guidance I was after. Attempting prototypical signalling in an imaginary scenario like this is, I suspect, going to be a bit of a challenge. Assuming that passenger traffic in my chosen era is going to be absolutely minimal but that operation hasn't been reduced to one-engine-in-steam I've attempted to signal the layout as a former 'single platform, single track plus loop' through station which has had the track further on (to the right as you look at the plan) lifted. Rather than a 'branch' joining here I'm thinking more of a freight only 'spur' and not so much a 'bay' platform as an end-loading dock with no passenger use (fenced on the platform side).

 

When I first placed the 'distant' my thoughts were exactly the same as yours but I'm hoping that by playing the 'selective compression' card it won't look too incongruous. If it does it'll have to go.

 

David

[Donw]

if you really need to you can cut a point across a baseboard joint. I have done it with a Peco point. It has to be cut away from the blades and the crossing to avoid trouble spots. It also makes wiring more trouble ( actuation on one board crossing on the other - extra cross baseboard links). I would recommned avoiding it if you can.

Don

[David Siddall]

Three steps forward, two steps back...

 

Step forward... I've joined the Gauge O Guild as recommended for assistance with turnout construction. Step back... Uh oh, big problem with the technical maths contained in the downloads. I have a feeling it's 'geometry' - a foreign language I don't speak!

 

Step forward... I've spent rather more hours than I should have on the Templot forum and watching the site's superb instructional videos. Step back... Templot is currently unavailable as it's being upgraded.

 

Step forward... wifey has asked what I want for Christmas :-)

[David Siddall]

OK... a bit of a re-think has resulted in flipping everything round, moving the wardrobe and kicking the idea of a cut-back cross-country line into touch. The results are a simple branch-terminus with the same basic feel and operational capacity but only one traverser ...and rather importantly we can still get the camping gear out of the cupboard without partially dismantling the layout.

 

Trying to create a scale plan using stock Peco turnouts has been an absolute pig but if it'll work with their mighty 22" long curved turnouts a little tweaking of C&L Timbertracks bases should result in a much smoother result (...and before anyone says it, no points anywhere near baseboard joints!).

 

So, in essence, here it is. Unfortunately the next step involves laying out of dosh so there might be a short pause before phase 2 (baseboard building) commences. Mind you, I still haven't decided whether I'm brave enough to build tapered, curved boards which is what this plan really deserves. Hey ho!

 

[two tone green]

Very interesting. Looks like it could be fun to build and operate.

[Donw]

Curved baseboard are fairly easy. I have used two methods if you are interested. The plan looks fine to me

Don

[Allegheny1600]

Decent sector plate: Check!

Run around loop: Check!

Plenty of sidings: Check!

Sidings either way on: Check!

Great stuff! You got all the elements there that IMHO should give you a TON of operating potential - go for it!

Cheers,

John E.

[David Siddall]

Really appreciate that guys... without the moral support and technical advice I'm getting I suspect my enthusiasm might have waned a bit by now! This latest plan is version 8 and by version 4 I was seriously beginning to wonder whether I was nuts trying to jam something that combined operational potential, a reasonable length of run and curves of a reasonable radius into such a small space in 'O'. I'm still a tad apprehensive about the two-foot baseboard width at the station end however an exterior wall, a walk-in cupboard door and the need to limit the amount of room space consumed are what we might call 'determining factors'.

 

Re. curved baseboards Don, I'm planning to use what I think is known as open-frame, ply-girder construction for the frames - except in my case it'll probably be open-frame, MDF-girder construction (3mm MDF separated by softwood blocks). In my mind's eye I can envisage this technique making curved boards rather easier to build than working with solid timber but we'll see what happens when we get to the 'comedy carpentry' stage.

[Allegheny1600]

Hi David,

Glad we can be of help! For what it's worth, I'm rather impressed with what you have managed to get into the space, mind if I 'borrow' your plan, please?

Also,

Unless you're really, really stuck on using MDF - do try and use plywood instead!

If you still use the 3mm ply for your girders, you can actually cut it with a decent Stanley or Irwin utility knife (the kind with break off blades!). You need a good, flat working surface and some sacrificial material underneath, heavy duty gloves and make three or four passes (not too much pressure on the blade!) for each cut - it really is easy to work with, stronger and lighter than MDF and there's no dust to speak of!

