Designing for live steam and RC in the garden - G0 & G1

[Lacathedrale]

I've not really had my heart in finescale modelling recently and have been diverted with larger scale live steam (5" gauge!) and a 1:20 live steam traction engine. At the same time i've been recovering a rather overgrown garden bed  and it occured to me that I might be able to get a live steam garden railway into that space - something I hope my child/children will enjoy in due course too. My overall space is around 75' x 22' but the larger the layout (and the more it fills that rectangle) the more controversial my planning application is going to be. With a squashed dogbone I get about 45' straight run down the 'back' and a 24' run down the 'front', with an 8' minimum radius (for G1). 

 

The outlined area is roughly where I feel I can build:

 

 

 

My goals are, in order of preference:

1. Can be built in stages
2. Can support uncontrolled live steam and clockwork (i.e. watching the trains go by)
3. Can support some kind of operation using battery R/C

 

My specifics are:

1. Gauge 1 by preference, but Gauge 0 also fair game.
2. Coarse scale early 20th century model engineering - no finescale desired or required.
3. Most likely to be 2-4-0, 0-6-0 and 4-4-0/0-4-4T locomotives, but would like to have capacity for a 4-6-0.

 

My idea is to support a double track circuit in some form, with three stations on it. I have sketched up a plan in Gauge 1, and the colour coding is as follows:

• Red - Up line
• Yellow - Up slow line
• Blue - Down line
• Green - Goods Sidings
• Pink - Branch line

 

Country Station - 22' x 3' - The first station is a 'country' station - a runaround loop and single siding for placing goods wagons, and a future 'branch extension' turnout bottom left, and a trailing connection from the Up Slow.

 

Town Station 23' x 4' -  The second station is a 'town' station - the Up line can transfer to the Up-slow for a platform road, and that is how a runaround is effected for the Up line in this station. The down line has an island platform for layovers and an orange steaming up siding, the two are connected by a crossover in the middle of  the station (to avoid any reverse curves)

 

Branch Station - 24 x 3' - The final station is the terminus at a single line branch. Though the longest, because it doesn't need to fit into a continuous loop it can be offset at a tangent to one of the mainline curves. It has a runaround loop, another engine siding and a goods siding (bottom left).

 

Can be built in stages

The idea would be to lay down the outer Down line first to allow trains to be run, then to follow that up with the Up  and Up slow lines, and then finally with the branch line.

 

Can support uncontrolled live steam & Can support operation with battery r/c

I appreciate that uncontrolled live steam will not play well with a terminus, which is why it is the final component to be constructed and the test of 'watching the trains' taken at the earliest possible moment.

 

Gauge 0?

The main issue with G1 even with coarse scale engines is that the 7'6-8' radius I am looking for in order to minimise the intrusion of the railway into the garden while still providing a circuit is still quite tight as G1 goes. For coarse scale G0 while I do need to be conscious of the angular momentum of a live steam locomotive I can get away with 5-6' radius without much of a problem - and I don't think I'd change the layout more than providing more breathing room between stations.

 

Motive Power

For both scales I'd probably be looking at building my own locomotives from the designs of LBSC and the like. In Gauge 0 that would be Bat (SR Schools), Mollyette (SECR R), Myrtle (LCDR F) and likely whatever Hornby No. 1's I can get hold of! In Gauge 1 that would be the Dee (SECR D) and Armig (SECR H), Girton (SR Schools), 

 

Next steps?

Actually joining up these layout design elements is where the challenge is going to lie - do I want a squashed dogbone or a pill shape? Maybe the branch since it's likely to be the domain of R/C can be on a gradient? etc. any thoughts or opinions gladly heard. I would also like to clarify that muggins here has to actually build or buy at least one locomotive before this plan is enacted :)

[Railpassion]

Could you strike out across the lawn swing past the shed and go behind the statue? 

