Lacathedrale

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.

@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!

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? 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!

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! 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!

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: Can be built in stages Can support uncontrolled live steam and clockwork (i.e. watching the trains go by) Can support some kind of operation using battery R/C My specifics are: Gauge 1 by preference, but Gauge 0 also fair game. Coarse scale early 20th century model engineering - no finescale desired or required. 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 :)

I've been looking at some pre-war Model Engineering books (my current love being miniature live steam by the same LBSC) and very much looking at this vibe: This his description of the drive-train for a Gauge 0 toy locomotive - incidentally an LCDR F-class - which he suggests to cannibalise wheels from a clockwork loco: Anyway, much to think about - I could just about upgrade to fit a G1 line with 8' radius curves but it ends up being a very boring dogbone shape in the 70' x 20' that I've got to play with - I'm sure with G0 it wouldn't be vastly different. But, enough about me - sorry for cluttering the thread...

i am indeed thinking about it, but primarily for outside and I'm not sure if I'd want antique BL or Bing locomotives (or very pricey modern Ace/Darstaed) charging through the undergrowth! It seems that scratch-building or FDM printing is really the only option to get vintage styled, simple but affordable locomotives.

So I've done it and I think it's the best I'm going to get - I have realised that me and traversers just don't get along, so this will be the first and last! Some puzzled onlookers investigate the mechanical faultline in their world Now there's the droppers to do, sixteen for the these board ends, and the remaining five for the far baseboard joint. Give me strength!

As always, fantastic modelling and very informative.

Right, so I guess my flaw here was fixing both D and U, then aligning 1 and 2 them respectively simultaneously. Your suggestion if I understand correctly is to align D to 1 then D to 2, then U to 2. I knew I was fundamentally misunderstanding something somewhere! I guess I should fabricate up a height gauge/track-gauge and alignment gauge combo too from some of the tufnol I have laying around...

@Nick C at rest, the traverser is D1U2 - does that change your recommendations?

I don't know if I'm being thick or not but honestly this is just a complete dog's breakfast: Ignoring the jig socket for now, if we simply use pins to the down side of the each traverser line into the down socket: Track 1 to Up is impossible, to Down is OK Track 2 to Up is OK, to Down has a bump Track 3 to Up is OK, to Down has a bump Track 4 to Up is OK, to Down is OK Track 5 to Up has a bump, to Down is OK None of these bumps are enough to cause derailments, but they look like absolute crap. Some of the bump is a height problem - I think I am going to have to de-solder the rails and re-fit them using some kind of height jig. (should be 6mm + height of rail underside) - but the rest is lateral, and I can't figure out what I've done wrong: I put in the socket next to the down line and the 1st traverser line while the traverser was at rest. I moved the traverser forward one step (to the position you see in the photograph) and used the 1st traverser line socket to fix a jig socket in. I then used the jig pin to fit the remainder of the traverser-side sockets in place. My main concern is to ensure that each pair of traverser tracks can align to the Up and Down line. What am I doing wrong? How can I fix it? :(

@Nearholmer when I got into tinplate before you had some sage advice about various BL, Darstaed, Ace Locomotives and the qualities about various releases - is that written down somewhere? For example I remember you saying the BL Mogul was a bit of a duff locomotive, the Ace Schools was noisy, the King Arthur was good, etc. ?

Following this thread, as the other, with eager eyes. I ended up getting rid of my ACE and Darstaed stuff - a King Arthur, Schools, some Maunsell coaches, and a Terrier and some LBSCR coaches. I think in retrospect I should have held onto them - but I don't know that I'd ever have anywhere to run them! The only space I have for a large layout is a straight or L-shaped FY to Terminus affair in the garage. Though I'm in the final stages of track-laying and wiring this 'serious' layout I must admit the enthusiasm is flagging a little compared to the simple and direct attraction of tinplate and clockwork... I'm doing a bit of model engineering on the side with a 5" loco (still in progress) but I'm currently working on a Traction Engine - I wonder if Gauge 1 in the garden is the best option for retro fun.

Good to hear - I would be most interested to see a like-for-like macro shot of the prints?

That's a great shout, thank you! @BlueLightning apologies, I didn't really think of going until the last minute. If you saw a bald dude with a moustache and a baby in a carrier, that was me! :) @ianmaccormac, is it likely we'll see these in 4mm? I'd like three! Is there a process to register interest or preorder?

