P4 in 5mx3m

[Tim Hale]

Having just read Don Rowland's excellent account in MRJ 111 of how he shoehorned P4 into 5mx3m (I have the same space) unfortunately the article did not provide a trackplan of Don's layout.

As a starter in P4 with the desire to run a simple continuous layout, this omission is somewhat perplexing and I cannot find any mention in the past few issues of MRJ of how Don has achieved the impossible. Is there an online trackplan available, can anyone help?

Many thanks

Tim

[craig_whilding]

3m (9.8ft) allows the 4ft radii curves Don has fitted fine though there is no gap around the outside as he pointed out in the article. I think most of the siding space can be seen in the main photo along with the article.

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=697#p2130 has a picture too.

The previous MRJ articles are shown in the MRJ index http://www.modelrailwayjournal.com/inde ... g=0&page=2

[Tim Hale]

Thanks but I am hoping to find a trackplan otherwise the article in MRJ is pretty much worthless.

Tim

[craig_whilding]

Well there might be one in the last 5 articles on the layout.

Its hardly a useless article without one though as its mainly about compromising ideas to fit into the available conservatory.

[barhamd]

My spare room is probably a little smaller than that at ~10x8ft and I manage to have quite a lot of fun with a continuous run.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/186/entry-1597-how-much-p4-can-you-fit-into-a-small-room/

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/186/entry-2234-plan-of-layout/

David Barham

[Tim Hale]

David,

Many thanks. I still seek Don's trackplan but not on this forum.

Tim

[grovenor-2685]

I'm sure I have seen Don's track plan in one of his earlier articles, might have been in S4 News.
Regards
Keith

[grovenor-2685]

No, not in S4 News, the track plan is in MRJ 139 (Christmas 2002), the earlier version in a slightly larger space was in MRJ 138.
A few minutes with theon-line index found them.
Regards
Keith

[Mark Tatlow]

My spare room is probably a little smaller than that at ~10x8ft and I manage to have quite a lot of fun with a continuous run.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/186/entry-1597-how-much-p4-can-you-fit-into-a-small-room/

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/186/entry-2234-plan-of-layout/

David Barham

I do like that vertical fiddle yard, can you expand upon it (probably in a new thread?).

[Philip Hall]

This seems to be a more common size amongst us than I realised. I too have a similar space, although I prefer to work in old money, being approx. 16'0" x 10'6". So I have a little more width, but a touch less length. It still has seemed possible to squeeze in a 'shrunk' version of Okehampton (I call it 'Mellstock' after my wife's passion for Thomas Hardy) and still have almost 4'0" radius curves on the main running lines. The main problem has been the fact that it is in the loft room, which is also my workshop, and it needs to hug the outside of the room as far as possible to permit of its main use. Being in a loft, the higher the boards are, the smaller the railway, but I am no longer able to comfortably work upside down (varifocals, bad eyesight and a slightly dodgy back) so when I start on the railway, everything is going to be on top, wiring, point rodding (good old wire in tube and Hambling's 'Addalever frames - remember them?) If something goes wrong later, well it's only a home layout and I can do a bit of digging.

You'll have noted the 'when I start...' well hopefully next year. I still have to produce the final (?) track plan. Barry Norman drew the basic plan for me a few years ago, after encouraging me to dump the first one, which was probably hopelessly overcomplicated and optimistic.

I think it's quite a good space so long as you accept its limitations.

Philip

[Terry Bendall]

Almost all layouts need to be a compromise in some areas. I seem to remember Philip saying that he once managed to get a 9F to go round a 20 inch or thereabouts radius curve - I am sure he can correct me in this is wrong, but I expect there was rather more side play on the driving wheels that would normally be required. A four foot radious curve, or perhaps a bit less should be sufficient for most things, but I remember a good friend having problems with 6 wheel coaches on about 3ft 6inch radius.

The late Cyril Freezer once wrote that whilst you can persuade most things to go round small radius curves, the appearance is another matter. Like everything else in railway modelling, it depends on what you want to achieve and how far you are prepared to take things.

Terry Bendall

[LesGros]

Philip Hall Wrote:

This seems to be a more common size amongst us than I realised. .... Being in a loft, the higher the boards are, the smaller the railway, but I am no longer able to comfortably work upside down (varifocals, bad eyesight and a slightly dodgy back) so when I start on the railway, everything is going to be on top, wiring, point rodding (good old wire in tube and Hambling's 'Addalever frames - remember them?) If something goes wrong later, well it's only a home layout and I can do a bit of digging. ...

I have similar problems, bifocals. etc. so the "instal as much as possible on the top" idea is appealing. For ease of access/repair, we could do worse that take a leaf or two out of the late Rev. Peter Denny design ideas book (Buckingham).
I had the priveledge of visiting Tony Gee's railway room recently [for which thanks again, Tony ] It was a real pleasure to see the master's work, and so full of inspiration. Important for our purpose here, is that most of the complex electrical connections were made above the board and skilfully concealed by lift-off scenery sections. There are also some very astute mechanical linkages which bridge transport joints between sections of the layout at least one of which can hinge upwards, exposing the under side.

Footnote: Buckingham is being restored to operating status by Tony Gee and a dedicated group of modellers; it is intended to be opened to visitors when the work is complete.

[Will L]

Having just read Don Rowland's excellent account in MRJ 211 of how he shoehorned P4 into 5mx3m (I have the same space) unfortunately the article did not provide a track plan of Don's layout.

