O GAUGE TRAINS WITHIN THE RAILWAY ROOM

Geoffrey Goddin
Pictures by the author

This article will examine how the indoor railway room of modest dimensions can permit the building of a satisfying layout on which to run our trains, albeit with compromises of compression; and how to make the best use of that space in a convincing manner. It is not some form of propaganda that we all ought to shift to tighter radius curves, but how their careful application can aid modelling. As a digression, Iain Rice in his 1990 booklet, Model Railway Layout Design Chapter 3 ‘Where to site a layout’, first discussed the pros and cons of attics, sheds and portable layouts but then noted that size and space should not be your only criteria; an operating environment that tempts you to visit and use your layout regularly can be more important. We are talking about a hobby!

My initial foray into O gauge modelling was in the 1980s. In a small cottage in Edinburgh, I built some Slater’s wagons and soldered together a few loco and coach kits. Progress was slow and the layouts I read about in my Gazette (as member 6734) required space I did not have. So my trains were displayed on shelves, my test track on the floor was a circle of Lima 2ft radius track but what stock would go round it didn’t look good, and my Lima point looked awful!

Returning to railway modelling twenty years later (now Guild member 22066), I wanted to get a layout up and running, and develop those other layout building skills, such as scenery, buildings and signals, I’d left behind as a teenager.

As my railway room was a mere 11ft 3in x 7ft 6in., my first thoughts were to return to OO, and build a classic oval layout, with a main station to branch station design (uphill and over the storage sidings), I’d noticed the array and quality of available OO models was fantastic and getting better each year. But I also wanted to run what O gauge stock I’d built, so initially I built a 2ft 6in. wide baseboard at a 3ft height, under my 5ft height OO baseboards, I planned a small station to fiddle yard arrangement, but having a short train go from the platform though a bridge and stop, a run of twice its length, left me underwhelmed.

By now Dapol terriers had appeared and also PECO Setrack 40.5in. radius curves, so further boards took the line round my room to end at the door, I now had twice the run at 22ft Having adopted DCC sound I could also hear my train make a reasonable journey. Finally, what if I ran a further return curve across my doorway (with the door rehung to open outwards) on a 40.5in. radius ‘viaduct’ and made it rejoin the original platform face? I now had a 30ft (scale quarter mile) continuous run. My trains could chuff and hiss their way round my room while I sorted out some workable scenery, a useable goods yard and installed signals; or sat and read with the cat on my lap. I now knew I wanted a roundy layout. I could learn to live with the tighter curves, but how should I make it look a believable model railway?

I will explain this in four parts: terminology, the visual impact of tighter curves, scenic tricks, track and layout planning with tighter curves.

The PECO setrack Radius 2 is 1028mm or 40.5in. (a scale 2.3 chains). This in no way equates to the values of Radii 1-4 in OO gauge used by Hornby, Bachmann and PECO. These would be:-

1. Radius 1 = 371 mm, (7mm equivalent 650mm or 25.5in.)
2. Radius 2 = 438mm, usual minimum for most OO locos,(7mm equivalent 766mm or 30in.)
3. Radius 3 = 505mm, (7mm equivalent 884mm or 35in.)
4. Radius 4 = 572mm, (7mm equivalent 1001mm or 39.5in.)

Note that because of long vehicle overhangs when passing on adjacent tracks, especially between radii 2 and 3, the six-foot way interval between radii is set at 67mm. Thus with a 16.5mm track it is in reality a twelve-foot way and looks unconvincing.

PECO’s R2 radius, as used in their O gauge setrack curves and points, is well in excess of these proprietary train set radii. It would be the equivalent of R4.3. To avoid confusion and false comparisons, I would rather refer to the O gauge setrack radius as ‘RO2’, to emphasise that it well exceeds train sets curves we are used to.

