Rowan Colliery 4mm/00

40057

Western Thunderer
OK, OK, I give in. I promised myself I would not start another layout. But ever since I got two — very pretty — 00 gauge Peckett 0-6-0s, my thoughts have turned repeatedly to finding opportunities to run them. Not having any 00 gauge previously, I bought some wagons for the Pecketts to pull. Then a circle of Hornby track which was set up on the floor so the locos could be tested. They run really well, but a wooden floor is not a great place for a operating trains. So the temptation to lay track on a baseboard that could be put on a table grew. Finally, my wife’s argument — ‘there’s no point in having them if you can’t run them’ — proved decisive. I will build a very small layout for the Pecketts.

I haven’t had an 00 gauge railway since I was about ten years old. I have considerable reservations about the ‘narrow gauge’ aspect of 00 so didn’t think I would ever return to it. But there are two reasons why I’m going to build a small 00 layout now. This one:

58210047-7287-4B83-AF19-CB68D2C1B1AC.jpeg

And this one:

E6EF0AB2-9340-4D25-9DFB-4C579C1D455C.jpeg

There has been some discussion of these two in the threads ‘What’s on Your Workbench — 2024’ and ‘Dublingham Goods Station’. I’ll not repeat all of that here, but since these locos are the reason for this layout being built and so the thread is complete, a quick summary. These 00 gauge locos were made by the firm A. & J. van Riemsdyk in the early 1950s. The business was very much at the cottage industry end of the spectrum so the total production of each model was in the hundreds, not thousands. Both locos are fitted with a very cleverly designed, reversing, ‘controlled clockwork’ motor which provides for fine adjustment of the speed but with little loss of power at low speeds. Each loco is closely based on works drawings of a particular type built by Peckett — they’re scale models, albeit lacking in detail. Construction is in tinplate with brass and aluminium fittings. J. van Riemsdyk was John van Riemsdyk. He had used clockwork in various devices during WW2 when he was in SOE. After the war, he went into business with his brother making clockwork mechanisms for different purposes, but including 0 gauge locomotives and trams. The 00 gauge models were produced at the suggestion of the manager of Bassett-Lowke’s London shop, where the models were then sold. Later John van Riemsdyk joined the staff of the Science Museum where he rose to become Keeper of Civil and Mechanical Engineering. In this capacity, he was responsible for setting up the NRM on its present site in York. In retirement, John van Riemsdyk designed many of the Gauge 1 live steam locomotives produced by Aster.

My Pecketts are charming, run beautifully and have a distinguished historic pedigree. There should be a track for them where they can be put to use.

I am determined the 00 gauge layout will not become an obstacle to progress with Rivermead Central. So to prevent undue diversion of time and resources, it is to be kept as small as possible. Sure, it would be nice to have a 40’-long colliery system to exploit the locomotives’ length of run. But since that’s not possible, a small continuous loop will allow them to be operated. The overall plan is this:

7E9AFC5A-17B8-41C6-9EF6-34053595A62E.jpeg

Why the name ‘Rowan Colliery’? Well, the track is, err, undeniably, essentially round. More to the point, I have fond memories of seeing steam working at Mountain Ash Colliery in the late 1970s. I can’t produce a model of any real colliery railway. ‘Inspired by’ Mountain Ash, not ‘based on’. So Rowan Colliery seems appropriate. As far as I can discover, there was not a real ‘Rowan Colliery’, though there was a ‘Rowan Tree Colliery’ in Co. Durham.

The plan is two baseboards (joined at the dotted line), each 1500 mm x 750 mm. I will use Code 100 rail track for the storage loops and the out-of-sight areas, if possible Code 75 for the visible track. The above is only a concept sketch. I’m not sure what there will be in the scenic section — but a loop and a couple of storage sidings would provide some operational interest. I will need to use buildings or trees as view blockers to disguise that the running line in the scenic section is a half circle with rather a small radius. I probably will wire the track to allow electric operation on the main circuit, should that be required/desired at some future date.

Operationally, my thoughts are two rakes of mineral wagons. A rake of empties which runs clockwise — from the direction leading to the exchange sidings and towards the colliery; a rake of loaded wagons that runs anti-clockwise. Trains of 8–12 wagons would seem appropriate taking into account the size of the layout and the power of the locomotives. Neither the exchange sidings nor the colliery will be modelled. This is to be a scenic test track of sorts. A chance to see the locos running in an appropriate rural/industrial setting. Including large or complex buildings would take far too much modelling time and there isn’t room on a minimum size base board.