 

[Happy Hippo]

If you are planning on running uncontrolled live steam in G1, then I'd suggest that the minimum radii you'd want on the inner of the double track circuit is 10 ft.  Been there, got the T shirt.

[Lacathedrale]

2 hours ago, Railpassion said:

Could you strike out across the lawn swing past the shed and go behind the statue? 

 

 

That's a tree-trunk on the wrong side of a boundary fence I'm afraid - and infront of it there are currently some non-negotiable garden beds!

 

1 hour ago, Happy Hippo said:

If you are planning on running uncontrolled live steam in G1, then I'd suggest that the minimum radii you'd want on the inner of the double track circuit is 10 ft.  Been there, got the T shirt.

 

If that really is a hard requirement then I will have to go with G0 - as the railway needs to be at least 2' from the boundary hedge under the tree, which then puts it about halfway into the lawn! 

[Nearholmer]

I’m intrigued by the perceived need for such large radii, because on 45mm gauge track in 15 or 16mm/ft, non-RC locos can be controlled well on curves down to 4ft radius, provided there aren’t any gradients in the mix, likewise, and maybe even down to 3ft radius on 32mm gauge.

 

Now, these are short wheelbase locos, so there isn’t a huge difference in flange friction between curved and tangent track, which is usually what sets the limit on the achievable (a loco set to grind round an overly tight curve will then run too fast on the straight), so that may be a factor, but is there more to it than that? Is there something about models of standard gauge locos that makes them unable to get round tight corners, or makes them inherently hard to control?

Incidentally, the most controllable 45mm gauge loco I’ve got is one with oscillating cylinders, not the short wiggly type used by Mamod, but the long-stroke ones best known from old Bowman locos, and that has an incredible ability to maintain a steady pace, round corners, up and down gradients etc. It breaks all design rules, in that the steam pipes are very long, and steam must arrive at the cylinders very cool and damp, but, as I say …….

 

Incidentally 2, Bowman locos are a real eye-opener. People run them round 2ft radius curves, and providing that the load matches the capability of the loco nicely, they will trundle round at a very sane pace.

PS: there’s a film on YouTube of a Bowman tank engine running round a circuit that includes 1ft radius tinplate curves, at a very sensible rate. These locos have no regulator, and speed is controlled by choosing how many wicks to have burning, and the weight of the train!

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Nearholmer

[GWR-fan]

For years I had an outdoor "G" scale railway using 45mm stainless steel track and 10' diameter curves.  While not a large layout I did complicate the track plan with 43 electrically operated points, which incidentally saw minimal usage but were interesting when I did find a use for them.  I would use a mix of DC analogue or DCC depending on my mood.  The layout was in the backyard of a small villa.

 

My old You-tube channel is Gscalenut.  This is one of the many large locomotives that I built showing some of the trackplan.  At one end was a long branchline down the side of the house and another set of trackwork across the back of the house incorporating a reverse loop.

 

  

 

[New Haven Neil]

All depends how big G1 locos you want.....

 

 

OK, OK, I admit it is 1) only posed, 2) not mine, and 3) my line is G 'scale' anyway!

[Lacathedrale]

For Gauge 1, after some more research it seems axiomatic that literally anything will get around a 10' radius curve, 7'6" is good enough for most, while 6' is a hard minimum that only specific short wheelbase locos will get around. WIth that in mind it seems reasonable to presume that I could get an 1 0-6-0 and a 4-4-0 around an 8' radius curve?

 

16 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I’m intrigued by the perceived need for such large radii, because on 45mm gauge track in 15 or 16mm/ft, non-RC locos can be controlled well on curves down to 4ft radius,

 

I dearly love the Talyllyn and the Ffestiniog railways and like every red blooded visitor to Wales I have as deep of an appreciation of a Hunslet, George England or Fletcher-Jennings as anyone. However, Standard gauge pre-grouping has been my bread and butter for years, and in addition to that staying power as a muse, it has an elegance and romance that shines quite differently to the rural idyll of bucolic Welsh narrow-gauge. Maybe it is worth considering? Certainly the much narrower radii would permit a railway more easily integrated into the landscape. I will mull it over and while I do, I'll leave this here:
 

 

To be clear , the completion of a locomotive is a precursor to ANY layout build - I'd just like to get an idea of which scale first, so I can build a locomotive and not have it be a waste immediately!

