Schooner's (Mostly Maritime) Layouts

[Flying Pig]

No, sorry, too crammy for my taste. I think you have space for a nice branch line cum light railway system but you are trying to fit in too much. 

[Schooner]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

...branch line cum light railway...

 

Looking at Hemyock then:

 

 

I'm sure it is better...does it feel a little samey, having a railway with two arse ends? Just a quick sketch, but I do quite like it!

[Nearholmer]

12ft x 8ft is pretty tight in coarse-scale 0, and becomes very tight indeed in fine-scale, so I’d agree that ‘very minor branch’ is all that you might fit in.

 

My personal approach in that space, for fine-scale, would be to make the ‘bottom’ station the branch platform and yard at the junction, which I’m sure was the way of a very good Scottish layout (based on Findhorn??) shown in RM some months back.

 

Or, go ‘goods only’ and make it a very shunty layout, maybe harbour-side, although that might be a bit too much like your 4mm/ft one.

 

Whivhever, it would be a model where the scenic modelling was more important than ‘playing trains’.

 

PS: please don’t design an MPD-based layout, please!

[Flying Pig]

5 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

My personal approach in that space, for fine-scale, would be to make the ‘bottom’ station the branch platform and yard at the junction, which I’m sure was the way of a very good Scottish layout (based on Findhorn??) shown in RM some months back.

 

Running the branch into a bay in the main station would allow a minimal fiddle yard behind a curtain wall representing the main platforms, a sort of sub-Maurice Deane arrangement.  The benefit is that you can represent shunts from main line trains but but the major drawback is that you need to represent the junction and I don't think there's room for that here.

 

The alternative is where the branch swings away next to the station and the branch platform is either connected to the main line platforms at the junction end, or entirely separate.  Think the Brill platform at Quainton Road, or Marks Tey, which seems to have been at least part of the inspiration for Jas Millham's Bishop's Yaxford (galleries 5 and 25).  That's a terminus which is not quite a terminus and acts like an onstage fiddle yard by including exchange sidings for wagons from main line freights.

 

There's a big but here though @Schooner, because I've a feeling you are designing 7mm layouts with a 4mm eye.  All your loops and sidings seem very short, possibly unworkably so.  A few card mockups of stock or a small number of models if you're really serious about the scale might help you to calibrate your imagination.

[Nearholmer]

There are several ways of handling a junction station where the “main line” bit becomes vestigial. Putting the viewer “on the platform”, with the main-line behind them is quite good, for instance, and another station worth looking at is Chard Junction, where the branch platform was in the station forecourt.

 

But, space here to do any of that is really very tight.

[Schooner]

10 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

12ft x 8ft is pretty tight in coarse-scale 0, and becomes very tight indeed in fine-scale

 

Only allowing myself 11'6" x 7'6" - even worse!

 

It's right on the edge of what's possible with PECO geometry, not possible with PECO geometry - I'm back to using lots of Lenz curved points. Radius-wise they're okay, just larger than Set Track curves, but worth noting. Because of this several attempts which set out to try something new all ended up with something like:

...which is rather familiar. Swapping the RH PECO bullhead turnout for a double slip gives low-footprint access to a siding (representing one end of the platform loop).

 

10 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

very good Scottish layout (based on Findhorn??)

Spot on, and thank you for the excellent recommendation - I enjoyed looking into that wonderful layout. For ease, it's in RM March '21, maps for terminus at Findhorn, for junction at Kinloss. In the article, John Holland makes it clear that his Kinloss is 'just' a scenic'd fiddle yard:

(a small section of the plan in RM shown here for information - note siding length...)

 

His decision to have a loop at one end (breaking with the real Findhorn, which didn't have one) and employ two locos at the other chimes with my findings!

 

 

10 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

PS: please don’t design an MPD-based layout, please!

