DCB

I always had the impression that the cowls rusted out and were cut away because they didn't actually do anything, I always thought they looked better without them. My over riding impression of the 47s was that there were no two alike by the late 1980s, headcode boxes or not Aerial bracing brackets, cowls, tanks, liveries, Red Stripe, ScotRai Blue stripe (47/7) Grey, Blue Large Logo Blue. However like almost all diesels in 00 the axle boxes need to move over uneven track, It is like having the valve gear frozen on a steam loco when it is all a plastic or cast lump. Also the radiator shutters need to move. It was so noticeable that on 47s leaving Cheltenham Spa for the north after the demise of the Peaks that the radiator shutters closed when they stopped and opened again as the diesel engine accelerated even before the loco started to move,

A couple of things. To get maximum clearance put a thin ply or mdf sheet on the bottom of the top baseboard, it stops wires dangling. There is no need for all the strength members to be below the track. We usually have a lip to keep train from falling off so why not make it a structural part. I slotted some 2X1 to take MDF as per my drawing and even slotted the 1" edges of one to give a board only 1" thick but very light and strong as only 30" long over my duck under. Another minimum depth trick is running wires on the surface is quite prototypical if you disguise them as point rodding and operating points with piano wire from a surface mounted disguised or hidden point motor is another way to save depth. You need a lift out or lifting section. These can be a total pain in the rear. However I made a lifting section three or four years ago in the form of a double track bridge deck which works very well like under 10 seconds to lift or replace using car bonnet hinges from a Ford Escort I think. It works very well because the hinge is very narrow but the load goes through the side members of the baseboard and lift deck not through the end or surface. It lines up with a tapered bolt at the "Landing end" The trick is to make sure the landing end goes down absolutely square on a very solid surface, using car hinges you can adjust the pivot to get this spot on before you even lay the baseboard surface. Hiding the hinge is a challenge which ever way you go but mine hide in bridge abutments and just leave a slot visible when fully down.

It does not look like much fun to operate or have much scope for scenic treatment. I thought Mike Oxon's version was better. As a reference I have an awful lot more crammed into my still incomplete "Bed Layout" which at 76" by 54" sits on a double bed. It had troubled with the spiral but I think I can rebuild it with a modern spiral and actually make it work. Please see drawing attached, drawn from the layout so not to scale Min Radius is 15" and mainly set track points. I drew it on top of your layout plan to give me a scale and your plan shows through in places.

The S bend in the main line looks a bit odd and shunting many of the sidings blocks the main line, why not move the sidings forward 3" straighten the main line put the branch junction further back and make the inner line into a goods loop. See drawing of sidings half.

It still scales at 11 ft 8 " X 8ft if those are 6 inch squares...

I use set track and code 100 streamline interchangeably. Under 2 ft radius I cut the webs on set track curves and ease them out to 24" radius as they seem to keep their shape and don't kink like streamline. Equally set track straights are straight unlike streamilne which is difficult to lay straight, so mix and match, Set track points are best avoided in my view as their minimum radius is only about 15" Streamline small raduis points are more like 18" minimum 2ft nominal. If you are into "Shunting" then a couple of things to bear in mind are that pushing long rakes of Tension Lock coupling wagons around sharp curves and reverse curves is difficult. In my experience anything less than 3rd radius and 2ft radius points causes problems and even then with more than around 12 wagons one coupling will ride over another leading to a derailment. More important is why shunting was done, basically it was to get the right wagon onto the right train and to keep the train length and weight within line limits. Often a pick up goods, one stopping at most local goods yards along its route would have the wagons arranged in station order, whereas a through goods would most likely have vacuum braked wagons next to the engine. In BR days this was obvious from the Bauxite coloured vacuum fitted wagons and the grey not vacuum fitted wagons. Pre WW2 many private owner wagons, principally coal, ran between collieries and coal merchants, These had to be returned to their owners leading to much unnecessary shunting when all the wagons were "Pooled" early in the war. After 1940 ish any PO wagon could appear almost anywhere within its home area, getting grubbier and grubbier until finally it was repainted grey or scrapped. Wagons were still despatched from colliery to merchant, different grades of coal to different customers so shunting and sorting continued though rather more anonymously with the loss of the distinctive liveries. A pick up goods could be 80 wagons long and the Southern was fond of hanging 60 wagons behind a small 4-4-0 on the withered arm and the GW not averse to using a 28XX 2-8-0 on a pick up goods. Often a wagon might travel in three or more trains from start to end of the journey. Simply shunting a long goods into the right sidings at a terminus can be fun with the right couplings (Kadee?) but I like a nice long headshunt or using the mainline so I can move 15 or 20 wagons at a time. Marshalling sidings are where trains are sorted into the right order. The tracks will be as close as double bmain line or closer. Nearholmer's drawing gives a good indication of typical marshalling or sorting sidings. The GWR had some asymmetric goods flows and one way yards, Moreton Cutting near Didcot was originally for sorting London bound trains only with 2 groups of around 6 sidings each and two arrival roads. Goods as in unloading sidings have space for vehicles to get alongside wagons or unloading platforms, set track spacing is not bad for this as the spacing was for horse drawn carts originally and they can turn much more sharply than lorries. I have a uncompleted loft layout 13' X 9' approx where the fiddle yard is to be scenic as a set of marshalling sidings and adjacent MPD and the hidden storage loops only hold complete trains. However back to my original post, I don't think you have anything like enough room for your original plan in 9 X 7. see attached.