As with the locos, I posted my first efforts at weathering the mineral wagons I bought for them to pull in the ‘What’s on Your Workbench’ threads for last year and this year. Again, so this thread is complete and everything is in one place, these are some of the wagons I will be using on ‘Rowan Colliery’:

006A268B-CDDD-4CAB-A011-B87C1E8E8193.jpeg

87B88406-C6E7-4CBF-9AB7-692A2ABDF7C6.jpeg

90D2EF39-367C-4679-9BC5-0F03E8701FF1.jpeg

These are all Bachmann models bought second hand. I have added weathering but not otherwise altered them. I’ve deliberately varied the condition of the wagons’ paintwork. The wagons at each end of the two rakes (empty and loaded) will have chain couplings fitted for coupling to the locomotives.

Please don’t expect rapid progress on ‘Rowan Colliery’. This is — and must remain — a side project. There will probably be long gaps between postings. And as modern day track etc is unfamiliar territory for me, no doubt I shall be asking for help and advice. Mr van Riemsdyk’s pretty little locos deserve somewhere to run, however — so I will give them that.
 
Last edited:

40057

Western Thunderer
A progress report — already!!!

I finished weathering another Bachmann mineral wagon this afternoon. A standard Diagram 1/108 wagon, with light weathering and no load:

A0C49BEA-4F75-4B7E-9D04-E7250AF3D797.jpeg

AC54CBDF-48A3-4DD9-B12B-CC99DB151A29.jpeg

116FC2D2-8179-4A96-825B-E04133F13CD8.jpeg

Curiously, I find it’s easier to convincingly portray a really rusty, battered wagon. A wagon like this one, in traffic but in good condition, is quicker to paint but harder to do well.

For the record, so the information is in this thread, this is the eighth empty 16-ton mineral I have weathered. I have also completed one loaded 16-tonner. The empty wagons include two examples of an earlier Diagram with bottom doors. The degree of weathering has been deliberately varied. I have modified two of the empty wagons (one for each end of the rake) by fitting a 3-link coupling to one end so these wagons can couple to the locos:

C21B861B-1065-4509-B736-6F28D77D32CF.jpeg

In other news, track has been ordered today!
 

40057

Western Thunderer
My order of track arrived in this morning’s post. Exciting!

0A67CDF5-C6FC-4C91-B1FB-7F6D3B39F065.jpeg

This track is intended for building the storage loops/fiddle yard on the back (out of sight) base board. I ordered enough track pieces to check I could build what I need on the intended size of baseboard — 1500 mm x 750 mm. (The scenic part of the layout to be a second baseboard the same size — at least, that was my plan).

Once, I am sure of the space required, I will order base boards. Next week, I hope.

I have spent several hours today laying out track on a table to see what I could fit on a FY board of the intended size. Overall, the track on the FY board needs to be an arc of 180 degrees. Ideally, there would be three loops long enough to accommodate trains of 8–12 16-ton mineral wagons. Also a siding for parking locomotives. For ease of track laying on the FY board, I have bought some 3rd and 4th radius Setrack. I really don’t want to use a tighter radius unless I absolutely have to. I’m pretty sure the two locos would run OK on sharper curves but it would almost certainly reduce the length of train they could pull.

The good news is I can — just — fit what I need on a board of the intended size. The three loops are respectively long enough to hold 13, 10 and 7 mineral wagons between fouling points. The ‘inside’ loop is too short to park a train of the planned length, but I can use that as the running line. So the FY will I think work operationally.

The less good news is my conclusions about the scenic board. I would be intending to use flexible track for this and ideally with Code 75 rail. Even allowing for that, my test layouts today all looked too much like the FY, and not at all like a real railway. Too obviously a half circle — though some scenic view blockers could help a lot with this issue. An unconvincing sharply curved loop. Sidings too short, both unrealistic but also not long enough to accommodate my planned train lengths.

I will try mocking up some further possible layouts for the scenic boards over the next few days. I’m coming to the conclusion I may need a short extension board at one end of the (main) scenic board to allow straight(ish) sidings of reasonable length. It’s hard to avoid having too many short sidings on small layouts, compared to what is typical of the real railway, but I will try as it can look most unrealistic.

Even the simple exercise today highlighted to me just how ignorant I am about laying modern-day track work. So any guidance would be appreciated on the following queries.

Should cork sheet or similar be used between the track and the baseboard? What is recommended?

Although the line is intended for clockwork operation, I would build in wiring for electrically powered locomotives when laying the track if this doesn’t add too much work. Just in case, you understand — ‘no plans’ etc. Are the joiners between track pieces sufficient for electrical continuity? My two clockwork locomotives aren’t insulated so I would need some sidings/loops without electrical continuity to the rest of the track. What is the best way of keeping the track aligned when adjacent rails have no joiners (or are there non-conducting joiners available?).

Thank you in advance for any advice on the above. No doubt I will discover further currently unknown unknowns as I progress!
 