On my Kew Green layout, where a passing loop could not be fitted into my 4ft straight sections, of necessity it will have to run inside or outside of my RO2 return curve. We are talking about a more generous radius than the OO equivalents, so the overhang allowance is less. Using Heljan or Dapol Mk1 carriages I found I could safely make my six foot way interval 88mm, i.e. 56mm between the tracks, which is an eight foot way, with a much better appearance. By chance 56mm is the overall width of the Guild track gauge supplied in the past: was this coincidence?

Because of my room dimensions I had to run my R01 of 940mm or 37in. inside my curve. I have designed Kew Green so this track is a goods loop running from the down goods yard, protected by a trap point. Compared to the OO proprietary radii this would be R3.5. I have found all the RTR locos and stock advertised as 40.5in. minimum radius, can operate on this line, but I do not encourage larger locos and longer coaches to do so! An R03 built outside the PECO curve (which I could not accommodate in my room) would be 1116mm or 44in. radius. In OO this would equate to R5, 638mm or 25in.

On the real railway, the 6-foot way is not always sacrosanct. Look at Photo 1, showing platforms 5 and 6 at Richmond station. The space between tracks looks more like five feet and adjoining train sides are barely six inches apart!

The takeaway from this rather arithmetical discussion is that the ‘minimum recommended’ 1028mm radius, adopted by the RTR O gauge manufacturers, is much more generous than OO gauge proprietary offerings.

Visually, tighter curves look better when seen from inside the curve, so favouring the ‘layout running around the room’ approach with the operators in the centre. Curved station platforms on the far side of your coaches disguise the gap between a carriage’s middle doors and the platform that your passengers theoretically leap, or that the doors do not open anyway! Longer vehicles will emphasise tighter radii because of their centre overhang and offset to outer ends. Note Photo 2 showing Heljan Mk1 coaches on my R02 curve, but also note Photo 3 where MTH 57ft coaches reduce the visual impact considerably. Four- and six-wheel coaching stock looks quite at home (Photo 4).

However, it has to be admitted that using modern coaching and wagon stock each exceeding 20m. lengths on R02 radii would be operationally and visually challenging.

My evolved layout plan is shown in Figure 1. I do prefer to enjoy the visual and operational realism of proper 3-link and screw couplings and sprung buffers, apart from Kadees, which would be correct in specific circumstances of location or stock. Proprietary couplings look awful, separate the vehicle ends too much and require much shuffling to and fro to operate. The latter is not operationally realistic. Neither of course is the ‘hand of God’ and its attached hook, but I prefer it.

When travelling on a constant radius or on a straight section of track, buffer locking is not a problem, (unless the adjoining vehicles are of vastly different length), though obviously it is the inner buffers doing the work. When transitioning between curves and straight track sections, longer coaches or locos with greater throw can pass an adjacent buffer, then lock and cause derailment

This should not be a problem with shorter locos and nonbogie 4- and 6-wheel stock. If it is then, as Harold Jones of Wirral Lines (Gazette November 2020 and May 2021) suggests, poorly laid track, dog-leg joints or uneven baseboards are much more likely to be the culprit. Early in my tracklaying before I could buy R02 setrack points, I ran my R02 return curve past the gasworks into a curved point (6/10 foot radius) before my station, then reversed over a 6/6 foot ‘Y’ to align with my platform. I found that bogie coaches could be propelled over these formations without buffer locking. Thus I discovered transition curves, which a) had to be lengthy enough to bring a long vehicle off the sharper R02 radius, and b) would interface with a straight with no more than a 5ft 6in. radius. I appealed on our Forum for a transition curve template from 3ft 6in. to 5ft 6in. over a 450mm length, and one member kindly supplied a printable 32mm gauge template. It can be found in post 5 within my request thread, at the top of the ‘Modelling’ section. Hopefully it can be incorporated within the Guild track building manual in due course.

A problem for me is that three of my oval ‘corners’ transition R02 to straight. I have to take care what I propel through these sections. The new Dapol Mk1s are fine, as are bogie coaches up to 60ft long, and of course all shorter vehicles. Incorporating transitions would cost me my bay platform, so clearly smaller layout spaces do involve trade-offs. But then that is the challenge and fun of railway modelling!