A garage, O scale and the Ploughley Hundred Light Railway (was Gawcott & Westbury Light Railway)

[Ray H]

I have finally succumbed to up-scaling my (fixed) home layout to O gauge. The OO layout – Virney Junction, around the four walls of our integral garage – has a new home awaiting it. All the OO stock is to be disposed of.

 

My small portable O gauge layout shunting puzzle – Puzzel Yard – will disappear in due course as it doesn’t leave much space when it’s erected to do any work in the garage (at least while the OO layout is still there) and isn’t the way I want to go.

 

In their place will probably go a roundy O gauge layout in the (approx.) 17ft by 8ft garage. This will involve the use of sub 4ft radius curves at each end. I only plan to use six coupled locos and 4 wheeled wagons, vans and (possibly) coaches on the layout so I don’t view this as a problem.

 

I have three O gauge 0-6-0/2-4-0 tanks in BR livery and intend to leave them so adorned. I also have several industrial 0-6-0Ts which will also stay as they are. In addition, there’s a green Derby Lightweight railcar that I hope to be able to use and my BR livered Class 15 diesel can be kept away from these curves if I want to give it a run out.

 

My current thinking is to have a single-track BR line running alongside one wall of the garage with its own hidden fiddle yard at each end for the railcar to run back and forth along. The fiddle yard nearest the garage’s internal access door from the house will have a couple of sidings; one for the railcar and one for a goods train, the latter being set up at the start of each running session.

 

There will be a single platform face – possibly just a halt – on the BR line with a nearby freight only connection to the rest of the layout by means of an exchange siding. The only BR freight services planned are between the two-siding fiddle yard and the exchange siding, which should bring about some interesting shunting moves with the (BR) locos and brake van(s).

 

The rest of the layout in this scenario will take the form of a Light Railway (LR) – although I shall probably have to invoke Rule 1 as I don’t know whether there were any/many LRs still in existence post nationalisation).

 

And there’s more . . . . .

Edited August 6, 2023 by Ray H
Title changed

[Ray H]

Virney Junction is ideal for accommodating several operators but I don’t enjoy operating it on my own because I can’t get myself into a take your time mindset so I’m keen to avoid repeating this downside on any new layout.

 

The main reason why I want a roundy is to be able to give locos a chance to stretch their legs/wheels rather than just potter back and forth along a few yards of track – the railcar can have a run on the club’s O gauge layout when it wants some exercise.

 

I try to operate my layouts prototypically although I appreciate this doesn’t sit well with a continuous layout. Therefore, . . . . .

 

The garage wall opposite where the BR track will go is a few inches short of eighteen feet long. Therefore, I reckon that by keeping the curves at each end of the garage as close to the end walls as possible I should have just under 10ft of possible straight run available along this wall.

 

Taking my cue from the goodly number of micro layouts that are around, I’m minded to do something that I don’t recall seeing before – at least that’s the present thinking.

 

I plan to divide this 10ft run into two and have a terminus in each “part”, with each part separated from its neighbour by some form of scenic break to create an end-to-end layout via the BR/LR interchange point. However, and here’s the tricky bit if I can pull it off, there will be a disguised/hidden rail link between the two termini to complete the oval.

 

This rail link could be within a building which normally accepts wagons for loading/unloading from their respective ends but which I can, when the mood takes me, evict the wagons and let the locos run through. The exteriors of the two opposite (long) walls of the building would be significantly different with the end wall nearest the operator having consistent features for its whole width.

 

This building could be the major part of the scenic separation between the two termini. It will need to be deep enough to accommodate at least one wagon from each side and possibly a bit longer because . . . .

 

 

[Nearholmer]

This sounds really interesting, although I think it will take mega-ingenuity to get two termini into 18ft.
 

I run coarse-scale 0, with point-work that is of very nearly the same radius as Peco 0 set-track points, and even the very tiny terminus-on-a-plank that I’ve built to sit on a bookshelf in my study is about 7’6” long. That is just about big enough to allow 2 x 50ft bogie coaches, or 3 x 35ft six-wheelers.

 

The trick might be to fair the runaround loop into the curve on at least one of your termini, which will be fine if you build your own points, but may be challenging if you don’t, because I don’t think anyone makes small radius curved points.

 

Good luck with it anyway - it ought to come out to be very entertaining.

[Hando]

59 minutes ago, Ray H said:

I have finally succumbed to up-scaling my (fixed) home layout to O gauge. The OO layout – Virney Junction, around the four walls of our integral garage – has a new home awaiting it. All the OO stock is to be disposed of.

 

My small portable O gauge layout shunting puzzle – Puzzel Yard – will disappear in due course as it doesn’t leave much space when it’s erected to do any work in the garage (at least while the OO layout is still there) and isn’t the way I want to go.

