Hi all,
Just returned to 009 having been away since (1992/93), I am hoping to build a layout that will not only provide me with some modelling but also be of interest to my three young grand children.
Thinking of a rabbit warren layout (should provide interest for the young ones), are they a real no, no, notice there is one in my first issue of 009 news.
Any guidance as to where I can find possible track plans and picture of layouts of this type would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Roy.
Welcome back to 009 Roy! Rabbit Warrens are still with us and some are very good indeed - after all, Dick Wyatt's famous Dovey Valley has a trackplan that cannot be denied is a big rabbit warren and nobody that I know of has derided that layout!
There have been a number of the type shown at NG shows in recent years and as a starter perhaps you may want to have a look through some of the layouts featured in my roving reporter photo reports in my blogsite at:
http://micksrovingreporter.blogspot.co.uk/
which is a fairly comprehensive coverage of most of the NG layouts shown at most of the mainly NG specialist events since Jan 2008. If I've counted correctly there are 84 reports and several hundred NG layouts. I'm sure there must be something there to tweak your interests!
Happy viewing and hope you find something to inspire you further
Mick
Welcome, Roy. Do have a browse through Mick's photos. I can recommend you should join a local group, too; you'll be sure to find welcome wherever you are!
Welcome to the forum and indeed welcome back to 009.
This is Meanderbahn:
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi663.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu358%2FM-e-l-l-o-w%2FMeanderbahn%2FMeanderbahn9.jpg&hash=b80f833258ddab618b6e7c24382765cda5683b1b)
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi663.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu358%2FM-e-l-l-o-w%2FMeanderbahn%2FMeanderbahn4.jpg&hash=55c66f36879204522def6d832be4cf66c89e4903)
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi663.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu358%2FM-e-l-l-o-w%2FMeanderbahn%2FMeanderbahn5.jpg&hash=760c924b2095404d9fd1419ee194bd0f815d2b5a)
Meanderbahn was designed and built by the late Jack Carter between 1979 and 1981. It was first exhibited in an uncompleted state in 1980 and when completed in 1981. I accompanied Jack with the layout at every show it has been to. Just to prove it here is a photo of Jack and I working the layout back in 1982:
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi663.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu358%2FM-e-l-l-o-w%2FMeanderbahn%2FMeanderbahnOctober1982.jpg&hash=f7f0757423277d93ed568a96b7db509d0bcf0829)
Despite its age today the layout still looks like new as it is kept in a specially built storage box that lives under the main layout:
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi663.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu358%2FM-e-l-l-o-w%2FMeanderbahn%2FMeanderbahnCase.jpg&hash=d9f5c967060d883295bf9b365496b2c109b46137)
Meanderbahn has about 35 feet of track in a single circuit with three passing loops; one of these is out of sight at the back of the layout. There is also a cut off line that we use only occasionally usually after a viewer has spent a few minutes looking at the layout and thinks they have sorted out where all the tunnels go! We run three trains simultaneously between the passing loops, using dead sections to ensure they stop in the correct place in the loops and that they do not run in to the back of the proceeding train. We then switch the loop points and run three more in the other direction.
We also sometimes keep an identical loco and train, normally a Roco 0-6-0 and three Jouef toastracks, set up in the third out of sight loop but heading the opposite direction to its twin, again this is only used to confuse!
It
Thanks to all for the helpful advice, will check it out over the next week or so as time allows.
Would 9" radius be the minimum to use if so that will decide what I may do as my max baseboard width is 18".
Roy.
IMHO 9" is too small for anything but the shortest of 0-4-0 locos, and small wagons. In any case, to fit 9" radius 180 degree curves will require 20" width to allow for at least 1" from centre line to the edge of board (and even this is tight, risking losing stock off the edge if it gets knocked or jogged!) So, if you really are restricted to 18", you will require 8" maximum radius curves. The minimum PECO point radius is 12", although these do not have to figure in the curves of course. The kind of stock suited to 9" radius includes the Minitrains range. Before Brian M says it - keep away from reverse curves without around 2" straight between the curves! If you can accept these restrictions, then you could do something at about 20" width, and 36 " long, but I would advise going slightly bigger - or forget going in a circle, and produce a linear trackplan?
