Beginners OO 1950's Banff
- Thread starter aardvark
- Start date
Don't know if the Maquett range is available in your part of the world. If it is they may have something suitable. Here's a link that provides better indication of the range White Super Styrene Profiles.
also thinking outside the box... plastic food containers might have something suitable as a starting point. How you'd glue it back together the correct size is another question
also thinking outside the box... plastic food containers might have something suitable as a starting point. How you'd glue it back together the correct size is another question
Or small electronics project boxes, something like this perhaps?
https://cpc.farnell.com/takachi/cue8208bk/enclosure-size-8-black-105x70x20mm/dp/EN83621
https://cpc.farnell.com/takachi/cue8208bk/enclosure-size-8-black-105x70x20mm/dp/EN83621
Many thanks to all who contributed to the discussion on how to model the water tank. I think, my preferences are:
- A wooden block, routed and/or sanded on all edges; then, failing that:
- Card and/or styrene construction using Maquett's 4mm quarter round rod, imported at great expense.
Are you planning to model the original base, as per your photo, or the latter heightened base?
There's a nice colour photo by R.F. Payne (ARPT), probably taken April 64 in The Last Years of Scottish Steam in Colour by David Dunn, published by Book Law Publications. It's a similar viewpoint as This but the wagon doesn't hide as much.
There's a nice colour photo by R.F. Payne (ARPT), probably taken April 64 in The Last Years of Scottish Steam in Colour by David Dunn, published by Book Law Publications. It's a similar viewpoint as This but the wagon doesn't hide as much.
That's an interesting question.
I think I'll model the raised version. Without any evidence, I suspect that the tank was lifted with a couple of rows of concrete blocks when larger "modern" steam locos were run on the line.
I'm not entirely sure how long the tank was in use for, as the line was only 6 miles to Tillynaught.
I think I'll model the raised version. Without any evidence, I suspect that the tank was lifted with a couple of rows of concrete blocks when larger "modern" steam locos were run on the line.
I'm not entirely sure how long the tank was in use for, as the line was only 6 miles to Tillynaught.
Gee - it's nearly been a year since I last posted.
In the meantime, there has been an announcement that we're to move house, followed by an aggressive period of de-stuff-ing, painting & decorating. It's amazing how much work there is in making a house look like it is low maintenance. Finally, the house is on the market, but, of course, we've probably chosen the worse time in history to sell a house, save the 1930's.
Amongst all that, I lost enthusiasm for a layout that would probably be dismantled, and began investigating alternate locations for a future layout in a future space in a future house. In the end, I've done a full circle and come back to consider how I might add a fiddleyard to the existing Banff layout in a future shared double garage.
Here, I've given myself 2 x 4.8m because I can't be sure I will be allowed a fully half of the garage, and because it's easier to make layouts bigger than smaller should I be surprised.
The four boards at the bottom are the existing layout, already 4.8m long. The left-most one will require re-laying of track, but not a substantive reconstruction of the baseboard itself. Everything else would be new. Most of the boards are 600mm wide. The wriggly bit on the left will be train-in-the-landscape. The background there is borrowed from a CJF plan, and is indicative rather than prescriptive. There may be a bridge or halt midway.
At the top, in the blank bit, will be the fiddleyard. I haven't drawn anything here yet because there are many options, at least including:
In the case of Banff, there is no need for trains to be turned. Most, if not all, locos ran into Banff tender/bunker first. I suppose goods services still had brake vans at the tail, but in-bound passenger services all seem to have had the guard compartment of the 3rd-brake immediately in front of the loco. With a downhill gradient and a loco in reverse, I suppose there was no chance that a decoupled train would run-away unnoticed. So the fiddleyard merely has to get the loco on the other end of the train. A locolift may be sufficient.
There's plenty of time to consider the options. Doesn't seem like I'm going anywhere.
While the northern hemisphere people are asleep, I added the following ...
Fiddle Yards: The Unglamorous Secret to Great Operations seems to offer sagely advice for fiddle-newbies like me:
In the meantime, there has been an announcement that we're to move house, followed by an aggressive period of de-stuff-ing, painting & decorating. It's amazing how much work there is in making a house look like it is low maintenance. Finally, the house is on the market, but, of course, we've probably chosen the worse time in history to sell a house, save the 1930's.