I had problems with my spiral in that the deck sections were reluctant to twist and they were 6mm MDF not steel. The cross section of a spiral has to be horizontal all the way up, left its own devices it will take up an increasingly steep angle as it rises hence the need for twist.

Er, I just can't see how you are going to get all this into 8'8" X 6'8" in 00, Sorry. Even in N it would be a squeeze. Usual suggestion is the 60 plans for small layouts / Track Plans by C.J.Freezer or "plan of the month in 1970s back numbers of Railway Modeller. I think you should be looking to run 5 coach trains as a minimum if you don't want fairly large LMS locos to look a bit silly so I would suggest a much simpler scheme with bigger radius curves and especially larger radius points if you want that railway like feel. A continuous run is good, It is always useful for running in and I like simply watching trains and locos run as ai fiddle about on my work bench. My old layout had the track at 62" so the duck under was no problem. Lift outs can be a pain but I have a lifting bridge which works one handed and lifts up and down in seconds and indexes quite nicely. I prefer drawing on paper to CAD as you can plan where each train move will be, but check out the Freezer Plans as a first step.

Anyone converted one to a G6 yet?

I think you would end up with a kink where the flexi joined if you trimmed back to the frog and used flexi track. In any case I would use set track rail not flexi. My indoors layout has steel track and I do like using steel set track for tight curves and for straights which need to be straight because the rail seems to be more rigid and less flexible and less prone to straightening itself out and kinking. I assume modern Nickel Silver code 100 set track rail is less flexible than flexi track rail but I admit I have not tested this.

That size comparison is interesting, No wonder the Yeovil crews preferred the M7, coaling the 02's tiny bunker must have been a pain for a start! It seems to me almost all the complaints are re the driving wheels, quartering and too wide to gauge. As it the fixing looks similar to the old troublesome Mainline wheel fixing has anyone had the wheels come loose after correcting the back to back or quartering?

You could try something like this which would let 2 trains circulate or one do a figure of 8 while another shunted if it is DCC

What is your gradient and which Push Pull set? You may be able to lighten the coaches as I did with some Hornby Hawkesworths and brass pinpoint cups run a lot freer than steel pin points in plastic. For me the absence of a crew spoils the realism of the pic

Bit more global warming and she will be able to take a short cut through the Arctic ocean.

Personally I would just put a lot of set track curves straights and points on an 8X4 board and let them play. I should have done that with my son when he was young but instead I started a three level 76" X 54" layout on the spare bed which has never been finished. It did however feature double track and a spiral and 19" and 21" curves opened out from 2nd Radius, see pic. We did however have great fun with a double track plus loop plus turntable 5'X3' approx layout on the living room table. If you must use the planned configuration why not squeeze down the top trackwork and extend the bottom to allow a second platform as per my messy alteration to your drawing.

Has anyone else noticed the quartering looks to be quite a long way out on this loco?. The rods are not horizontal. Maybe I'm paranoid having spent hours trying to get mine level on a Bulldog. I have just realised I have never seen a picture of an 02 with cab doors shut, how easy is it to cut the door opening out? Has anyone succeeded without destroying the handrails. I

If you pack the bogie spring or increase the tension you will put more weight on the bogie and less on the rear drivers. It will help to keep the front down but is not going to help the adhesion much, though having slightly less weight on two axles is better than slightly more on one axle However it will help keep the leading drivers on the rails on curves. I think production tolerances are at fault to a certain extent but it is a design concept decision to have a rigid frame. Personally I think it sounds like a new chassis is the only way to get acceptable haulage, the leading wheels and bogie pivot should be on a rigid frame and the trailing drivers in a heavy sub frame carrying the motor pivoted around the front axle. Thats what I have planned for my M7 and 14XX which have similar problems,

Paicific 231G The points in post 31 are a small radius and a medium The Small radius is 25 sleepers long, Medium is 30 sleepers long and the large 35 sleepers long. The large radius in my hand is 52 mm from the point of the frog to the heel and the medium 44mm. We are comparing apples with aubergines here.

Er as I said many posts ago "The Medium and Small radius points look fine and work fine but there are issues with the long radius points. They use the same track spacing but a shallower frog angle in plastic and metal compared to the small and medium, even if the spec sheet says otherwise." All my long radius points are between 48 and 52 mm from the frog to the heel of the point, The small and medium 40mm to 44mm. In hard copy nickel silver and plastic if you line up the diverging rails of a large radius with a small or medium radius to lay a crossover then the "straight" tracks are not parallel. If the straights are parallel then there is a kink where the points join. The divergence angles are different, the frog angles have to be different, you can clearly see this in my photos but the software programs don't show this, in fact if you do it with the software it fits beautifully. My 2ft radius point is clearly different to my 3ft as can be seen from the photo, Peco may well have commonised the frog assembly between 2ft and 3ft radius for recent production but it seems unlikely that they could use the same frog for the large radius as well Could someone post a photograph of a new code 75 large radius point so we can pore over it in 2 1/2 times magnification?