Actually a track plan for Don's layout does appear in MRJ 211. If you look at the Christmas Competition, also by Don, you will see that he likes to base his seasonal conundrums on his own layout, and that on page 298 he provides a track diagram from Rhuddhall Heath no 2 box to Bunbury. His layout doesn't cover all of this but it does cover everything from Rhuddhall Heath no 2 up to, but not including, Alpraham Junction.

As you enter his railway room into the centre of the layout, Alpraham sidings is on your left and Rhuddhall station is on the right. The mainline runs on the side of the base board away from you, with all the sidings in Alpraham yard and most of the sidings in the station yard between you and the main line. The exceptions are the dairy siding and the engine shed.The dairy siding as at the very far end where the main line turns back on itself and overlaps with the entry into Alpraham yard. The engine shed tucks into the corner behind the main line as it curves towards the lifting section ,which features in the article. This marks the spot where the two ends, having been bent round in a circle, meet.

Don's railway always has a nice spacious air to it, and I don't think there is any way you would describe it as having been shoehorned in.

Will

[Philip Hall]

Terry Bendall said...

I seem to remember Philip saying that he once managed to get a 9F to go round a 20 inch or thereabouts radius curve

Terry is almost right; on my old Taw Vale there was a three way turnout, one road of which was down to 21" radius at the tightest point, but there was an awful lot of gauge widening - I think it was about 19.5mm at that point. An a show once we had Alan Ketley's 9F creep through there, as did another of his big engines, I think it was a Merchant Navy. They also went around - again at dead slow speed - the 27" radius curve into the milk depot, which also had massive gauge widening and some (deliberately) atrocious trackwork. I think Alan hadn't fitted the cylinder drain pipes to the MN otherwise it wouldn't have done either. Alan was known for building his engines very tidily, and there wasn't that much sideplay on the driven axles, so the gauge widening must have worked. But I wouldn't advocate it as a minimum radius to aim for unless your name is Brian Harrap and you like doing the impossible. I'm aiming for 3'9" to 4'0" on the main line of 'Mellstock' and maybe down to 2'6" in sidings where the big engines don't have to go.

Philip

[Tim Hale]

Many thanks to those who helped by providing advice about Don Rowland's otherwise excellent article.

The background to my request is not dissimilar to many other potential convertees hence the decision to place the request in this section of the forum. For quite sometime I have been wrestling with the issue of whether it is possible to replace the incumbent track in the simple layout that I am currently building, unfortunately the received advice has been that P4 in just 5mx3m is 'impossible' therefore Don Rowland's article in MRJ 211 was a revelation. To make it all the more pertinent as we share the same space, my minimum radii are 48" and my trackplan is so simple (see below). Whilst the written description is excellent, the lack of a current trackplan of the actual layout as described in the article means that there is a important* element missing.

BTW, the epithet 'shoehorned-in' refers to the verb not the adjective therefore it cannot be used as a description of the layout - sorry to be pedantic about semantics. The fact that Don's excellent layout retains a spacious quality makes it all the more important to understand how he achieved the 'impossible' .

Tim

*Important to me


http://timhalesblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Track

[doggeface]

I have read this thread with interest. My space is L shaped and consists of a 4,5m x 3,0m and a5,5m x 2,5m. Having decided to take the P4 route and attempt to simulate prototypical techniques and practices it became evident that 1M40 rad curves would be the max possible. This left the only possible route as the extreme limits of the base boards and no possible way of completing the loop in a clandestine manner. For this reason and to emulate a prototype I accepted the end to end system which incorporated a reversing climb to a second level . My hope being that the elevated section could be effectively isolated visually. This would give an auto train a 26M journey from Lydney Junc to Coleford (S&W).
Peter

[Will L]

Many thanks to those who helped by providing advice about Don Rowland's otherwise excellent article.

Don is a very helpful chap who would be sympathetic to your quest for understanding. Unfortunately I don't believe he is registered on this forum, isn't likely to have seen this tread and won't have an easy way of responding directly. I will point out to him your interest.

Will

P.S.

BTW, the epithet 'shoehorned-in' refers to the verb not the adjective therefore it cannot be used as a description of the layout - sorry to be pedantic about semantics.

Apology accepted, but I'm at a loss to know why. You used "Shoehorned" as part of a verb phase to define an action, and I used it as part of an adjectival clause to describe the result. That all looks like the legal use of a past participle to me.

P.P.S
While we are being pedantic... I build my P4 locos so they will go round the 3'6" reverse curve on my little test track. I promises you that it is perfectly possible. While the general ethos of Scalefour is that one would not wish to lay curves quite as sharp as that on something which purports to be a running line, it remains a matter of choice. To say it's "Impossible" would be factually incorrect. Beware the ghost of Model Railways editors past.

[Tim Hale]

Apology accepted, but I'm at a loss to know why.

It is not an apology, I am merely correcting your assumption.

Tim

[alandoyle]

I'm looking at a similar space.

This is Cork (attached, hopefully). It's no longer than most of the other stations on the lines to Dublin, Rosslare and Tralee. It has an engine shed that would keep the most avid loco builder busy for a century. And, from the point of view of this thread, it has a 90 degree curve straight out of a tunnel and through the main platforms under an overall roof. It has check rails all the way. And photographic evidence suggests they used to run some pretty big steam engines through it (as well as lots of dinky little ones.) I've measured it on Google Earth and reckon it would fit into 6m x 3.5m if you ran the line to the east under the road instead of over, and built the road bridge over the engine shed. But that's just the prototype. Building it would be another matter.

(I think I'll just go back to my plank now.)

Alan