Amongst all that, I lost enthusiasm for a layout that would probably be dismantled, and began investigating alternate locations for a future layout in a future space in a future house. In the end, I've done a full circle and come back to consider how I might add a fiddleyard to the existing Banff layout in a future shared double garage.
Here, I've given myself 2 x 4.8m because I can't be sure I will be allowed a fully half of the garage, and because it's easier to make layouts bigger than smaller should I be surprised.
The four boards at the bottom are the existing layout, already 4.8m long. The left-most one will require re-laying of track, but not a substantive reconstruction of the baseboard itself. Everything else would be new. Most of the boards are 600mm wide. The wriggly bit on the left will be train-in-the-landscape. The background there is borrowed from a CJF plan, and is indicative rather than prescriptive. There may be a bridge or halt midway.
At the top, in the blank bit, will be the fiddleyard. I haven't drawn anything here yet because there are many options, at least including:
- fan of turnouts
- traverser
- turntable
- sector plate
- cassette
In the case of Banff, there is no need for trains to be turned. Most, if not all, locos ran into Banff tender/bunker first. I suppose goods services still had brake vans at the tail, but in-bound passenger services all seem to have had the guard compartment of the 3rd-brake immediately in front of the loco. With a downhill gradient and a loco in reverse, I suppose there was no chance that a decoupled train would run-away unnoticed. So the fiddleyard merely has to get the loco on the other end of the train. A locolift may be sufficient.
There's plenty of time to consider the options. Doesn't seem like I'm going anywhere.
While the northern hemisphere people are asleep, I added the following ...
Fiddle Yards: The Unglamorous Secret to Great Operations seems to offer sagely advice for fiddle-newbies like me:
- fiddleyards should be as long as your longest train, including the loco, plus another 50mm or so. To some extent, that requires a crystal ball to see into the future, but I get the drift and I'm off to measure my rolling stock.
- you need more tracks than you expect: at least twice the number of tracks as trains running simultaneously, plus two.
Last edited:
Phil O
Western Thunderer
Having over the years used all the options, and I have come to the conclusion that turntable fiddleyards are the best option, as they require the least amount of stock handling and once each train has been to the station and back, it takes less than a minute to be back at the start.
Thanks Phil - I appreciate your comment. As I understand it, a train turntable is a sector plate that pivots at the centre, thereby allowing the whole train including the loco to be turned and sent back onto your layout. I can see how that would be good, but for Banff, where trains, particular passenger trains, don't need to be turned, then it seems that a turntable would give the same functionality as a conventional sector plate. Please correct me I'm missing something.
For longest train length, my longest loco is an Ivatt 2MT at 225mm, but I need to think 300mm if I'm going to use a Peco locolift to turn locos. Add two bogie carriages at 245mm, and a couple of 9' wagons for a mixed service at 83mm yield 956mm, whereas a "typical" train of a 4MT(185mm) plus two carriages is just 675mm, which would also cover a 4MT with 5 wagons.
Looking at a fan-of-turnouts fiddleyard first*, I get the following using a Peco code 75 small radius turnouts:
Fan-of-turnouts fiddleyard are simple to design, build and operate, but they really do chew up the space**.
The fan length is 571/814/1057mm for 4/6/8*** tracks with a track spacing of 52mm. Allowing for a "typical" train on the outer tracks, then add 675mm plus another 50mm wiggle room for a total of 1296/1539/1782mm. If I wanted a track spacing of 60mm for easier fiddling, then it becomes 1353/1633/1913mm.
I'll look at traversers next, once I get my head around them.
* Because it's the easiest to design.
** If you know of a better way to do a fan-of-turnouts fiddleyard, then let me know.
*** It's not clear that I need 8 tracks, but it's probably a good idea to design for it.
Last edited:
Many thanks Simon. I think you mean something like this:
8 tracks, 60mm spacing, 850+675+50=1575mm length, shorter by 330mm (or so). Removing the outer turnouts to cut back to 6 tracks only saves about 100mm: 750+675+50=1475mm, but that is still shorter than the previous version.