I'm speaking here as a former strong proponent of MDF - until I had actually built some baseboards from the stuff, now I HATE it!!!

HTH,

John E.

[Jack]

Just a thought, but do you need the point in front of the sector plate? It is quite hard hiding sector plates in 4mm, let alone 7mm, and if you are going to make it convincing then you will need all the scenic space you can get.

 

Certainly looks like a very interesting project and I look forward to the progress!

[David Siddall]

...mind if I 'borrow' your plan, please?

 

John please feel free to help yourself, it's drawn to fit a 14' 6" x 9' room and I'd be fascinated (and honoured) to see what you could do with it. If you use AnyRail I'll happily e-m you the original file.

 

I certainly respect the argument in favour of ply and started building baseboard girders with it when the idea was first proposed in the model press. I migrated to MDF on the grounds of cost and actually get on rather well with it. I find it a lot more stable than it used to be and I think it's the lack of splinters which I find most appealing. I've always cut 3mm MDF with a heavy-duty knife (albeit I acknowledge that's harder going than with ply of equivalent thickness) but am hoping to get the timber professionally precision cut for this project so hopefully the dreaded dust won't be an issue. Thinking about it there's a 6' x 18" board frame up in the loft that must be from 3 'OO' layouts ago which is still going strong - literally, it's doing a sterling job as a shelf for our extensive collection of part-used pots of paint and decorating clutter ;-)

 

Oh, and yes, the other reason I like MDF is that it produces super-smooth back-scenes which take paint really well and to which the new generation of photo back-scenes-on-a-roll stick really nicely.

 

D

[David Siddall]

Just a thought, but do you need the point in front of the sector plate? It is quite hard hiding sector plates in 4mm, let alone 7mm, and if you are going to make it convincing then you will need all the scenic space you can get.

 

Certainly looks like a very interesting project and I look forward to the progress!

 

Thanks for the kind comments Jack... I'm not entirely sure about that turnout myself (if for no other reason than budget). In my mind's eye I'm seeing a retaining wall with the hillside sloping back above it hiding the sector plate. Neither original nor terribly prototypical for a small country terminus however I'm also thinking a feed warehouse or perhaps an agricultural merchant's building down that end of the layout too. A long way off yet but I try to mock everything up before committing to a final scenic plan (rough representations of buildings and major topographical features using card, foam-core board offcuts, etc.) so I think it would be fair to say that it's under review.

 

It has occurred to me that if I were to taper the two right-hand boards out to 3' at the right-hand end of the layout that should offer more scenic options behind which to hide said sector-plate. It has also occurred to me that I might also be completely barking to contemplate the woodwork challenges involved in trying ;-)

 

D

[Jack]

Looking at the plan again, when you align the sector plate for the outer most road, the opposite corner will be pushed even nearer to the front siding. Is it still possible to increase the board width to 2'6" as per post #8?

[David Siddall]

Looking at the plan again, when you align the sector plate for the outer most road, the opposite corner will be pushed even nearer to the front siding. Is it still possible to increase the board width to 2'6" as per post #8?

 

I totally agree that there's still a fair amount of refinement to be done down at the fiddle-yard end of the plan Jack so really appreciate your thoughts. I'm thinking a central pivot to minimise sector-plate throw AND tapering the baseboards out at that end of the layout to provide the required clearance. I think, as you suggest, 2'6 should be sufficient but I don't think its possible to cajole AnyRail into drawing curved, tapered baseboards to prove the point.

 

Have a feeling therefore I might have to import a JPEG of the AnyRail file into Illustrator and draw the curved boards on with that to create an accurate representation but have a mountain of commercial (a.k.a. allegedly paying) graphics work to complete for clients before they bale out for their Christmas and New Year breaks, so might just go for it in timber whilst I've got a few days off otherwise this layout won't get started before the damned grass starts growing again and I'm back outside every weekend fighting a war of attrition in the garden (...the biggest challenge of having a garden in the country being of course to keep the country out of the garden itself!)

 

TTFN

 

David

[Jack]

I hear the natural look is in

[David Siddall]

That's a relief... perhaps we could open the garden so folks could come and admire our stunning and varied collection of weeds, nettles and brambles. We could even serve teas to fund the layout build