No chance! Terrier, B4, old 4-wheelers and even older goods stock - that's the idea and I'll be sticking with it! Your suggestions are sound, and if I ever look at putting an O Gauge layout in the shed for real are priorities to investigate. Have you come across Devonport New Quays (in original, pre-ocean-liner-terminal, form)? Yum :) 

 

Thanks for all those pointers @Flying Pig - it was really helpful to have a look through those schemes. I had discounted having the platform at the junction - thinking the curvature too tight to look or function well enough - but it has opened up another viable approach:

 

 

5 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

There's a big but here though @Schooner, because I've a feeling you are designing 7mm layouts with a 4mm eye.  All your loops and sidings seem very short, possibly unworkably so.  A few card mockups of stock or a small number of models if you're really serious about the scale might help you to calibrate your imagination.

A really good point, and very fair comment. It's definitely a risk, and part of why bouncing ideas around here is of such value. However, to try to mitigate the risk, I do try to calibrate against other minimum-space O layouts, constantly refer to model lengths and clearances, and spend a fair amount of time checking as best as SCARM allows. Eg:

 

That red loco is about the same size as Dapol's Small Prairie; that stock scales out at 42', with 3' between coupled vehicles - a 3-wagon trains measure 950mm. One wagon above > 2 x Dapol goods trucks (@135mm each); two wagons above > 3 x Dapol Stroudley 4 wheelers (@c.200mm each).

 

I'm not saying these designs aren't cramped, savage with their curves, and totally reliant on tiny locos and short stock...but I think I can say that they are functional, as intended, with max lengths as stated: 200mm per loco; 1000mm for stock; total train length c.1200mm. I'd expect to operate these layouts up to 2/3s capacity, so a siding with 6-wagon max capacity would normally only have two wagons stood in it (with the other two traveling to/from). Partly for aesthetics, partly for logistics!

 

I'm just thinking aloud with all this stuff though - I don't have the curves, I don't have the stock to measure and play with - and would welcome correction!

 

In time I will make the move to O via an Inglenookish using Peco's starter kit*, inspired by the LSWR- and GWR-served** quaysides of Sutton Pool, Plymouth. That initial contact with reality will undoubtedly inform any pre-existing plan! But till then it's still fun to learn and play with these various O ideas - it's all good stuff!

*Or I was until I costed it up last night and realised it would be cheaper to the tune of £50 (an extra turnout!) to use flex track.

**There are portions of dual-gauge inset track still there, which must be pretty rare.

 

5 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

and another station worth looking at is Chard Junction, where the branch platform was in the station forecourt.

Isn't it great! All a bit mighty though - the sort of thing I had in mind is more old Savernake. As you say, there just isn't a lot of space! Mind you, if there was I wouldn't be getting all this free entertainment so can't complain :)

 

Thanks as ever gents, all really helpful stuff. Sorry for the essay in response!

 

Cheers!

 

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Schooner said:

I had discounted having the platform at the junction - thinking the curvature too tight to look or function well enough - but it has opened up another viable approach:

 

I was thinking more of having the junction offscene and implied and just modelling the branch platform - really a copy of Bishop's Yaxford linked earlier, like this.  Note that the loco release is a sector plate which pinches a bit of length and is hidden by a bridge.  The line top right can be a private siding for more shunting fun.  The purple lines indicate where the main line would run, all implied by the scenery.

 

[Flying Pig]

Probably better with the exchange siding facing the other way, now I look at it, as shunting is going to be awfully tight.

 

[Schooner]

On 17/08/2022 at 19:49, Flying Pig said:

having the junction offscene and implied and just modelling the branch platform

Ah, right, yes with you now. Works quite nicely:

That ugly little wiggle in the loop could be massaged out, I'm sure. Fundamentally, this looks like a good solution. 

 

I struggling with the view block though - a bridge big enough to hide a traverser/sector plate beyond - simply takes up too much room. I couldn't see a way to even hint at a main line beyond the station, so stuck it on the bridge...

...but I don't find it terribly convincing, nor an effective use of space. More trial and error will improve matters I'm sure, but fundamentally I'm not sure there's room for The Yaxford, scenically. Functionally, it works well though. In fact looking at it now, if there was a station on the bridge that would increase width and give more to play with to control sightlines etc...hmmm...

 

Ditching the bridge idea, I wondered about using an 'interior' goods shed as the view block (and adding considerably to the station facilities, but that can all be easily removed):

1. Mainline station: bogie coach; footbridge?
2. Covered walkway, as Stonehouse (MR)?
3. Goods shed, open to the operating area? (Front left)
4.  Carriage shed/Engine shed
5. Storage siding (exchange/BVs/cripples/engineering stock)

Could use sector plate/traverser; could just use two locos.