Last edited:
simond
Western Thunderer
I did indeed!
try flipping the handing of the two outer points, and losing the short curve to their left.
You’d need to make up the curve to their right, of course, but it might save a few more millimetres, and track to the right of the points is useful storage, once you’re past the clearing point.
Do you really need 60mm between tracks? I guess it gives space for fingers, but if you’re not lifting stock, you could use much closer spacing. Minimum track centres in 7mm would be around 80mm, so I’d guess 50mm would be generous in 4mm scale.
best
Simon
try flipping the handing of the two outer points, and losing the short curve to their left.
You’d need to make up the curve to their right, of course, but it might save a few more millimetres, and track to the right of the points is useful storage, once you’re past the clearing point.
Do you really need 60mm between tracks? I guess it gives space for fingers, but if you’re not lifting stock, you could use much closer spacing. Minimum track centres in 7mm would be around 80mm, so I’d guess 50mm would be generous in 4mm scale.
best
Simon
Thanks again Simon, you're in danger of becoming my friend. Yes, that change shaves another 1cm=840mm.
In 4mm, rolling stock should be no more than 38mm, so 60mm pitch gives 22mm of finger space on each side of a carriage/wagon. My fingers are around 16mm, so I could probably come in a little if I find myself chasing millimetres. 50.8mm is the standard Peco Streamline pitch, while 52mm is the "natural" pitch I get with a small radius Y leading into small radius L/R turnout.
Well, I don't know either, so let's try it out.
That's 780mm using code 100 symmetric 3-ways, so shorter by another 60mm, but it's only 7 tracks. Is there an operational difference between having 7 or 8 tracks? I can't answer that.
In fairness, I tried putting a Y in the central track to give 8 tracks, which stretches it out to 920mm. You or Simon can probably to do better.
adrian
Flying Squad
Except the single central track length for 7 tracks is about double the length of anything on the 8 track - so in terms of available storage it's not much different to the 8 track version.
John Duffy
Western Thunderer
For a single track entry I would opt for a traverser or sector plate. The later being easier to produce and arrange. The main advantage is that each track is the same length.
Unless you plan to keep a lot of stock on the fiddle yard all the time - not recommended as it leaves it susceptible to dust (or in the case of Banff - stoor) - I cannot imagine why you would need so many tracks. There is a passenger set and with a freight set up ready to go, you would need one track as a reception to clear whatever is in the station.
I know it isn't a terminus but I run Rosehearty with a three road sector plate at each end, which is quite sufficient for branch line traffic. In your situation I would build a minimum three but preferably a four track traverser.
John
Unless you plan to keep a lot of stock on the fiddle yard all the time - not recommended as it leaves it susceptible to dust (or in the case of Banff - stoor) - I cannot imagine why you would need so many tracks. There is a passenger set and with a freight set up ready to go, you would need one track as a reception to clear whatever is in the station.
I know it isn't a terminus but I run Rosehearty with a three road sector plate at each end, which is quite sufficient for branch line traffic. In your situation I would build a minimum three but preferably a four track traverser.
John
simond
Western Thunderer
If you do this, then move the y as far left as you can. Siding space to the right is useful. You could perhaps have as second (short) train or a spare engine in that space!
Of course. Thanks.
Ah yes, thanks. That centre track is 560mm, less a bit for a clearance point: not quite enough to store a full train, but I appreciate your point.
Thanks John. As a GNSR modeller, I appreciate your comment. Having discovered Rosehearty, I will give your thread a good read. The layout seems to have sprung pretty much fully formed in August 2019, so I'm wonder whether there is any recorded pre-history.
Four tracks was my original thinking, 10 years ago when I knew nothing about Banff, the GNSR or modelling. Now, although I have little rolling stock, my thought is to plan for more, even if I don't build it up front. Or ever.
I'm disinclined to actually build anything until after the move, when I find out what space I will actually be permitted. In the meantime, I'm enjoying investigating the options, and welcome others input while I learn. Is there a particular reason that you'd appear to be suggesting a traverser over a sector plate, which I understand to be easier to construct?
cheers