Douglas Lane Sidings & Works

[P-J.S.]

Good Evening All
I have been playing around in Templot to draw up a potential track plan that will hopefully scratch the itch that I currently have to build a S.G. shunting plank. I have a alcove available that is 22" deep by 89.5" long and this is a possible plan using A4 and A5 turnouts with a minimum radius of 2800 mm. It is a 5,3,3 inglenook with a loop and extra line in. The idea is that a bridge over the west end, a retaining wall between that and the big warehouse (the light brown-y orange blobs). The Platform at the front is a reached via a set of steps down from the over bridge that also hides the main line in. The idea is that if it were to be shown then it could have cassette yards at each end that could increase its operation, but at home it provides ample shunting with a Pug, or Beyer Pecock No 1827 type loco, and 8-10 small wagons.



I'd welcome any feedback or comments on the idea please before I start cutting wood. The track would be built from C&L finescale components to S7 standards. This isn't my first layout, but would be the first SG 7mm one.

Cheers

P-J

 

[daifly]

Can I suggest trying to shunt some scale paper wagons around with a paper loco? The headshunts appear too short to hold a loco and wagon which makes shunting a bit tricky!

Dave

 

[P-J.S.]

Dam you're right... I've just double checked and I can't add up.... The idea was to have the head shunt under the bridge before the first point long enough to get a Toad and a Pug in but I've somehow lost 3" somewhere... the head shunt under the building was intended to only fit a loco or a Toad in it, that and all the rest of the sidings/loops work though... A pug and three wagons fit on Line A before the second point though. I shall go and print it out and make some paper cut outs to try Thank you Dave.

 

[Simon Dunkley]

If you don't mind the comment, can I suggest you do less in the space?

Have a look at Lance Mindheim's blog, and scroll down to "No skills? No problem!"
Ignore the title, it doesn't just apply to beginners, and ignore the difference in prototype: it's the principle that matters.

 

[P-J.S.]

I did this before I saw Simon's post



Following daifly's suggestion I've had a shuffle with pieces of paper the correct size and everything fits this time. Whether or not the curves are too sharp or not is a separate matter... and it may be over complicated but I think it is a fun puzzle and may be a challenge to build... we shall see.

 

[Simon Dunkley]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand here. There is too much in too small a space, yet it is being done in S7? The points are sharp, even for an industrial line, and yet you are proposing to run passenger trains?

I don't wish to dampen your undoubted enthusiasm, but you seem to have the standards cart in front of the design horse.

This is, if I have it right, a sideline for you to scratch an itch, but what you are proposing is not a small morsel, but a very large main course that will take a lot of time, if everything is made to comparable standard as deciding to work to S7. It's not just about the wheels and track. You are looking at several hundred hours, here.

"Simplify and add lightness", or in this case cut-back and have fewer items of high quality.

Whether or not the curves are too sharp or not is a separate matter

I think it is the main matter. This is not something you want to find unworkable after building it.

... and it may be over complicated but I think it is a fun puzzle

But not a model of a railway, I would suggest?

Read this critique of overly contorted shunting puzzles.

Just trying to save you from a world of pain... Been there, got the t-shirt, don't even tell people I have it, let alone wear it.

 

[Overseer]

PJ

You probably wouldn't have seen it, but I built a small S7 layout with nearly exactly the same track plan while living on a narrow boat about 15 years ago. It is called Ardival and was inspired by Findhorn in Scotland which had a railway during the 1860s. I assumed it lasted a bit longer and was taken over by the Highland Railway and modelled it as it could have been in the 1870s. Due to lack of space the scenic section was on two boards 950mm long x 450 wide, so just over 6 feet long plus the fiddle yard. Ardival was exhibited at Telford in 1998 and York in 1999. It has also been exhibited in Melbourne three times, most recently at the AMRA exhibition in August last year. I have built an extra scenic board since it has been in Australia to give the trains a bit of a journey from the fiddle yard to the station.