Edited May 25, 2023 by Lacathedrale

[Nearholmer]

I’m still mystified as to why a SWB loco based on a narrow gauge prototype can be happily controlled around a curve of X radius, while a loco of the same gauge, based on a standard gauge prototype, but with similar wheelbase, apparently needs “X + a lot”.

 

Is it that standard gauge modellers are building to tighter clearances, or do they use fine-scale wheel profiles (I’m not even convinced that that materially affects tolerable minimum radius within the ranges we’re talking about), or is it that people build layouts to accept models of big, long locos, which do need large radii, and that the desiderata for that have become universal without necessity? Is the limit a matter of physics, or a matter of custom?

 

I’m curious about it, at least partly because it has resonances of the “indoor 0 gauge can’t be done at less than 6ft radius” thing, which is often cited as an iron-hard rule, when in fact minor compromises allow far smaller radii.

 

Maybe the thing to do is build the small tank engine you mentioned in the other thread, and see what it will cope with.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Jeremy Cumberland]

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Is it that standard gauge modellers are building to tighter clearances, or do they use fine-scale wheel profiles

G1MRA and the 16mm Association have different wheel profiles, and my collection of 45 mm narrow gauge stock has both. The only real difference is that the G1MRA profile has a 20° flange angle with a vertical back, and the 16mm Association has a 10° angle on both flange faces. The G1MRA profile might be better at negotiating tight curves in plain track, but in practice I doubt there is any difference. Quite honestly, the 16mm Association profile baffles me, but perhaps they had experience of flange backs striking check rails on minimum radius pointwork.

 

There is a gauge 1 fine standard (perhaps more than one), but it isn't at all common.

 

Curves and gradients have a considerable effect on speed with live steam, depending to a large extent on what the locomotive is pulling. With radio control, this is less of an issue, and can make for more interesting running. From what I have seen (which isn't a great deal in the flesh, so far as gauge 1 is concerned), gauge 1 people seem to be far more concerned with constant speed running than narrow gauge people, for whom variation in speed is often part of the fun, and radio control seems to be almost unknown in gauge 1, whereas it is fairly common in narrow gauge.

[Nearholmer]

3 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Quite honestly, the 16mm Association profile baffles me, but perhaps they had experience of flange backs striking check rails on minimum radius pointwork.

So far as I understand things, the 16mm NGA profile is a straight uplift of an 0 gauge standard that existed when 16mm things were first formalised (1960s??), possibly G0G “coarse”of the time, although it may have been a different one. Some of the earlier 0 standards were specifically designed to allow the wheels to run on both tinplate track, and solid-rail track with proper switches and crossings at the points, so maybe the flange cross-section is rooted in that.

 

I’m familiar with the issues of controlling live steam locos manually, but I’m still not at all sure I understand why standard gauge prototypes need such large radii to achieve acceptable control. If I took the least bulky of my 16mm/ft, 45mm gauge locos, and mocked-up a 10mm/ft cab and tanks on it, it would be a Gauge 1 loco, and it would still run controllably around my wiggly (4ft radius curves) railway as it does today.

 

There must be something I’m missing!

 

(I get that a Pacific or 2-8-0 or the like would struggle; I’m talking about modest locos, four-coupled especially, 4-4-0 would be particularly suitable I think, because they are famously good on corners.)