Hi there!
I agree with Neil above, your two locos are quite gorgeous and they certainly deserve somewhere to run.
As for your queries, I’ll try my best to answer (from the viewpoint of a H0 modeller!).
To give you isolated sections, you can use Peco insulated rail joiners that are made of a fairly clear nylon type of plastic that is fairly adequate to hold tracks in place as long as you don’t put any pressure upon them. These are non-conducting joiners!
For good electrical continuity - please do solder droppers to each piece of track, this guarantees good conductivity and means your rail joiners, metal or plastic are free to just align the rails.
Now, I’m not trying to teach you to suck eggs but I would be very surprised if any OO gauge loco from the 1950s could run reliably on code 75 track?
If you are sure and you have checked, then fine - otherwise I would suggest you stick to code 100 throughout!
This would also save you a couple of bits of transition track from 75 to 100 and reverse.
I hope this helps,
Virgil.
 

40057

Western Thunderer
Hi there!
I agree with Neil above, your two locos are quite gorgeous and they certainly deserve somewhere to run.
As for your queries, I’ll try my best to answer (from the viewpoint of a H0 modeller!).
To give you isolated sections, you can use Peco insulated rail joiners that are made of a fairly clear nylon type of plastic that is fairly adequate to hold tracks in place as long as you don’t put any pressure upon them. These are non-conducting joiners!
For good electrical continuity - please do solder droppers to each piece of track, this guarantees good conductivity and means your rail joiners, metal or plastic are free to just align the rails.
Now, I’m not trying to teach you to suck eggs but I would be very surprised if any OO gauge loco from the 1950s could run reliably on code 75 track?
If you are sure and you have checked, then fine - otherwise I would suggest you stick to code 100 throughout!
This would also save you a couple of bits of transition track from 75 to 100 and reverse.
I hope this helps,
Virgil.
Thank you!

One of the locos has been tested on Code 75 track. The flanges clear the chairs on Peco Code 75 bullhead rail. The wheels are Romford and will have been bought in by van Riemsdyk as an economic solution for a small volume production run.

The other loco has, it appears, slightly coarser wheels of unknown manufacture (possibly made ‘in house’). I still need to test this one on fine-scale track.

The fine wheel standards are a reflection of the intended market for the locos — modellers, not toys for children.
 
You’re welcome!
Thanks for the information about the wheel standards, I had no idea Romfords were available in those days.
Glad to hear some models were aimed at modellers back then, rather than, as you say, toys for children!
I knew about quality models in the larger scales of course, just not in the smaller scales.
Cheers,
V.

p.s. I personally use quite thick (c.5mm) cork sheet or tile between the track and the baseboard - an extra trick for sound deadening purposes is to use a glue that doesn’t set hard. I believe Copydex is often used.
My cork sheet came from a builders merchant (Selco) but it comes in a big roll, possibly too much for a smaller layout?
 
Last edited:

simond

Western Thunderer
Neil,

Having read articles by Norman Solomon in which he used a firm foam rubber, I tried something similar, but found it difficult to glue.

Presumably your mat is not expanded polythene / polyethylene?

Do you know what kind of polymer it is, and what kind of glue do you use, please?

cheers
Simon
 

Neil

Western Thunderer
Neil,

Having read articles by Norman Solomon in which he used a firm foam rubber, I tried something similar, but found it difficult to glue.

Presumably your mat is not expanded polythene / polyethylene?

Do you know what kind of polymer it is, and what kind of glue do you use, please?

cheers
Simon

Ah this is where I show my ignorance as I'm not sure what the stuff is made from. I can tell you that it sticks to the baseboard surface successfully with Evo Sick contact adhesive (red tin) and that I pin the track down through it and use dilute Copydex to glue the ballast in place. If you'd like to see what the stuff is like for yourself I'd be happy to post you a sample off cut if you PM me your address. Actually if anyone reading this would like a sample the offer is open, just drop me a PM.
 

40057

Western Thunderer
Thank you!

One of the locos has been tested on Code 75 track. The flanges clear the chairs on Peco Code 75 bullhead rail. The wheels are Romford and will have been bought in by van Riemsdyk as an economic solution for a small volume production run.

The other loco has, it appears, slightly coarser wheels of unknown manufacture (possibly made ‘in house’). I still need to test this one on fine-scale track.

The fine wheel standards are a reflection of the intended market for the locos — modellers, not toys for children.

It occurred to me after writing the above, I really should test the other loco — the Peckett saddle tank — on Code 75 track. I need to know if both locos are happy on the finer track. I should say, I have only two pieces of Code 75 trackwork — a very short length of bullhead rail plain line and a small radius point with flat bottomed rail, both Peco. ‘Testing’ therefore means putting the loco on the track and pushing it backwards and forwards a short distance. I can’t wind the loco and let it run under its own power.

However, on the basis of testing as described above, the saddle tank is also fine on Code 75 track, with the flanges having visible clearance above the bullhead rail chairs. So I do plan to use Code 75 track for the scenic part of the layout.