Overall the small size has not caused problems as long as the locomotives and stock are selected for the layout. Quite a few visiting locos have operated on the layout, including beautiful Midland Railway dock tanks. The 1870s stock tended to be considerably smaller than modern image stock. From memory I used a minimum radius of 1400 mm. I also used code 90 rail (from Marcway) to represent the light flat bottom rail used on the original Findhorn Railway so the track is a lot less dominating than it would be if code 124 bull head rail was used. I have one snapshot on this computer of a part of the layout, sorry about the wide angle lens distortion. Let me know if you would like to see more and I will take some better shots.


There are plenty of prototypes for very sharp curves, particularly in the industrial world. I suggest you get on and build some track and work out for yourself how much you want to fit into the space you have and whether your stock fits in with it visually.

Fraser

 

[Osgood]

.......I have one snapshot on this computer of a part of the layout, sorry about the wide angle lens distortion. Let me know if you would like to see more and I will take some better shots......

Yes please - one vote here for that! Looks a delightful piece of work, and the light rail section certainly makes a difference.

You must have been an early S7 practitioner!

 

[Dog Star]

Use of A6 is considered by many to be too tight for S7 locomotives... not so for a GWR 0-6-0 Pannier tank if gauge widening is built in to the closure rail. The S7 Group can supply Vee rail filing and assembly jig for 1:6... and a common crossing assembly jig for the same angle - I think that jigs for 1:5 are not available from the stores.

An A4 turnout? Ouch!!! You may be correct in that an 0-4-0 tank shall be able to go through that turnout - I suggest that you build such a turnout and run a wagon through the S&C work to see what binding occurs before building the layout as drawn.

regards, Prof. Barking (S&C and bar)

 

[JimG]

PJ,

Following up what others are saying, I built a small S7 layout some years ago based on John Allen's Timesaver design - basically it was a quart in a pint pot squeezing a lot onto an 8' x 1'6" baseboard. The layout worked well but I got really fed up with it operationally since every move became similar to doing a puzzle and there was virtually no mental relaxation when operating it. I ripped it up.

Jim.

 

[Simon Dunkley]

That's the problem with shunting puzzles designed to be awkward and challenging: they are not anything other than that, and the real railways tried to avoid more moved than absolutely necessary. Yes, there are prototypical exceptions, but the point is, these are exceptions and not typical - and a bit of delving into the history of the subject usually reveals something like the use of ropes with horses or capstans.

What turnouts did you use, Jim?

 

[SteveO]

I'm building something like this myself, although I decided not to call it a 'layout'. Mine is a little shy of 3m x 0.5m and will be used primarily for testing wagon builds, and eventually couplings too. I'm quite tempted by the Alex Jackson and Lincs types, although I'm just as taken with manual methods. It has an added bonus in that I can shunt wagons around with a little 02 diesel or a Sentinel - both tiny. Most of my (potential) wagons are 10ft wheelbase too.

I'm in the suck-it-and-see camp on this. Although to learn by others mistakes is invaluable, you often don't know why or what you've learned as a result - you just avoid it because you're told to. My little plank-whatsit is exactly what I need, despite all the calls for less track and more scenic detail - it's just not what I want and would not provide what I need. I want my stock to struggle a bit on tight reverse and S-turns so whatever I build will operate faultlessly on something more prototypical.

I'm probably only going to provide the bare minimum of detail and it won't be painted or tarted up in any major way - a naked railway, perhaps. I don't think it will please anyone except myself, but there again, I'm going to be the only one allowed to play on it.

 

[JimG]

What turnouts did you use, Jim?

Simon,

Handbuilt using Templot templates and C&L bits. IIRC, most of them were in the "Y" configuration to cut down on length but keep the radii reasonable. I think I used 72" as my minimum radius - I can't check now since the Templot file was on a computer now long gone.

Jim.

 

[P-J.S.]

Good morning

Thank you all for the feedback, especially Simon for that link, it's a very good point. I wasn't meaning that Curves are not important, I agree that they are the most important issue but one I was trying to avoid! The curved point is a 1:5.75 with a minimum radius of 1400 mm. The RH and LH straight points are 1400 mm rad with a 1:5 frog, and the Wye point is the tightest with again 1400 mm rad and a 1:4.25 frog. Thank you Prof Barking for confirming that smaller points MAY work!