[Lacathedrale]

@Nearholmer I don't suppose I can trouble you for some pictures of your 16mm/ft 45mm gauge items? In terms of model engineering it would likely simplify things greatly - not least because open cabs would make control easier if I didn't fit R/C! I am just very nervous of narrow gauge layouts in general, even the very best like Ge Rik's magnum opus "Peckforton Light Railway" which is ostensibly a prototypical operational narrow gauge line still skirts very much closer to 'twee' than classic:

 

 

As it pertains to G1 vs 45mm narrow gauge - your guess is as good as mine. I've been told that the G1MRA Project (an 0-6-0 4F-alike) derails on anything less than a 6' curve. Quite expensive in both time and money to test on your own pulse!

Edited May 25, 2023 by Lacathedrale

[Phil Parker]

3 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

@Nearholmer I don't suppose I can trouble you for some pictures of your 16mm/ft 45mm gauge items? In terms of model engineering it would likely simplify things greatly - not least because open cabs would make control easier if I didn't fit R/C! I am just very nervous of narrow gauge layouts in general, even the very best like Ge Rik's magnum opus "Peckforton Light Railway" which is ostensibly a prototypical operational narrow gauge line still skirts very much closer to 'twee' than classic:

 

If you have fine scale in the garden pretensions, you would be best to look at James Hilton's 7/8th scale modelling. We covered this in June 2022's Garden Rail. In the same scale, there is the Highlands Hill and Monykebbock Tramway by Peter Bakke. Grab a free trial of the World of Railways Plus service and have a look at these. Both are superb models.

 

The problem with avoiding "twee" is that you are working in a garden. The scenery isn't right, and won't be unless you genetically engineer scale plants. That said, most people focus on the trains and not the background. Garden modelling tends to see people build their own line, not a model of a real one (there are exceptions), it's a very different mindset to small scale modelling.

[Lacathedrale]

4 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

If you have fine scale in the garden pretensions, you would be best to look at James Hilton's 7/8th scale modelling. We covered this in June 2022's Garden Rail. In the same scale, there is the Highlands Hill and Monykebbock Tramway by Peter Bakke. Grab a free trial of the World of Railways Plus service and have a look at these. Both are superb models.

 

The problem with avoiding "twee" is that you are working in a garden. The scenery isn't right, and won't be unless you genetically engineer scale plants. That said, most people focus on the trains and not the background. Garden modelling tends to see people build their own line, not a model of a real one (there are exceptions), it's a very different mindset to small scale modelling.

 

Thank you Phil, your discussion with Corbs on Railway Mania on the topic of Garden Railways opened the door to me some time back although I've yet to step through.

 

I don't think that the scale of the plants has a huge amount to do with it - Standard Gauge G1/G3 in the garden looks anything but "twee". I'm very much NOT looking at this from a finescale perspective, rather from a "Gentleman's Parlor Railway in the 1920s"- coarse scale, polished brass and rakes of carriages whizzing by. My three stations are based loosely on those from the Paddington & Seagood line, a billards room pre-war clockwork 0 gauge layout.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by Lacathedrale

[Phil Parker]

Paddington & Seagood is a good choice. I have the book somewhere and it looks fun.

 

G3 in the garden is fairly rare. We had a layout in April, but it's the only one I've seen, despite chatting to lots of people at the G3 AGM on Saturday. There are kits of course, and if you stick to electric, it's very achievable.

 

My suggestion, apart from subscribing to Garden Rail, of course, would be to join the 16mm Association. Then visit as many garden lines as you can. While the scale might not grab you, there's a lot to be learned from poking at real railways and chatting to the builders. You've a complex plan, which makes it more important that any groundworks are good early on.

[Nearholmer]

55 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I've been told that the G1MRA Project (an 0-6-0 4F-alike) derails on anything less than a 6' curve.

Sounds like very tight clearances, so little or no end-float in the axles, combined with flanges on the centre drivers …… you can guess what the coarse-scale solutions would be.

 

I’m beginning to wonder whether the issue that I’m not seeing might be inside cylinder(s) and slip-eccentric valve-gear, which together might necessitate a very fixed position of the driven axle, but I’m still not convinced that’s the answer.