As an example of a practical compact design, the Sussex Downs Group's new planned layout has 12" radius minimum, and results in baseboards 27" wide. We plan on two 48" x 27" boards, with a double deck fiddle yard at right angles from one end; we have spent many hours discussing getting a continuous run, and believe me, this is cramped! However, we have avoided multiple crossings and re-crossings, so that it does not appear to be a rabbit warren.
I have recently used Roco curve track for my mainly hidden full curve, this is 10 3/8 ins radius I think and it works fine with 0-6-0, 0-6-2 and 2-6-2 locos also Liliput 4 wheel coaches with longish wheelbase. Fits nicely on2 ft wide board, I have placed fencing along front edge of track which should help save 'accidents'. Although at low ng speeds toppling off the track should not really happen? ( Was it the Baldwins that toppled over in real life if stood on canted track, because of water all flowing to the lowest tank?).
George S
The Peco track plan books always used to have a few ideas in their books. You usually pick one up quite cheap nowadays . If you Google tracks plans 009 rabbit warren and use " images " as the search I found quite a few track plans in seconds . Happy rabbit hunting !
Meanderbahn has 9 inch curves and 9 inch Peco electrofrog 009 points. But you have to recall that back in 1979 Peco only made the 9 inch 009 points. It has 1 in 20 grades and measures 4 foot by 2 foot 6 inches in total.
As mentioned it is best to add at least an inch between the track centre line and the board edge and on a rabbit warren type layout you may wish to step the tracks at the front of the layout so that they are not immediately above each other, as has been done on Meanderbahn.
In general the tighter the curves the more work you need to do to get the locos and rolling stock to run successfully. Also the curves will need to be very well laid without any tight sections or kinks at the rail joints making the radii tighter.
The result is that 9 inch curves will either restrict the locos and rolling stock you can run or you will have to do more work on the couplings and any loco bogies to make them go around the tighter curves.
You will find that it is the coupling overhang that is the main issue with 9 inch curves in 009. Even some four wheel 009 wagons and coaches can give problems.
For Meanderbahn we only use 0-4-0 and small 0-6-0 locos with small overhangs and all the coaches and wagons we use have bogies with the couplings mounted on the bogies. (Most are Roco/Minitrains log bolsters that have built in couplings.)
However I also have other layouts that can run the larger locos and stock so for me this is not a problem. But if this is your only layout you may well need to get very inventive with couplings.
Ted Pollett has several good examples of how this can be done, but he uses N gauge couplings that help with this somewhat.
So although 9 inch curves are quite possible I would also recommend 12 inch curves as a minimum and also to try and avoid any reverse curves.
Brian Meldon
Had you considered an industrial scene in 00f where the radii are about 4 or 5 inches?
richard
Thanks all for the info, having now read thru, it would appear that a rabbit warren in the space I have is really not a possibility if I want good running.
Living in a very small bungalow space is really at a minimum, I have a shelf in a cupboard for storage which is 38" x 20"deep and 15" high, therefore 2 hinged boards 36" x 18" is a maximum, giving a layout of 72" x 18" but that now seems out due to the max radius of curves being 7", a thought I have had is to perhaps to hinge the boards down the long sides which then gives me a 36" square board to play with and plenty of room for the larger radius curves.
I have read elsewhere on the web that the larger radius points are preferred to the smaller 12" radius type, is that correct as due to the lack of space I would think the smaller would suit my purposes better, and I would like a couple of sidings for interest.
Just thinking out a loud here.
Edit: sorry I just missed your reply.
You don't say how long the layout will be, but on the basis that it is 009 and the baseboard width is 18 inches, then as has been said there are limits on the size of stock. It means you have just enough width for curves at the ends and it will be a real struggle to make the track loop back and forth in rabbit warren style. Also, tight curves are one thing, but tight curves and steep gradients are harder to deal with.
For young children a continuous run is a good idea as it keeps things moving. At least part of the attraction of a rabbit warren (that of disappearing from view) can be provided by adding scenic breaks such as dividing the layout down the middle with a backscene so the viewer sees only part of the layout at a time. If the grandchildren are old enough to drive the trains then responsibility for controlling each visible section could be divided up.
Adding loops and/or sidings would add interest as the trains that depart and arrive will differ.