In terms of operation the layout is planned around a 5,3,3 inglenook with a run round loop. Stock plan was just small 4-wheel wagons, and small 0-4-0 tanks not much larger than the wagons. The longest item of stock would be a GWR 4 wheel coach to operate the "passenger" train... it would simply shuttle in and out and not use much of the rest of the layout. Of course I could remove the platform and that spur, but I think it just gives it that extra thing.

I'll do some mock ups with some copper clad and code 100 to see what will run through curves and if they are too tight... must get this final assignment finished first though! The reason I'd chosen S7 was that as the track is being hand built then it may as well be built to the correct gauge.

Could you share some more photos of your layout please Oversteer that sounds very interesting? Your post has given me a bit of a boost again as I was starting to think that I was wrong with this plan.

Thank you all again. If the curves don't work I'll go back to square 1 and come up with a fresh design.

 

[Simon]

Clearly is "your trainset" and you can build whatever you wish. Whether it pleases other people is another matter entirely, although the fact that you have posted your idea up here and asked for feedback on it suggests that perhaps this aspect of the design might be of some concern to you?

But most important of all, it might be worth you just thinking about your itch a bit more, by which all I really mean is asking yourself exactly what it is that you want to achieve or experience in the building of this project.

As to advice, KISS, works every time

Simon

 

[Dog Star]

Thank you Prof Barking for confirming that smaller points MAY work...

To be sure that there is no mis-understanding...

Our home-layout uses A6 turnouts and we run 0-6-0PT... John Lewsey's LNWR 0-8-0 runs through the same S&C work. I have built the turnouts with gauge widening throughout the length of the closure rails... 5thou on the first two chairs from each end of the closures, then 10thou on the next two chairs from the end of the closures and then 15thou on the remainding chairs of the closures. So the chairs along a closure rail are given gauge widening as per:-

* +5 thou, + 5thou, +10 thou, +10 thou, +15 thou.... , +15 thou, +10 thou, +10 thou, +5 thou, +5 thou.

Each engine is built to S7 standards. The pannier tank has minimal side play on leading / trailing axles and approximately 1 mm of total side play on the driving axle. The 0-8-0 has slightly more side play on the middle pair of axles than the driving axle of our pannier tank.

I believe that a four-coupled engine shall run through an A6 without problem, with / without gauge widening.

I think that a four-coupled engine ought to run through an A5 with gauge widening as described here. I am not sure about an A5 without gauge widening.

A4? I shall wait for your verdict... which is Prof. Barking's way of saying "no idea".

regards, Graham

 

[Dog Star]

Professor Barking has bitten my ankle to let me know that there was a tiny mistake in an earlier missive... the S7 Group Stores now offers Vee filing / assembly jig for 1:5 vees and an assembly jig for 1:4 common crossings, there is no 1:4 Vee filing jig.

So, stick with 1:5 or 1:6 (which means sort the 1:5.75) and order the necessaries from the stores.

regards, Graham

 

[Osgood]

To be sure that there is no mis-understanding...

Our home-layout uses A6 turnouts and we run 0-6-0PT... John Lewsey's LNWR 0-8-0 runs through the same S&C work. ...

Isn't that ever-so-slightly cheating though - didn't the LNWR 8 coupled engines have one axle with no flanges?

 

[Heather Kay]

Isn't that ever-so-slightly cheating though - didn't the LNWR 8 coupled engines have one axle with no flanges?

They did, and if this engine is the one I think it is, while the B-to-B is S7 the wheels are standard finescale Slater's, and none of the axles is sprung.

I guess that makes it running through an A6 turnout even more impressive!

 

[Dog Star]

Isn't that ever-so-slightly cheating though - didn't the LNWR 8 coupled engines have one axle with no flanges?

Not really... an 0-8-0 with flangeless wheels on one of the two intermediate axles is no different to an 0-6-0 where the coupled wheelbase is stretched and assymetric.

Heather... yes... this engine and the bicycle has featured in the Hartley Hill layout thread.

regards, Graham