 

In their place will probably go a roundy O gauge layout in the (approx.) 17ft by 8ft garage. This will involve the use of sub 4ft radius curves at each end. I only plan to use six coupled locos and 4 wheeled wagons, vans and (possibly) coaches on the layout so I don’t view this as a problem.

 

I have three O gauge 0-6-0/2-4-0 tanks in BR livery and intend to leave them so adorned. I also have several industrial 0-6-0Ts which will also stay as they are. In addition, there’s a green Derby Lightweight railcar that I hope to be able to use and my BR livered Class 15 diesel can be kept away from these curves if I want to give it a run out.

 

My current thinking is to have a single-track BR line running alongside one wall of the garage with its own hidden fiddle yard at each end for the railcar to run back and forth along. The fiddle yard nearest the garage’s internal access door from the house will have a couple of sidings; one for the railcar and one for a goods train, the latter being set up at the start of each running session.

 

There will be a single platform face – possibly just a halt – on the BR line with a nearby freight only connection to the rest of the layout by means of an exchange siding. The only BR freight services planned are between the two-siding fiddle yard and the exchange siding, which should bring about some interesting shunting moves with the (BR) locos and brake van(s).

 

The rest of the layout in this scenario will take the form of a Light Railway (LR) – although I shall probably have to invoke Rule 1 as I don’t know whether there were any/many LRs still in existence post nationalisation).

 

And there’s more . . . . .

The only notable example of a post-nationalisation common-carrier light railway survivor that I can think of is the Derwent Valley Light Railway, which served the farming communities to the southeast of York. The line closed as late as 1981 and remained independent throughout its existence. 

Edited December 19, 2021 by Hando

[Nearholmer]

The K&ESR, and bits of several others, survived under BR ownership but, like Hando, I can’t readily think of more than the DVLR as a common carrier independent. Did the Easingwold remain in use into the 1950s maybe?

Edited December 19, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Ray H]

Arriving locos at each terminus will need to be able to run-round their stock if a “station pilot” isn’t available to carry out the incoming loco’s release. I believe sector plates, turntables and traversers have all been used on layouts to replace the point(s) used as part of the run round facility so the above building could become a view blocker to disguise such a feature. Or . . . . .

 

A single turntable or traverser could be utilised to provide the run round facility at each terminus with the aforementioned building disguising this space saver. All I’d need to do is to make sure attempts aren’t made to use the common track from both termini simultaneously!

 

There is a potential downside to this in that the shared tracks at the termini will need to have the same alignment and positioning either side of the scenic break.

 

A small shared traverser – it only needs to accommodate an 0-6-0T – would be the easiest to use as it only needs to align with fixed tracks in two positions on each side and the traverser’s end of travel positions could more or less guarantee that alignment.

 

Taking the Peco set track points as an example – each of which is 15½ inches long – the shared traverser idea would yield the equivalent of around 20 inches length saving at each terminus. Mind you, it will need some fairly precise stopping of locos on the traverser which is hidden behind the building but a craftily placed mirror could help here.

 

[Ray H]

I haven’t formulated any plans for the “interchange” station – let’s call it Midway for the time being – other than its exchange siding. It might have a loop so that stock can be run round if required and/or freight and passenger trains can pass each other. It will also need a platform on the Light Railway (LR).

 

I would like to make the railcar’s BR excursions automated, triggered by a button push or similar. This will start the train from the fiddle yard, stop and re-start it at Midway and terminate it on arrival at the other fiddle yard.

 

The trigger(s) will be initiated by the driver/operator of the LR’s train so that some form of passenger interchange is possible at Midway.

 

Each operating session is only likely to see one loaded freight train in each direction – two at a push, if my arm is twisted – with all these movements made by an operator. An LR loco is likely to leave the shed and either run light engine (LE) to Midway or couple to whatever stock needs to be transferred to BR and take that and a brake van with it.

 

It will be more interesting if the BR loco (and brake van) brings some wagons initially and returns back loco & brake leaving the LR to distribute the day’s arrivals and gather up the day’s departures for the BR loco and brake to come back and take away later in the day.

 

However, a simple out and back “loaded” trip is equally possible on BR, it just means that either the LR will need to gather stock for despatch from each station before the BR train arrives or departing stock will need to be left at Midway overnight.

[Ray H]

I’d guess that prototypically any freight facility at Midway would be on the BR side of the station. This might not be an option because the BR single track needs to remain close to the wall to provide the maximum width for the curves at each end of the layout.

 

The baseboards will be around 2ft wide so there’s plenty of room on the LR side of the BR land for a few sidings, at least one of which would be required to hold trains to/or from the exchange siding before or after the BR train has visited. A goods shed or perhaps more likely a provender store would be useful as would a plain siding for smalls traffic and coal.