With simple wiring with the whole of the layout being 'live' apart from isolating sections in sidings and loops, control could be switched between two controllers. Part of the 'game' could be guiding the operator who cannot see the train as it vanishes from view to bring the train to a stop before passing control over to the other operator.
If the children are too small to drive the trains then a similar approach of dividing the layout into different scenes could be taken. Like garden design, dividing the whole into different 'rooms' adding scenic blocks and preventing the viewer from taking in the whole scene is what adds interest. Having to move to a different viewpoint to see the train is at least as interesting as seeing which hole a train pops out. However in a busy exhibition it can be difficult to view from each of the vantage points, especially if it means crouching down and peering, but there is no such limitation on a home layout.
Perhaps rabbit warren layouts are a way of providing that sort of 'mystery' when the viewer is forced to stand behind a barrier in a busy exhibition?
Carl Arendt's web site has a number of ideas for small layouts that are divided or contain view blocks.
http://www.carendt.com/ (http://www.carendt.com/)
There are good examples on this forum too. Take a look a Nixnie. There is a lot of interest in a small space. Put yourself in a child's point of view and see how precipitous and dangerous it looks as the train crosses the gorge on the trestle bridge or imagine what there is behind Hagrid's door.
With our postings just passing each other in the aether, another thought occurs. If height is limited too, I would make best use of the height and borrow another trick of gardening in a small space. Also if the layout is to live in a cupboard and be brought out only when being used then the less time spent setting up and disassembling the layout the better so splitting the baseboard may not be such a convenient idea.
Sharp curves are 'doable'. Making sure the track is flat and there are no kinks or tight spots. Again to borrow from Nixnie, use Settrack to ensure this and put the track on a really solid base.
Nixnie, any ideas as to which points have been used, thanks.
Hi Roy,
There is a whole thread here on how Nixnie was built, well worth looking through it:
http://www.009society.com/forum/index.php?topic=883.0
The points are Peco I think.
Frank
Roy - I missed this since at the moment I'm actualy exhibiting Nixnie in a four-day marathon. I have to be off again shortly so I'll keep this short.
I used standard Peco 12" radius points on Nixnie. The main line curves are down to 9" radius however. If storage space in your place is that narrow I would suggest building a layout in two halves which you can connect up back to back to form a continuous run. The result would be slightly under 36" square to allow for easy storage. Build separate back to back scenes on each portion - I'd be surprised if you wouldn't be able to use 12" radius curves all over.
Now, there's and idea - if the two halves have their own backscene and you make them self-contained shunting layouts that can be connected together then you take just one out at at time to work on or for a quick running session.
For shunting to shuffle wagons, three sidings and a headshunt or a loop and a couple of sidings is a good starting point. There are several examples on Carl Arent's web site and here:
http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/ (http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/)
Inglenook sidings shares many similarities with the puzzle and artificial intelligence/robotics test "Towers of Hanoi".
Quote from: Roy Parkes on December 28, 2014, 09:29
Thanks all for the info, having now read thru, it would appear that a rabbit warren in the space I have is really not a possibility if I want good running.
Living in a very small bungalow space is really at a minimum, I have a shelf in a cupboard for storage which is 38" x 20"deep and 15" high, therefore 2 hinged boards 36" x 18" is a maximum, giving a layout of 72" x 18" but that now seems out due to the max radius of curves being 7", a thought I have had is to perhaps to hinge the boards down the long sides which then gives me a 36" square board to play with and plenty of room for the larger radius curves.
I have read elsewhere on the web that the larger radius points are preferred to the smaller 12" radius type, is that correct as due to the lack of space I would think the smaller would suit my purposes better, and I would like a couple of sidings for interest.
Just thinking out a loud here.
The Peco 12" points are quite acceptable, unless you want multi-wheeled monster locomotives! :o However, if you can fit 18" points in, then they will look better (IMHO). The idea of hinging on the long side sounds good - perhaps you would not need the full 36" deep; since you originally thought of hinging to produce 72" long, I assume you propose to extract the layout from the cupboard, and then swing over the top baseboard? I have planned, and half constructed, a similar arrangement, producing a 48" x 36" board.