 

 

 

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, Schooner said:

struggling with the view block though - a bridge big enough to hide a traverser/sector plate beyond - simply takes up too much room. I couldn't see a way to even hint at a main line beyond the station, so stuck it on the bridge...

 

Just across the corner of the layout like this. The sector plate can be partly under it and only needs to be 12" at the most for your small locos.

 

  

[Schooner]

On 8/17/2022 at 1:46 AM, Flying Pig said:

No, sorry, too crammy for my taste.

 

Then I'm afraid you're not going to like this one! We remain in Devon, c.1902...

 

 

...I'm afraid thoughts of Plymouth's warren of railway lines and the nudge from the bridge lead me in an unexpected direction! It seems we have a suburban junction!

 

Some 3D to help make sense of the plan:

 

Painted backscene - street of Regency buildings on the left, perhaps a hint of station overall roof on the right - on top of a low-relief retaining wall. The hope is this height at the back, along with the lower alley at the front, will explain the cramped nature of the site without the layout itself seeming compressed.

 

By way of viewblock and to tie the levels together, a 3-story warehouse is on the left; a sloping street on the right.

 

Road bridges of stone, footbridges of iron. If the footbridge from the front of the layout is too much, perhaps a gantry crane instead.

 

However, a related trackplan also lends itself to a treatment aimed at a sense of 'small' rather than 'cramped':

Pretty self-explanatory, I think? It's intentional that the crane spot fouls the slip, and wagons in the cattle dock would foul the back siding - this is to add a little spice to shunting challenges.

 

I remain wary of dimensions. Buildings are all slightly oversized and based on slightly larger-than-necessary commercial offerings. Likewise, cattle dock, low relief warehouse ends, gates etc

 

For comparison, the red loco in the images above is 10% larger than Dapol's Small Prairie (300mm), let alone the intended motive power of Terrier (<200mm) and B4 (<150mm). The rolling stock above is 42'. Compare to the sub-30' 4-wheel coaches, and sub-20' goods stock.

 

I note SER Kits has this to say on useful dimensions:

and, looking in the back of the Gauge O Guild's Small Layouts Vol. II I note, along with inspirational layouts, some very helpful guides to radii, turnouts, clearances etc. This lists an overall length for a loop, able to deal with a 200mm loco and 6 x 140mm goods vehicles, as 2100mm. Both these designs compare favorably with this.

 

What do we reckon?

 

PS. The other end of the line:

 

Edited September 9, 2022 by Schooner

[Nearholmer]

Subliminal influence from the Millwall Extension Railway in latter.

 

I like the first one though, very coarse-scale, which seems to work well for urban "all railway" layouts.

 

Why dont you just give in, forget fine-scale, and get with the pre-WW2 design vibe?

[Schooner]

Another day, another plan up for review, please!

 

I've recently been thinking about what a 7mm layout will give that my 4mm inglenook does not. Partly it's the heft of the scale, partly limitations with the inglenook design. It almost does everything I want...but I find myself missing the chance for the occasional passenger service, even though I'm a wagonophile, and without a loop I miss the sense of a train arriving, being worked, and then departing. We're still focused on the LSWR in the early 1900s. This is dictated by the available RTR for my preferred location (maritime South-West), period (firmly pre-Grouping) and planned operations (BLT-esque, with a goods/shunting focus).

 

One of my all-time fave boats'n'trains photos - Southampton Town Pier, 1878. Vans and wagons on the pier, a train on the quay in the background :)

 

Setting and scale decided, we've already looked at some plans for potential locations. These are all ambitious. What I have available is a table a little over 5'x2'*, standing a little over 3' tall. Itself too small for a 7mm scheme which provides the operational scope I desire, it could be fitted with fold-down extensions to either end to give a scenic space c.11'x3'. Ideally it would be self contained - having a cassette road within that space - but there's room for a 3' or so fiddle stick. It must be possible to break the layout into 3 x sections <4' long which could be stored under the table when operating the 4mm layout, for storage, or to facilitate the move which is in the foreseeable future.