We have had nice weather here today with hazy sunshine producing a beautiful autumn light. I took the opportunity to take the saddle tank outside to get its portrait taken:

AE3DBA1B-D06E-4301-A6FF-DB4C7A3CF7C2.jpeg

AD96740F-357A-42D2-A454-56E0D5E642FD.jpeg

I am generally used to models in larger scales — so this loco always strikes me as a tiny, wee thing. It is very heavy for its size.

The controls, projecting through the cab roof, are easy to operate and with care can be adjusted when the loco is running. The far lever is for forward and reverse. The near lever is the brake and speed control. The further forward the lever, the faster the speed. The length of run on one winding, a bit over 40 feet, is about pro rata with the 80 feet-ish I would expect from a small-wheeled 0 gauge locomotive with a good mechanism.

For interest, here is a picture of the underside and motor:

24DE998A-2E25-463A-A249-6ADFC86F7285.jpeg

As can be seen, some of the sheet metal work is held together with traditional tinplate ‘tab and slot’ fastenings. Other parts are soldered or screwed together. The loco has a substantial pair of steel frames and heavy-gauge buffer beams. The buffers and cylinders are turned aluminium. The main spring on this loco is at the front. It’s a direct wind and takes a male key.

Despite its diminutive size, it’s a fine piece of engineering and a proper locomotive.
 

40057

Western Thunderer
Baseboards ordered.

Further experiments mocking up track layouts yesterday confirmed that I needed to extend the length of the scenic area. Otherwise, whatever I did, the scenic section would have unrealistically short sidings. The sidings are still going to be short, compared with typical real practice, but not ridiculous.

I was concerned that the two proposed 1500 x 750 mm boards would be unwieldy. My stated aim is to keep the layout as small as possible — that is, the minimum size for a continuous run for the locos, loops and sidings that will accommodate 8–12 wagon trains and nothing less than 3rd radius curves. I now have a plan I am happy with. I’ve shaved 100 mm off the length of the two big baseboards which has reduced the capacity of each of the FY storage loops by one wagon. But I have added a third board, 550 x 750 mm, at one end of the scenic area so the visible part of the layout has (I hope) believable-looking sidings. The baseboard arrangement is to be this:

1E8BCE7D-34B0-4A3D-8D19-4DC382CC51F2.jpeg

The top/back board in the sketch is for the FY/storage loops. The short front board accommodates a quarter circle of the main running line and not much else. The long scenic board has the sidings etc. The arrangement minimises the number of tracks crossing baseboard joins.

I need to do some more investigations into track options. I will use some of the Setrack 3rd and 4th radius curves even in the scenic area because, with such a small radius, it will be so much easier to lay an accurate, even curve. Looking at pictures of colliery railways, the track sleepers are often hardly visible. Some slightly higher ground either side of the track should prevent seeing the over-scale height of these rails. I think I can effectively disguise some Setrack panels used towards the back of the scenic area. The restricted space means I will have to use at least two 3-way points. I’m not sure exactly what is available — I’m not scratch building track for this project — but the turnouts I need may mean using Code 100 track throughout.
 

40057

Western Thunderer
A work in progress:

B969F04E-AC83-40A6-BC5A-C3C1647EE5C1.jpeg

This wagon is destined to be one of the ‘end’ wagons for the ‘loaded’ Rowan Colliery rake of 16-ton minerals (see post #1 above).

For this use, I’ve cut off the cosmetic scale plastic coupling hook at the fixed (no door) end of the wagon, drilled a hole, and glued in a brass hook with chain. I can’t remember the source for the brass hook but it’s an etching that folds at the back to give a double thickness. I used solder to join the two halves and filed off cusps to produce a prototypical profile. I have made a loop of 0.8 mm nickel silver wire to replace the Bachmann tension-lock coupling. The wagon will thus to couple to both my locos and other wagons at the modified end.

This wagon is a model of an early type (Diagram 1/102? 1/103? or similar) with bottom doors and independent either-side brakes. For some reason, the chevrons indicating bottom doors have been omitted by Bachmann. I’ve painted on the black patches to add these. I’ll need a steady hand for painting the white lines.

Some weathering has been applied to the under-frame and inside. The sides will be weathered after the chevron bottom door markings have been added.
 

40057

Western Thunderer
Turned out not to be as difficult as I feared. Chevrons added:

D4A6B564-6B01-441E-BBEF-9FD8B9FB7A8B.jpeg

They’re not perfect — but neither are those on real wagons photographed at the time. Weathering has still to be applied to my model which will help too. Generally speaking, I prefer to use paint rather than transfers when the lettering etc. on the prototype was hand painted. To me, transfers often look too perfect or clinical to be convincing — but for very small size or large quantities of lettering, needs must. The chevrons though I really think look better for being painted and not exactly matched.
 
Last edited:
Top