My attempt at producing the same track plan [Anyrail5] as Nixnie using 9" rad curves and 12" points, am I missing some thing because no matter how I try I can not replicate the original with a horizontal straight loop, only curved?
If I do the loop is very, very short!
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1101.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg432%2Froyp7%2Fplan.jpg&hash=dbacdaeaaf96bdfb4e16c508e3cf60e3e136a1af) (http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/royp7/media/plan.jpg.html)
I've never used Anyrail - I simply laid out the points and the curves in the available space and shoved them around a bit. Nixnie by the way is much more limited regarding space than the 36x36 you have. You have space for a station on a curve which I hadn't.
Your plan needs flowing curves instead of a succession of straights and curves. No need to limit yourself to 9" curves either.
I would suggest to move one or both loop points towards the baseboard join and sketch in the curvature using pencil, freehand. The siding at the bottom is very short as well - curve it slightly within the main line and you'll have much more space. And add a siding to the loop similar to Nixnie, otherwise your operating options become very limited. Leave at least one locomotive length between a loop point and the baseboard join.
I like Anyrail. It is simple enough to pick up on an infrequent occasion. With Anyrail, if you set the minimum curve radius to the value you want it is possible to experiment with flowing curves - just watch for the red line indicating you have pushed it too far..
I end up drawing many versions of a layout. The ones I am reasonably happy with, I save (even if there is just one aspect that looks right). For 'work in progress' I copy and paste the original as a reference point and either move it off the baseboard area or move it to another layer.
Another thing you can try is varying the distance from the edge. If the track at the join is hidden or disguised, you may be able to move it a bit closer to the edge, but probably very little. On the other hand, you can move loop 'South' a bit and the sidings 'North' quite a lot and make space for a lot more going on in front of the main circuit if you want it.
Making the loop asymmetric by extending it round the curve on the left or right might help too. It will help disguise the size limitations and make the loop longer.
(I've alluded to it before, but for layout design there is a lot that can be learned from gardening books, particularly on the design of small rectangular suburban gardens. The temptation is to put everything round the edge which just accentuates the size restriction.)
I have just tried re-creating Nixnie in AnyRail and I think I may have figured it out. Ted says he used N gauge setrack curves, but I'm not sure that he specified which brand. I cannot fit the layout in the space using Peco Setrack 228 mm radius curves, but with Arnold 192 mm radius curves it looks hopeful.
Edit: on second thoughts, the setrack appears to be in 30 degree sections - so perhaps Ibertren 194.6 mm radius.
I used either Minitrix or Roco 19.5cm radius. These are 30 degree sections. However, if you use them for the square plan you will end up with fixed curves and straights which don't look very natural. Try a mix of 19.5 and 22.5cm radius.
Extending the loop round one curve is exactly what I meant.
I just realised that 19.5cm radius as used on Nixnie is about 8", not 9". Apologies if I caused confusion.
Now there's the rub: once you start asking questions you get all sorts of answers. :laugh:
True, larger radius curves are more 'prototypical' and permit the running of bigger stock. If you are interested in large locomotives and long trains then a small layout is not a good place to start. On the other hand, small locos, wagons and short trains can be persuaded to negotiate very tight curves and will not overwhelm a small layout. Kato and other similar tram chassis are used in a number of 009 locomotive kits and tram track is of even sharper radius. However trams generally do not pull long trains and pushing long trains in particular may result in derailments.
Nixnie runs very nicely (I saw it at the Convention), and as we now know, it has rather tight curves. However in the context of a small layout they do not look out of place. Such tight curves are likely to look ridiculous set in a large loft or club exhibition layout.
I've just been reading a thread in that "other place" (NG railway modelling online) that bears some similarities with the overall plan here.
http://ngrm-online.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11854-united-plantations-09-layout-set-inthe-caribbean/ (http://ngrm-online.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11854-united-plantations-09-layout-set-inthe-caribbean/)
It is a fascinating layout but note the comments on the overcomplexity of the original plan and also the point about no run-around loop. I'm not entirely sure how the layout will be operated but it seems possible for locomotives to get stuck at the wrong end of a siding unless they uncouple and run right round the circuit to attach to the other end of the train.
Taken on board all advice given and have come up with the following simple plan for my small layout.
Radius are 12" or 10" and all points are 12".