 

*On which Ingleford sits.

 

Another high-rez beauty: Royal Pier after remodeling, between1891-1900. The new improved Town Pier is in the background, LHS.

 

Various quayside schemes have been worked on in my usual iterative way, Plymouth's Sutton Pool providing direct inspiration, but none have really clicked. Then last night this popped into my mind almost fully-formed...and I still quite like it this morning, so posting here for review and comment:

 

We're stealing from Southampton, superimposing the early layouts of Town Pier (bottom) and Royal Pier (top, 1880s photo here) and adding bits and bobs as feels right.

 

Pavilion (which I can spell, honest) inspiration

 

 

It seems churlish to use anything but SS Robin for steamship inspiration:

 

 

And there's room to pop a paddle-steamer of some sort on the other side to help further suggest time and place. Perhaps a tug would fit best:

 

The Solent is a bit of a weird place in terms of local sailing craft, as the photos show, so I'll just have to wing that one when the time comes...

 

Sorry, couldn't be bothered to add all the mannnnny piles required to support the timber liner jetty, or a representation of a paddle steamer!

 

As ever, Disused Stations has some useful information: http://disused-stations.org.uk/s/southampton_royal_pier/index.shtml . This is particularly handy as NLS, my normal map source, has a bit of a gap for the most useful period.

 

 

Operations would be as discussed before - a Terrier pulling up to 3 x 4-wheel carriages and a parcels/perishables van by way of standard train; a B4 for shunting and trip workings of around 5 x wagons. Your bog-standard pre-Grouping light BLT! As noted on the plan, there are 2 inglenooks tucked into the scheme, but also plenty of options for spotting specific wagons by type or RNG. The platform is small but long enough to hold some specials if I get carried away (we've spoken before about an Ilfracombe Goods etc), but the narrow clearance between the lines would require some cleverness to run around longer trains.

 

 

So. A maritime BLT in 11'x3'. Self contained for shunting each quay, but a fiddle stick is required for moves between the two and for passenger trains. Enough track for some fun moves and a bit of on-scene storage, but hopefully not so much it looks too busy. 1905ish is seen as very much the most modern period - I'm assuming this would be a lifetime-layout, and would hope for kit- and scratch-building to allow a move towards c.1880 as my modelling skills (and 3D printing!) develop. Tiny and interesting locos (smoke and sound fitted) and stock to make the most of the intimate setting!

 

A later setting, but wonderfully evocative.

 

Your thoughts, dear reader?

Edited October 28, 2022 by Schooner
Edit 1: The usuals; Edit 2: Just a quick note to say that if life ever does present the opportunity for a 20+' 7mm room-filler, like the first plan in this thread, then this could make quite a nice little central island module...

[Nearholmer]

Steam rail cars and push-pull trains.

The LSWR was keen on both, and they allow one to have a passenger service using interestingly weird trains, without a runaround.

 

Frinstance http://www.olddevonport.uk/Railways-LSWRC-Saint Budeaux Suburban Service.htm

 

K11 (two iterations), H12 and H13 were the railcard, I think, and C14 and S14 the motor train locos.

 

Put the passenger shuttle stop an embankment or viaduct along the back, and the shunty bit lower down, in the foreground, and I reckon you can have an 0 layout in 8ft length.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Nearholmer

[ianb3174]

A nice quirky design with lots of scope. Would be nice in S scale

[Schooner]

On 28/10/2022 at 20:02, ianb3174 said:

A nice quirky design with lots of scope. Would be nice in S scale

Ta, and agreed re. S (also a nice scale for ship modelling) - the size reduction would make the whole thing a lot more manageable...but S brings challenges my skill set is not ready to face just yet!

 

On 28/10/2022 at 19:27, Nearholmer said:

Put the passenger shuttle stop an embankment or viaduct along the back, and the shunty bit lower down, in the foreground, and I reckon you can have an 0 layout in 8ft length.

...? The station could be operated as a terminus with 2 locos, or through with more aggressive use of cassettes and fiddle sticks. Preference is for the former, as it'll need a fiddle stick attached to the LHS to be shunted. Quayside can, I think, be shunted as-is so a fiddle stick is only required for arrivals/departures.