 

I doubt there would be any livestock on the LR side because of the time taken to shunt the wagon(s) between LR & BR. However, a short siding for livestock on the BR side could be a possibility (if ever I obtain any cattle wagons/horseboxes).

 

Thoughts are turning to the two termini where the building mentioned previously is now making me question that idea if only because I think that anything too large would be a little out of character with the more rural scene that I tend to consider go hand in glove in later years with LRs.

 

One side of the scenic break is clearly visible from the entry door into the garage so I think a small building warehouse could possibly be accommodated on that side. On the other side and largely out of immediate view to all but the operator could be a low relief end of a goods shed.

 

I did think of having a road bridge over the track instead of the building(s) as part of the scenic break. That might be harder to sell if the stations either side are both termini. I doubt they’d have gone to the expense of a bridge over what would be little more than a buffer stop.

 

Time for my thinking cap to go on and whilst I’m at it

 

I need to dream up a back story for the whole lot.

[Ray H]

Thanks for the earlier responses. I drafted my first five posts intent of uploading them sequentially. However, a family phone call intervened and the response from Nearholmer & Hando appeared in the meantime.

 

I haven't decided on the maximum length of the trains yet but somewhere in the region of 6 vehicles plus an 0-6-0T seems about right and passenger trains will normally be limited to a couple of four wheelers (and loco) or a single coach, a wagon or two and a brake van.

 

I plan to build all or the majority of the point work as I did with Virney Junction. I shall invariably use PCB sleepers for that. I haven't made any decision about the plain track although Peco setrack might well be used on the curves to help keep a constant radius throughout.

 

The layout will be DCC powered and I'm warming to the MSE/Wizard lever frame(s) to control points operated by servos. Signalling will be pretty basic. The BR track will be one engine in steam with the connection to the exchange siding/LR operated by local ground frame released by the train staff.

 

I'm undecided about the LR's signalling. I'd imagine a home signal would be essential/desirable but beyond that I'm unsure. Presumably some form of single line authority would be needed and I'd envisage this being issued by the equivalent of a porter/shunter signalman and used as permission to leave the station and enter the single line.

[F-UnitMad]

I took these photos a while back on the 3ft-radius curves of my US O Scale layout (which coincidentally is also 17ft x 8ft).

Minerva 8750 Pannier, Lima Toad & assorted wagons. You should be fine down to this radius with short UK stock.

 

 

[F-UnitMad]

And a few more, due to file sizes. I would strongly recommend that all stock has sprung buffers & couplings.

 

 

[Ray H]

Thanks.

 

The stock is fitted with Dingham couplings so I hope they'll still be K. I don't aim to do too much propelling on the curves.

[F-UnitMad]

14 minutes ago, Ray H said:

I don't aim to do too much propelling on the curves.

You'll just need to experiment with the Dinghams. No real experience of them myself, but I've heard they're not great on tight curves. Might just be hearsay though.

But propelling moves - I think you might find you do far more than envisaged, with your plan for two back-to-back termini on the straight; the approach tracks to the sidings will of neccesity be curved.

[Ray H]

I've spent most of today and a good part of yesterday re-uniting OO stock with its boxes and changing Kadees for tension locks on the motive power (as well as checking which ones have sound) in preparation for its disposal. Another day and that should be clear (I hope).

 

Being a bit of a mindless task I've also kept considering options for the O gauge whilst "boxing-up".

 

I've come to recognise that trying to get two termini, back to back, in around 10ft is probably asking a bit much. However, my mind is still hoping something like it might be possible. I wonder if I could have (say) one station along the front edge of the baseboard at ground level, have a "slight" incline up to Midway and then a further incline up to the second terminus which hugs the wall. I've yet to work out how this idea could meet the continuous run hope that I have.

 

Meanwhile, there is in the Guild's Small Layouts volume 2, a continuous layout (Little Fen) that fits in 16ft x 8ft 2ins. I'm very tempted.

[Nearholmer]

Having earlier said that two termini down one side will require ingenuity, I don’t think it’s impossible.

 

One option might be to curl one terminus inwards, into the space in the middle.

 

Another option is to adopt a similar topology to the one  I’ve used, see my thread under my signature, and make the LR run mainline junction (one side of the room) to terminus (other side) in a spiral circuit.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Ray H]

12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Another option is to adopt a similar topology to the one  I’ve used, see my thread under my signature, and make the LR run mainline junction (one side of the room) to terminus (other side) in a spiral circuit.

 

Thanks for the pointer to your layout. It looks fun. Is the layout plan om the first of your 150+ pages still basically the same?