I am leaning towards Brighton Trafalgar currently. My little brass screws have finally arrived so I can set up the last of the traverser tracks and get it all wired up. I'm started to get a bit worried about the rest of the passenger stock, currently I have: - A rake of 4w B-T-F-T-BT in Mahogany. - A rake of 4w/6w B-T-C-T*-BT* in Mahogany (* 6w to be repainted umber) - A rake of bogie BT-T-C*-T-BT (* First/Second Composite) I am hoping to get a push-pull balloon trailer for Boxhill to pull for Devils Dyke & Kemp Town runs, but I still need to find a 'posh' rake of bogie coaches somewhere - non-RTR Pullmans, 48'/54' Firsts, etc. - is there anywhere I can source or convert these without resorting to brass kits? I went to the Bluebell toy and Steam collector's fair yesterday and gosh, it feels like it would be so easy to cave in and model this as an SR-era station: there's just such a massive volume of SR knocking around and I could get all the carriage stock for the layout for the price of a couple of LBSCR brass kits, to say nothing of the locomotives - I still need to find an I-class 4-4-2 tank and a B-class 4-4-0 to round out the stock there - and in doing so I'd probably move on the H2 atlantic as it's a bit big and late for my era...

All of the signals and turnouts for my layout are located on a single board (with the exception of one crossover). I am hoping that my layout will eventually have mechanical signal and point control. Right now, my baseboard simply has a hole underneath each tie bar (Peco Bullhead Code 75) and I am using the pointy-finger method of actuation. I was/am planning on using the ScaleFour Society Lever frames but I'm not 100% on this yet. What's the easiest/cheapest/most expedient method of turnout actuation under the baseboard that can be connected to rodding from a lever frame? i was thinking of this: https://www.scaleseven.org.uk/index.php?id=117

I continually come back to this layout - the combination of light tones, selective colours and the use of open space really set it apart from the usual 'shunting plank'. Thank you for continulally sharing your progress.

I ended up using some left-over plywood as a guide, with the curves being managed through the flextrack natural curving between two straight lines. Cheers!

Thank you for taking us on this journey, the new chassis does look a good deal better. How do you feel you would change your approach if you decided to motorise your engines?

I think it has to be at lease parseable by non-Brightonians, so right now it's up between "Brighton Trafalgar" and "Brighton Victoria" - nowhere near making sign-boards yet though, so no rush.

I had actually tentatively named the layout Brighton Victoria before, @Curlew . I would prefer to omit a subtitle so Brighton (Trafalgar Rd) is less desirable than "Brighton Trafalgar" even if the latter is a bit on the nose. I'm quite happy with Brighton Victoria, I just forgot I had called it that at some point. BV or BT? Hmmm... Anyway, all the track is laid now bar the additional FY tracks for which I'm now waiting on some No. 2 brass screws to finish. I was hoping to get the wiring done on the rest of the layout today and run some trains but honestly I was not prepared for how boring wiring is. I had forgotten. I'm wiring droppers to the brass screws at each board joint, since the rails are soldered together on the platform board, and split down the middle in the throat board. - hopefully it's going to mean the underneath is as simple as it gets. I'm still debating the relative merits of mechanical turnout control - there's space in the foreground of the throat board for a lever frame. Time to dig back into the Peter Denny Buckingham books!

My thoughts exactly @BlueLightning ! Maybe "Brighton Trafalgar" (because of the roads that the station would have been built over and around) - but then is it a little on the nose when held up against "London Waterloo" ? Unexpectedly the brass tube and PCB turned up today, so rather than wiring I thought I'd try to get the FY alignment pins done - it seems to work! Not perfect and it needs a bit of fettling yet, but in broad terms it's looking good. There's ALOT of slop in those drawer runners, and given that my other hobby is Model Engineering where thousands-of-an-inch matter it's a bit dismaying, but this is 00 after all and the stock does go through. I have another four pads and tubes cut and ready but I'm just about out of No. 2 brass screws, so the layout's final track-laying will be delayed for a couple of weeks given the Easter weekend now, and then next week I'm on holiday - but what I've got should be enough for me to lash it up later today or tomorrow morning for a ribbon cutting ceremony.

Well I think it's only the right thing to do to not directly impinge on someone else's naming! Some other ideas I had knocking around: Brighton Low-Level Brighton St. Giles Brighton Laines, or just 'Laines' Brighton Trafalgar Answers on a postcard please? My foamcore has arrived - huzzah! - time to see how far 10 sheets gets me, I guess!