 

Not designed for shuttle (not fun) or autos/push-pulls (not RTR!) - although agreed that they're evocative! - so, the elevated track is perhaps more involved @Nearholmer was suggesting...but it fits and has plenty of play value*. Again, because of RTR considerations, I'm thinking of it as all LSWR, but a second company working the quay would be excusable if set in Plymouth (LSWR + GWR) or Bristol (GWR + MR), for example.

 

*With working hoist, TTs, a stab at rope/capstan shunting to allow running round on the quay...Simple!

 

By way of proof of how much train can you fit in a yard of platform:

A squeeze, but more than enough for me! From Mannin Models. For evocative stock, how's this for a PBV from Ragstone Models? 

 

Better? Worse? More attainable? Hidden dangers?

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

 

[Schooner]

Is there any reason not to cut down the straight road of Peco's set-track turnouts, ST-U751?

 

Doing so would allow a significantly larger quayside, with better balance to the 3-3-5 Inglenook and a longer loop, and let the shed act as a better viewblock to mask the edge of the layout from the operating position:

[Schooner]

Compare and Contrast

Before:

 

After:

 

Managed to squeeze in room for a long hoist (7') to move main line trains* in and out of storage sidings and give them a little run on the approach. The upper station platform is a little longer, to take them without looking too forced. Previous hoist (3') to be kept as tramway extension/private siding etc. I really can't think of what else I might want, so I'm turning it over to the floor for further development. Is it any good? Is it any better? Is it now too much?

 

*Max of e.g. 43XX and 5 short bogie coaches

[Schooner]

Right. So.

 

There's been A Happening.

 

 

Problem

Homeless O Gauge Deeley 0-4-0T

 

Factors

Available space is on top of a table, roughly 5'x2'. This will only be my second 'proper' layout (first linked in signature), and first in 7mm.

 

Things that make me happy on layouts are

• pre-Grouping
• narrative and personality
• some form of nautical link

Well, a crimson-liveried 1528 covers the first perfectly. The middle one is down to design and operational choices. The last I think I have covered...

 

Things that make me happy in the hobby are

• playing trains!
• kit building
• design/planning/research

So even though the layout will be tightly constrained, limiting the first aspect, it would be good if it could provide a convincing stage for developing the other two. Layout building is on there at #4, but the gap between my aspirations and ability sometimes slows things to the point of total stasis so needs to be balanced with other things.

 

Proposed Solution (with apologies to those who have seen it before)

Developing from an old seed of things to do with the Peco starter track set...

...but inspired by this view of Teignmouth...

 

...the plan I've got to so far squeezes a lot in to its footprint but hopes not to look crowded:

 

It won't suit everyone, I know, but what do you - yes, you! - think? I'm interested to know and would benefit from hearing your opinion.

 

The setting will have to be fairly generic to suit a variety of stock sets but could be supported by changeable backscenes. For the opening gambit, the Midland, I think this will be just outside town, on the as-then Gloucester and Berkeley Canal either at Gloucester itself 

or Sharpness

 There are some issues with this as the ideal setting would be tidal, so I could invent an extra pill on the Bristol Avon, but on balance it would work well enough.

 

. The next is likely to be the LSWR, thanks to Dapol

so that'll probably move us to the banks of the Exe. My home Company is the GWR, but I've got quite enough to be getting on with before worrying about them!

 

 

Regardless of owning company, the idea will be to build up a roster of wagons which flatter the layout dimensions. In this, my chosen period is a massive help. Comparing pre-1900 to even very average RCH PO wagons in 4mm demonstrates:

No prizes for guessing why I tend to think the smaller the layout the earlier it should be set!

 

Operation

Fundamentally a standard Inglenook, with semi-scenic cassettes/fiddle-sticks standing in for The Wider World and providing the required headshunt:

 

Thoughts on getting the most operational bang from the acreage buck follow. The scene is a quay access loop (not modelled, the running line is assumed to lie about where the operator sits) on a river-side dock - as per the Teignmouth photo.