 

Can you clarify your reference to "spiral"? Are you suggesting several passes around the layout (at the same level) before branching off to reach a terminal? Or, is the meaning having inclines as trains progress around the layout.

 

The former could give trains a longer run especially if the track past the termini could be at least partially hidden.

[Nearholmer]

I really didn’t explain very well, did I?

 

My track plan has evolved slightly over time, but is still basically the same.

 

What I was thinking of for your situation was something like this:

 

The key issues are width and curve radius, because you might not have enough width given that you probably need to stay at about 1000mm radius to get three-link couplers to work OK without tricks like wide buffer-faces, whereas I’ve gone down to 700mm radius, although only in one short section. That works fine with three-link and wide buffer faces, even with no transitions in the curves.

 

 

If I was to create something based on the above sketch, I wouldn’t aim for steep gradients, only just enough to get a bit of visible separation, maybe 50-75mm.

[Mol_PMB]

I like that plan, but what it doesn't give the OP is the continuous run option. I would consider adding a point to the curve top left, that links to the dead end by the platform. It could perhaps be concealed with a road over-bridge at this location (perhaps the station building would be on the bridge too, GCR-style, to save space on the platform?).

 

[Nearholmer]

On mine, the continuous run is achieved by points at the top right, rather than top-left, which works better, because it allows circulation while the terminus is occupied.

 

I’d definitely put a road over bridge top-left corner as the way of getting the “main line” off stage.

 

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Happy Hippo]

On 19/12/2021 at 18:09, F-UnitMad said:

You'll just need to experiment with the Dinghams. No real experience of them myself, but I've heard they're not great on tight curves. Might just be hearsay though.

But propelling moves - I think you might find you do far more than envisaged, with your plan for two back-to-back termini on the straight; the approach tracks to the sidings will of neccesity be curved.

There is a new coupling in the wings that  Marc Dobson of Scratchy Bottom fame  (the layout!!) It works on the same principle as the Dingham but caters for sharper radii curves.

 

 

[Mol_PMB]

Sounds good.

Assuming the following:

• 2400mm usable width in the garage
• 1000mm minimum radius
• 80mm minimum track spacing
• gradients not enough for tracks to pass under each other

...then the maximum number of parallel tracks outside the curve is 4.

That's consistent with @Nearholmer 's sketch, though clearances would be tight without space for a scenic break between tracks and curve overthrows could be an issue if there are any bogie vehicles.

Locally it might be possible to add a little more width freedom with a 'kidney bean' shape, but not at the ends.

[Nearholmer]

I reckon it might be possible to go below 1000mm radius if transitions were used, not far probably, but tiny nips help.

 

8ft is tight, because thinking about it my garage is just over 9ft 6in clear.

[Ray H]

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I really didn’t explain very well, did I?

 

My track plan has evolved slightly over time, but is still basically the same.

 

What I was thinking of for your situation was something like this:

 

Many thanks for the clarification. I've nearly finished boxing up the OO stuff, just got to make a list of it all then I can return to thoughts about the O gauge. I'd like to have a little more scope for shunting if I can.

[Ray H]

 

Here's the first attempt utilising AnyRail so everything is at least slightly adjustable as I aim to make my own points with the aid of Templot.

 

The yellow rectangles are platforms and the lower/bottom part of the outer oval will be hidden. The outer oval will normally be used as such for test running and the like. Normally, the railcar will simply vanish from view at each end and then stop. I've yet to give consideration to how to access the hidden track for cleaning or rescuing an errant train/vehicle.

 

The inner of the two termini will be at baseboard level or below and probably a little more parallel to the wall to keep within what I hope can be 2ft wide baseboards as far as possible.

 

The other terminus is over the outer oval (at least) and could be further to the left - I'd used up my allowance in AnyRail! 

 

Although shown as all but mirror images of each other, the two termini will be enhanced a little with, possibly, an extra siding and/or more curvature to the siding tracks.

 

I think it may be necessary to lower the bottom/hidden part of the outer loop to try to limit the gradient to the upper terminus.

 

I tried to have an exchange siding in between the (BR) outer oval and the (light railway) tracks at the top of the plan for exchanging freight stock but this would have significantly reduced the radius of the inner curves not to mention requiring a wider baseboard. As a result the loco from one railway will need to cross to the other railway to deliver/fetch their train. I don't know whether this type of movement would be prototypically correct.

 

The straight track at top right will lead to a cassette for use by freight trains and will require the garage access door to be open. I also need to have an access into the centre of the layout at top right. This will be a lifting access flap although I have yet to decide whether to hinge it or have it removable when not in use.

 

Comments would be appreciated.

[jcarta]

That looks nice with lots of scope ......... best I'll polish off my Class 20 - 33 diesels