Its all very rough at the moment, details to sort.
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1101.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg432%2Froyp7%2FPossLayout.jpg&hash=64bb2e71989aa7a6804fed2f4da84b2cd7ba5ab1)
Any thoughts please.
Not bad at all, Roy. Plenty of operating scope, and I like that fiddle yard idea.
Having said that, the sidings can have a slight curve - they tend to follow the main line as railway land usually was narrow. It makes for a more natural flow and you'll have more siding length. Not too tight a curve as you need to couple up rolling stock.
I wouldn't change it otherwise.
My thanks to Roy for starting this topic and to the others for the other postings.
As I contemplate what options I have for building a new layout which is lighter and significantly easier to transport and erect than Kaprun (SLB), the ideas and examples given here have helped my thinking. Thank you one and all.
John
The fiddle yard is a good idea. I see the potential for using it as is with storage for two trains, as a staging area (add and remove trains) or attaching cassettes if when your stock increases.
Also in terms of 'playability' the back-to-back halves mean two people (young or old) can dispatch trains to one another, potentially with a third 'supervisor' on duty looking after the fiddle yard.
If not a full backscene between the two halves, you could have a scenic break between them so the track on the other side is partly or wholly obscured. If you have two operators facing each other they would be able to see each other but not fully what is happening at track level. That might add to the interest for young operators. It could be buildings, hill, cliff, retaining wall, trees etc. etc. I see 'road bridge' indicated: if it was moved to the bottom near the join (or even over it if it was removable) it would make and effective scenic break.
If the 'players' are up to some shunting, I might consider adding another siding to the 'Cidermill' side. It would give the opportunity to (presumably) drop off empties or raw materials and pick up the finished product.
Ted P. has described a system of coloured tokens here or non NGRM-online that are placed in or on goods wagons to represent various goods.
On the other hand of course you may be visualising the two halves as one scene with 'Cidermill' as part of the station complex and the rest of the world behind the backscene.
The forwarding system Graeme mentions, using coloured tokens, is described here:
http://www.009dutch.nl/cdr/main/pages/eoperation1.htm (http://www.009dutch.nl/cdr/main/pages/eoperation1.htm)
More on layout operation is here: http://www.009dutch.nl/cdr/main/pages/eoperation.htm (http://www.009dutch.nl/cdr/main/pages/eoperation.htm)
The token system can be used even on a small layout. For extra interest, think of a kickback siding at the cider mill - it will add a shunting puzzle!
Quote from: tedp on January 09, 2015, 22:17
Not bad at all, Roy. Plenty of operating scope, and I like that fiddle yard idea.
Having said that, the sidings can have a slight curve - they tend to follow the main line as railway land usually was narrow. It makes for a more natural flow and you'll have more siding length. Not too tight a curve as you need to couple up rolling stock.
I wouldn't change it otherwise.
Ted, thanks for the positive comments and will do as you suggest.
Quote from: GraemeD on January 10, 2015, 09:55
The fiddle yard is a good idea. I see the potential for using it as is with storage for two trains, as a staging area (add and remove trains) or attaching cassettes if when your stock increases.
Also in terms of 'playability' the back-to-back halves mean two people (young or old) can dispatch trains to one another, potentially with a third 'supervisor' on duty looking after the fiddle yard.
If not a full backscene between the two halves, you could have a scenic break between them so the track on the other side is partly or wholly obscured. If you have two operators facing each other they would be able to see each other but not fully what is happening at track level. That might add to the interest for young operators. It could be buildings, hill, cliff, retaining wall, trees etc. etc. I see 'road bridge' indicated: if it was moved to the bottom near the join (or even over it if it was removable) it would make and effective scenic break.
If the 'players' are up to some shunting, I might consider adding another siding to the 'Cidermill' side. It would give the opportunity to (presumably) drop off empties or raw materials and pick up the finished product.
Ted P. has described a system of coloured tokens here or non NGRM-online that are placed in or on goods wagons to represent various goods.
On the other hand of course you may be visualising the two halves as one scene with 'Cidermill' as part of the station complex and the rest of the world behind the backscene.
Thanks for the helpful comments Graeme, it is not my intention to have a full scenic break between the boards, thinking more along the lines of a raised scenic area as a break between the Cider Mill and the Station.