 

 

Part One, The Exchange

Sessions start with the cassette (900mm) on the left full with a train of loco (200mm) + 5 wagons (700mm), with the lower-right turnout open to traffic from the quay but closed to traffic from the 'loop'*. The train is brought on-scene and draws to a halt before the turnout, about in line with the opening in the fence. The turnout is operated, and the cassette is moved to the right. A normal Inglenook puzzle is then played to exchange wagons for the three possible siding locations (labelled Vans, Opens, and Coal), and order the train as need be for the remaining berths - this being assumed to be the last point on the quay network where such a shunt is possible. Job done, the train departs the scene to the right.

 

*Set this way to aid the usual movement of wagons on the quay, propelled by hand or horse.

 

 

Part Two, The Shunt

The loco then returns from the right, running light having dropped off its train at the next quay (cassette exchanged or simply turned). Its job is now to shunt the wagons to their respective locations by type/waybill/RNG, including exchanging coal wagons as required and rope-shunting vans from the shed**. This train, formed on the cassette to the right and with the loco at its head, draws on scene a final time. It stops once the last wagon is clear of the turnout, which is pulled closed behind it, and the cassette is moved back to the LHS. All clear, the trains drives into the left-hand cassette, and off into the sunset.

 

The kind of feel I'll hoping for with the 'coal' spur: Foy at Pentewan, c.1905

 

**Loco runs on quayside road. Capstan is top-left of the wagon TT. Loco stands in front of the shed and is roped to the LHS of the van in the shed. Loco drawing to the right will haul the van onto the TT, which turns it. If the van is to be propelled off-scene to the left, job done. If it needs to be run round, then it can be left roped to the loco and pulled past the turnout. Disconnect the rope, run to the loco in front of the shed to complete the run round, pull the turnout and propel the can onto the right-hand cassette...Or maybe none of that and instead a strong magnet in the van and a Magnorail system to mimic hand/rope shunting...?

 

 

Not that it's required, but I think the above - with sidings split into wagon-length sections - shows that the TT can be kept clear even if the siding is at 'maximum' capacity of three wagons. In addition, there's space for two in the shed, and one stood outside it. I'm hoping this 3+3 approach will bring scope for extra complexity and variety to an evening's inglenookie.

 

Wait, what? That's the verb, right?!

 

The build

Investigating a few options, so will leave this section for now. The only certainty is that it has to sit on top of the same table which holds Ingleford, and I'd like it not to be wider than a doorway :)

 

The mechanics

Peco track, as per the plan. c.6' minimum radius so that if I can maintain the dream than if ever win the lottery I can run a Lee Marsh 850 :)

...but mostly I don't think it need be any tighter than the ruling radius of the turnouts as it doesn't gain anything.

 

• DCC; ideally mechanical turnout control, but most likely Cobalt point motors and levers; ideally mechanical TT control, but I'm also keeping a close eye on @ScaleModelScenery's upcoming Modulus system (see also @Stubby47's demo here). Overkill but it would aid things like automatic gates protecting the line when cassettes are not fitted...
• Locos hopefully sound and @TRS trains smoke fitted for maximum soul :)
• Operated from a low seat - eyes about in line with the coaster's funel, or the shed roof - in the middle of the lower edge of the plan. This allows for quite tightly managed eyelines to reward peering around corners etc but keeps the layout at a convenient working height.
• Couplings...tricky, but I use 3-links in 4mm, so feel confident to do the same in 7mm, but much as the current layout has embedded magnets and some S&W-fitted stock for hands-free sessions, I would plan for autocouplers. Probably Dinghams, whose aesthetics and compatibility with scale couplings give them the edge over S&W in 7mm to my mind.

Using some pics from one manufacturer for convenience to help populate the plan, but without intent. The fencing would be pretty standard timber stuff 6' or so high, enough to form a visual barrier but not imposing eg:

 

The stores shed would be at most, due to footprint constraints, something like

but much more likely along the lines of

...just something for the trains to pass by, really, and act as the focus for some detailing.

 

The wagon TT on the plan was sized from

which is handy - there are both larger and slightly smaller alternatives from other manufacturers so it seemed a good one to use for initial planning.

 

On the right of the layout I felt something was needed to balance out the transit shed visually and operationally. A crane on a plinth might tick that box

...and it doubles as a buffer stop, saving space :)

 

The transit shed itself will need to be scratch. Timber framed, wriggly-tin clad...maybe with a vehicle (horse-drawn, obvs) loading door/bay on the end...but I think this might be a bit much, so probably no more than a sliding door to reveal the platform and vans inside, and maybe not even that.

