Douglas Lane Sidings & Works

[Osgood]

No... 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.
....
regards, Graham

Um yes, that's kind of what I was getting at - not that much different to a Pannier Although I am amazed and impressed at the revelation that it does this without the benefit of S7 wheel profiles! In fact I don't understand (amongst a whole raft of other things....) how it gets through the narrower flangeways.

 

[Dog Star]

I don't understand ... how it gets through the narrower flangeways.

Magic and a big stick .

 

[Heather Kay]

Magic and a big stick .

It's the back-to-back dimension that's important, I think. The flangeway is 1mm in S7, which appears to be sufficient for the Slater's FS flange.

Both the exhibition S7 layouts Best Beloved built, and which I helped him show from the late 1980s until we decided 14 shows in one year was more than enough, were built using S7 standards for permanent way, but all the locos (and a fair chunk of the rolling stock) used FS wheels set to the S7 B-to-B. If we started now, all the motive power and stock would have S7 profiled wheels, that's for certain.

 

[Overseer]

Without wanting to hijack PJs thread, I have taken a few pictures of Ardival to show why I think he should continue to develop his ideas. Small S7 layouts can work and don't have to look excessively cramped. Adival was not conceived as any sort of shunting puzzle but as a small terminus station. It includes some of the things I like to see, such as the wharf siding being at a lower level so the track has a reverse curve on vertical curves - good for testing wagons (looking at the plan photo I think the minimum radius may have ended up a bit more minimum than planned but it works). The length of the section in the photos is 1900 mm, another scenic board has been added more recently to give the trains a bit of a journey from the fiddle yard to the station. This gives a bit more context and helps the general viewing public understand what is going on, important in this case as very few people have any knowledge of the Highland Railway in the 1870s so can't relate directly to the locos and rolling stock on the layout, unlike blue era diesels for example. When exhibited there are all sorts of platform furniture, cases, wheelbarrow, animals, a boat and a few people positioned as the mood takes me. I make no claim that the layout is anything special. It is still a work in progress and a bit more is done for each exhibition outing.

 

[Osgood]

What strikes me about the seemingly complex and cramped track plan in both P-J and Overseer's planks is how rural-looking and uncomplicated such a trcak plan can be made to look!

Reckon P-J will have to revisit his idea of not intending to fully dress his layout after seeing Overseer's take on it

Is that little blue engine a product of George England or Fletcher Jennings by any chance?

 

[Overseer]

Is that little blue engine a product of George England or Fletcher Jennings by any chance?

Yes, it is a model of Shannon, later Wantage Tramway No5, in original condition. Built by George England for the Sandy & Potton Railway, taken over by the LNWR, sold to the Wantage Tramway, preserved by the GWR in 1945 and now preserved at Didcot. It used as many of the castings produced for the MRJ scratch building series as possible. I measured Baxter, a similar size Fletcher Jennings loco now on the Bluebell Railway, years ago and it is on my to do list...

 

[Osgood]

I thought I recognised it from somewhere - so different without the cab.

BAXTER? Another of my favourites! Don Townley produced a very good outline G/A drawing of the 3ft 2" gauge version TOWNSEND HOOK from Dorking Stone & Lime Co some years back - could be a useful staring point, let me know if you need a copy.

 

[SteveO]

(Steve, you have just found the name for your layout - "Plank Whatsit" sounds good to me!!! )

It's a name as good as any - it's hereby Christened!

 

[Simon Dunkley]

Without wanting to hijack PJs thread, I have taken a few pictures of Ardival to show why I think he should continue to develop his ideas. Small S7 layouts can work and don't have to look excessively cramped. Adival was not conceived as any sort of shunting puzzle but as a small terminus station.

I think that's the point: PJ is not working towards a small terminus, and has posted his plan asking for comments and feedback. I don't think any posts have been made which are not in the vein of encouraging him to develop his ideas, but some of them are driving at the more fundamental question of what he wants to achieve. The proposed plan would look, I think, too cramped, and shunting puzzles - whilst fun - are just that, puzzles but not models of railways. What you are posting is not a hi-jack, but an example of an alternative approach.
In my late teens I had a couple of goes at producing contorted shunting puzzles for S, and one for 0n2 (14mm gauge in 3' x 2'). I learned a lot, but what I learned most of all was that contorted shunting puzzles are not necessarily a good idea! At least, not for me...

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.

Why not simply go for the Inglenook in an industrial setting?
Another option is to not have the full loop on show.

very few people have any knowledge of the Highland Railway in the 1870s so can't relate directly to the locos and rolling stock on the layout, ...It is still a work in progress and a bit more is done for each exhibition outing.