You could follow prototype practice Lyme Regis style and if the 02 can't cope with the curves and gradients bring in an Adams Radial? It is a bit late in the day to worry about traction, getting as much weight forward as possible and making the back as light as possible is something for the start of the design process, the alternative is to power the bogie wheels.. which I have been looking into for my M7 and 14XX As regards the derailing on the code 83 it does sound odd if it copes with code 75, Did the derailing occur at the same place every time? There could be a problem with the side of the railhead, dirt or poor manufacture or gauge narrowing due to not cutting all the sleeper webs on one side on flexi track. However post 762 links to a video of an 02 running which looks to have quartering troubles as the tyre of the leading wheel is clearly moving backwards and forwards in relation to the chassis. Over length or short coupling rods can also cause this problem. but I guess correcting a quartering issue could be challenging.

Some batches of Code 100 streamline points lacked the wipers, Peco told us the were un necessary when we complained, the points were entirely useless but we got some damaged ones for £1 each and after some repairs used them instead. The tags subsequently returned I have measured several Peco long radius points against a steel ruler within the last ten minutes, none of them new, but left and right, electrofrog and insulfrog and the divergence angle is the frog angle on all of them. All the frog rails are dead straight measured against a ruler and the last 40mm or so or the "Curved rail" is also straight. I cut the webs between sleepers and curve the ends of these points to increase or decrease the angle and save a millimetre or two when tracklaying. The medium and short radius also have straight frog rails but the short has a slightly shorter rail and a slightly wider divergence angle. (See my previous pictures) Nonel of the points have "Frogs" as a separate piece, though from a separate thread about electro frog conversions, you can replace the plastic frog nose moulded into the base of old insulfrog points with a piece of NS rail filed to shape to convert them to electrofrog

The drawing is curved but the actual hard copy plastic and metal point has two straight rails, If you put a ruler along them they are straight. combining at the frog, the insulfrog has a tiny sliver of plastic between and a vestigial plastic frog, the electro frog vary but also have two separate rails, none are like the drawing above. The real world large radius point does not curve beyond the gauge intersection so a frog angle of 9.57 degrees is about right. You can cut some sleeper webs and tweak the end into a curve but that is not how they come from the factory

I can't overlay the peco point on the plan without a lot of work but the Templot (at least I think it is the templot) shown in this thread has the frog of the long radius point too near the heel of the point (the overall length appears right) and the angles are wrong The frog assembly is actually the 3 ft Medium radius. It would appear the drawing has been tweaked to give the 12 degree angle whereas it is a bit less. The Medium and Small radius points look fine and work fine but there are issues with the long radius points. They use the same track spacing but a shallower frog angle in plastic and metal compared to the small and medium, even if the spec sheet says otherwise. See the templot attached the hatching effect where the lines are not horizontal does not help. Chimer's comment about clearances between trains on passing loops etc is interesting, but you do need more or less a points length beyond the point before there is clearance for trains. That is a minimum of around 7" with small radius (4" with small Y) each end of a passing loop, that is 14" four wagons or more than a coach length so well worth considering when designing a layout. I squeeze the track spacing down towards 42mm by judicious cutting at the heel end of Streamline points to squeeze in more marshalling or carriage sidings and I squeeze the clearances even tighter where parallel moves are not possible and stock does not stand. In always draw my plan using 1" to 1' scale on an A3 or A4 sketch pad a pen and and a protractor and lots of correction fluid, using 4mm (48mm) track spacing and using a chart of 1/12th point lengths 16mm 19mm and 21mm for peco points and assume a 12 degree angle on the point frogs but I don't get too hung up on precision at the planning stage but I do a lot of checking and tweaking at the laying stage.

[ The only slight problem is the points dont actually agree with the specifications. The 2ft and 3 ft are quite near 12 degrees but the 4ft "Large" radius sometimes claimed to be 5ft is way off. Even Templot gets the frog angle wrong on the large radius by assuming the angle is 12 degrees and the rails at the heel end are the same as the 3 ft, the templot rails at the heel are not even parallel. See pics including the 18" bit of the 2' radius point and the small medium and large together and my points pile mainly acquired from my excellent local model shop Cheltenham Model Centre as in need of repair!

The "Frog" angle is different, I don't have a protractor which works, but on the long radius points the diverging rail from the end of the frog to the end of the rail is 48 mm while the medium is 42mm. Both diverge from the "straight" rail by 8 mm 1 in 5.25 and 1 in 6. I have no idea what these angles are but they are different... Pairs of similar points give the 52mm track spacing and dissimilar points give the track spacing but at the expense of a slight kink.