 

Although the layout is designed to be viewable in the round, the quayside itself can be pretty simple and use pre-made walling, like

as a lot of it will be behind quite a large lump of ship.

 

There are a few options for this, but I'll plan for the largest to cover all the others. This is a long-quarterdeck coaster (achaically but pleasingly termed a Screw Schooner), with the touchstone of SS Robin. Sole type survivor, she's well documented and typical in general form but has a couple of unique particulars which make her interesting (YMMV!).

 

A useful starting point would be the Mountfleet Models version of SS Jarrix

whose dimensions in 1:48 are still well within reason for 1:43, although obviously superstructure and details would need adjusted, as per @Giles's fine adaptation of the Caldercraft SS Talacre:

for his inspirational layout The Sparrow.

 

I mentioned tides earlier. I think the layout should be set somewhere tidal at low water for two reasons

• It makes the most of the vertical dimension of the layout, not wasting that space
• Both ship models mentioned are designed for remote control. Their easy removal from the layout isn't a priority, and the inaccurate hull-form of such models is non-negligible, but worth keeping in mind for now and allowing for if possible.

 

Conclusion

I'm moving to 7mm a little ahead of schedule. I have some ideas, but little knowledge; too much time for thinking and not enough for modelling. I will have made mistakes and faulty assumptions in the above, and there will be things I've missed. I'd appreciate your help catching and fixing these.

 

What do you think? 

 

If you think that it's a rubbish idea, or if you've got an alternative for an O gauge layout, roughly 5'x2' scenic, of pre-Grouping shunting fun then please don't hold back!

 

Thanks for reading to the end of what became a massive post, have a good week, cheers and gone!

 

Schooner

Edited March 20, 2023 by Schooner
Links fixed, pics embedded, words spellchecked

[Asterix2012]

Ref the photo of Great Western number 795 above, I never realised they did a four coupled pannier tank.

 

Any details on that engine?

[Schooner]

3 minutes ago, Asterix2012 said:

Any details on that engine?

There's a bit floating round the internet, but as so often the best summary is from @JimC

 

A bit late for me really, but who could possibly turn it down? What a little cutie!

[Northroader]

[Schooner]

The OG's OG :)

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by Schooner
Sorry, I appreciate it's the wrong tank for that to work as a pun, but it's Monday. Can't have all our fun at once

[GWR-fan]

Interesting 7mm narrow-gauge layout

 

 

 

[Schooner]

Thanks for that @GWR-fan, that made for an interesting watch - a lot going on in a small space!

 

On the plan front, a small (couple of inch in fact) update:

 

The layout has no real maximum size other than what can be convincingly sat on the table. Width is more constraint by doorways to 690mm (Max width 670mm in the above), length is pretty free. A small extension to the right would allow

• the crane to sit behind the fence on the cassette (itself high enough to mask the dock edge), suggesting that although the rail-served berth of the modelled scene ends, the quay itself continues
• the kickback siding (labelled 'coal') to be extended to definitely take 3 wagons. This means both the sidings, traditionally 3 wagon-lengths for an inglenook, remain restricted but have double the total capacity. The inglenook ratio becomes 5 + (3+3) + (3+3), which should unlock some shunting shenanigans!
• The coaster can nip up her bow springs and scooch back a bit to sit more convincingly along that siding and to give space for another vessel, maybe like SS Talacre:

 

Dangerously tempting...

 

Or, much more work but even better suiting place, time and available space:

La Rose:https://www.mantuamodel.co.uk/products/ship-kits/panart/442/la-rose-detail

...with her distinctively French roller topsails telling a little story as they're seen up above the transit shed in the back-left corner. Preference is for the latter, more achievable is the former, neither a top priority. But they'd be an option at least, all for adding a couple inches length

 

Practical aspects are under development, hoping to be able to share news soon. Till then, as ever, all feeback appreciated. If you have a bright idea that requires <6' length then do share!

 

Cheers all,

 

Schooner

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by Schooner
Space is hard, words is harder