 

Here is the oscillating cylinder loco that I was talking about ….. as you can see, neither it nor the railway have seen any use lately! No ballast on this section because it was historically under constant bombardment by footballs.

 

 

I’m not, I hasten to add, seeking to suggest that this is particular animal is a Gauge 1 loco in the making, I think you’d really struggle to de-bulk it to get to G1 profile. What I’m still nagging away at is why this can plod round a wiggly railway with 4ft radius curves in a docile fashion, while apparently a standard gauge outline loco couldn’t.

 

The other thing to do besides getting to some 16mm lines, is to visit a meeting where people are running old 0 and 1 live steamers, things like Bassett Lowke Enterprise and Moguls, and ancient Bing etc. Those are very simple machines, the sort of thing that a competent home builder can produce, and they run very nicely. Most of those old stagers are decidedly iffy outdoors, because they have simple meths burners under pot boilers, so are very prone to cold weather and breezes, but the same thing with an internally fired gas boiler, which is what the loco above amounts to, is perfectly viable.

 

Have you seen LBSC’s ‘Bat’ design?

 

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by Nearholmer

[St Enodoc]

14 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

G3 in the garden is fairly rare. We had a layout in April, but it's the only one I've seen

Phil, you'll remember Peter Lucas' embryonic line, with the GWR steam railmotor, in his garden on the banks of the Murray River in SA? It's developed a fair bit in the last few years since he retired there permanently.

[Lacathedrale]

I don't think that gauge 3 is feasible in my space - I am finding it hard to justify 8' curves let alone the 12' required for G3. LBSC designed the Dairy maid (an LSWR-inspired 0-6-0 tender loco) in 2.5" gauge designed to run around 8 foot radius curves - but that is most definitely the exception..

 

[Phil Parker]

4 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Phil, you'll remember Peter Lucas' embryonic line, with the GWR steam railmotor, in his garden on the banks of the Murray River in SA? It's developed a fair bit in the last few years since he retired there permanently.

 

No. I might have seen it, but it's not ringing any bells - I see a LOT of garden lines and don't have the greatest memory.

 

Can you give me any more details?

[St Enodoc]

14 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

No. I might have seen it, but it's not ringing any bells - I see a LOT of garden lines and don't have the greatest memory.

 

Can you give me any more details?

Phil, on the sightseeing trip the day before the 2014 Adelaide BRMA Convention we all stopped for lunch at Peter's place. The main attraction was his narrow gauge line but his G3 railmotor was also running up and down a short length of track.

[Nearholmer]

I was in the garden railway shop for the first time in absolutely ages this morning (in the area and couldn’t resist a look) and the guy there was showing me a really beautiful, and quite dinky live-steam Peckett 0-6-0ST, which I feel compelled to share, just because of the finesse of the engineering. He knows I like small industrial locos, and is ever-hopeful of selling me things I can’t afford!

 

Proper Stephenson valve-gear between the (outside) frames, jointed coupling rods, suspension, and the list goes on. In the context of this conversation, the interesting bit is that the frames are spaced for 45mm gauge (photo is of a 32mm gauge loco, but it is available in either format), so depending upon what passages there are in those steam passage blocks, the frames could come in 5mm on each side, getting this format within the realms of a wide SG loco.

 

 

 

You’d have to be quite some model engineer to make something like this at home, but it does illustrate the top end of the art of the possible.

 

 

[Phil Parker]

That's GRS's latest loco. We've arranged a review in GR in a couple of months. The first sample a year ago was a very sweet runner.

[Nearholmer]

My review is as follows: stunning!

 

If it runs as well as it looks: double-stunnng!

 

It’s ten years or more since I was properly into live steam, and the finesse at the price has moved up a large notch ver that time, presumably since production has been digitised.

[Phil Parker]

 

[Nearholmer]

He sort of undersells its ability to run sedately on manual control, by having it run to and fro like a scalded cat under radio control!