I agree: not many people know about it, but it is a fascinating railway and period, as indeed is the Findhorn Railway.
As far as spreading the word and informing people about the HR, the 1870s, and indeed your minimum space S7 layout, can I request that you create a thread in the layouts part of the forum? Would love to see more on this...

 

[Simon Dunkley]

P-J,

Hope you don't mind, but attached is a screen shot, containing what I would do in the first instance, and what could be done if there had to be a loop. An alternative with the upper plan would be to indicate a loop off at stage left, by having a little bit of the return curve before the turnout in the loop.
Basic idea is that the two sidings are used as the 3,3 part of the inglenook, and the loop run off (via the loop) for the 5 component. There is a short platform for handling general supplies and also a works passenger service if required.
Scenic treatment is fairly obvious, but I would resist the urge to fill the place with track.



I have used 1:7 turnouts and a minimum radius of about 87". Longer turnouts look better, a 1:7 is still quite sharp by prototype standards, and although you are currently thinking of small 0-4-0 tanks, you may get an itch for something a bit bigger in the future, and this would cope with that...

The Templot files were put together quickly, so niceties like timber shoving have not been performed, but for anyone wanting to play, I can email the box file.

Simon

 

[Dog Star]

All of the posts for this topic are quite timely for there is an on-going, off-forum, exercise to produce a full-size track plan for one of the S7-33 Challenge entries... and the early discussions had been around A5 / A6 on the basis that the motive power would be 0-4-0 shunting tanks (for example, GWR 1340) and short wheelbase 0-6-0 tanks (think GWR 850 class). Whilst the available length for the scenic portion does appear to be more than in the Original Post I understand that the intention for the entry is to use very short / small radius turnouts to emphasise the industrial nature of the model.

A7 is going to look out of place in this challenge entry... A6 is probably the favourite over A5.

regards, Graham

 

[Simon Dunkley]

A7 is going to look out of place in this challenge entry... A6 is probably the favourite over A5.

just as well it isn't a challenge entry, then.
A6 would work, but the curvature of the track would need to be gentler.

My personal feeling is that turnouts as tight as a 1:6 were only used on the real thing where there was no alternative (such as docks, etc) and the railways ended up building/buing specialised motive power becaus of this, and that shallower crossing angles look more like the real thing - which, after all, is what S7 is all about, isn't it?

 

[Dog Star]

My reference to "this challenge entry" in post no. #33 is to an off-forum discussion about another layout and not the plan shown in post no. #1.

 

[SteveO]

Graham, does the plan/discussion have to be off-forum - is it guarded for any reason? I just read the Challenge rules and it sounds interesting. Probably not for me yet but I'd be interested to see any proposals our members come up with.

Also read the sample Newsletter on the S7 site and was pleasantly surprised that it was edited by own own Heather! Probably designed by her too? It looks quite elegantly simple.

Sorry for being off-topic.

 

[P-J.S.]

Lots of great comments thank you... I shall come and respond later when I've got this assignment done.

Oversteer... thank you very much for sharing your photos they are really inspiring. The different levels are really good too

Simon: again thank you. I can't really do a loop that continues off scene as there are walls at either end of the 89" alcove, which is the reason that it is such an odd size. I understand about shunting puzzles not necessarily being accurate model railways, however could it not be a challenge to make it so?

Graham: what is this S7-33 Challenge you speak off?

Thank you all!

 

[40126]

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!

+1

Steve

 

[Buckjumper]

Graham, does the plan/discussion have to be off-forum - is it guarded for any reason? I just read the Challenge rules and it sounds interesting. Probably not for me yet but I'd be interested to see any proposals our members come up with.

I think Graham is probably referring to my entry, basically a crossover with a headshunt and a single siding which will be home to an 0-4-0ST and a couple of 0-6-0Ts with a handful of SWB wagons. Graham and I have had several discussions about the practicalities and visual impact of building and using various sizes of turnout to fit in the available space.

 

[Dog Star]

I think Graham is probably referring to my entry...

Surely not? A raft of 850s trundling back to OOC at the end of a tiring day pushing troublesome trucks around the docks seems more than you could contemplate.

 

[Dog Star]

Graham: what is this S7-33 Challenge you speak off?

If you are asking that question then there is a good chance that you are not a member of the S7 Group... beware the knock on the door, the passing of a membership form, and the subsequent arrival of a red box (containing a wagon) from West Mersea HQ.

Seriously, I have sent an e-mail to the S7 Group Secretary asking for a suitable response.

regards, Graham

 

[SteveO]

I think Graham is probably referring to my entry...

Surely, you have enough on your plate already?