And where you suggest a road bridge I was going to perhaps try a footbridge and footpath.
I will try and put all this together over the next few days and come up with something a bit nearer a final plan!!
Perhaps I will start a new topic as this is no longer a Rabbit Warren.
Hopefully I hope to go to the SWOONS members open day next Saturday and no doubt came away with a few goodies and ideas.
Roy.
Quote from: Roy on January 09, 2015, 21:27
Taken on board all advice given and have come up with the following simple plan for my small layout.
Radius are 12" or 10" and all points are 12".
Its all very rough at the moment, details to sort.
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1101.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg432%2Froyp7%2FPossLayout.jpg&hash=64bb2e71989aa7a6804fed2f4da84b2cd7ba5ab1)
Any thoughts please.
Firstly Roy it is far more difficult to successfully propel (push) 009 trains that it is to just pull them.
Propelling trains into sidings around 10 inch curves will show up any inconsistences in the track or couplings, far more than when just pulling them around the same curves. To get this to work successfully will require everything to be adjusted spot on and the track laid perfectly without any kinks dips or steps. But provided you are willing to do this it should work fine.
Curving the sidings has been mentioned, this can indeed improve the appearance of the layout, however 009 couplings do not couple up automatically on curves. So any siding or loop where you wish to couple items together will need to be straight, or nearly so. Some experimentation with the locos and stock you will be using will be needed to establish just how straight these sections will have to be to enable automatic coupling up.
On one layout (Pitztalbahn) we had to lift and re-lay a siding straight that was originally curved as we found at the first exhibition that nothing would couple together without manual intervention, making the siding useless!
But obviously if you intend to keep the trains in fixed sets with the loco attached all the time curved sidings and loops will not be a problem.
You show a platform on a curve on the plan. You will need to measure how low the overhangs on the locos and rolling stock you will be using will be to ensure this platform is not too high and that nothing hits it. On many real narrow gauge railways the platforms are at, or very near rail height with steps on the coaches and locos.
Another little tip that may well help a lot later when you start to use the layout is to ensure that all the sidings and the clearance in the loop is designed for the same length of train. There is no point having one siding longer if the trains are all going to have to be shorter. (Knowing the length of your trains in advance helps as well as without this you could well build the loops just a little too short for an extra wagon or coach to fit in.)
Obviously these are just my thoughts and they are not set in stone, you can go your own way with all the above.
Brian Meldon
Got me worried now Brian regarding the shunting, would you suggest that I keep the sidings straight?
I hope to perhaps tweek things a bit so that I can indeed only use 12 " rad curves and Peco 12"[Sl-E492 and SL-E491] points, will see.
Also thinking of using the standard Peco coupling as fitted to their ready to run wagons, but remove the hook from one end, this is what I did on my previous 7mmNG layout, this should help.
Roy
Sorry Brian - give Roy a break, you're scaring him to death! If his layout is built just with straight sidings and straight loops it will never fit on that baseboard. There are plenty layouts with curved loops and sidings around that work perfectly.
Roy - compromise is the mother of invention. 009 couplings will couple on curves provided they are not too tight (i.e. not on an 8"curve). It's a small layout and if the couplings won't hook up first go, they can be reached easily. It depends on the stock involved how far you can go. Experiment a little and you will find what you can get away with.
On Nixnie I propel 009 stock through 8" curves all the time, without mishap. Make sure the track joints are neat, and if you don't trust yourself to lay flextrack, then use set track curves. Test the layout without committing yourself to anything, before ballasting etc., and see what needs to be improved.
None of my layouts worked right first try. ;)
Ted is correct in regards to curves sidings and loops it will all depend on the locos and stock you are going to use, how long the individual coupling over hang is on each vehicle and how wide the coupling loop is. Some items like the Roco/Minitrains small four wheel wagons for example will couple up on a curve where as other items with a longer coupling overhang will not. But the only way to be sure is to test what you have.
I have not got any of the RTR Peco wagons or coaches so I cannot tell you what issues there may be with the plastic coupling loops on these.
However all my rolling stock has the coupling loops on both ends and the locos have no coupling loops at all. This is because I want to have the choice of what way around I put them on the track. Provided all the coupling loops are exactly horizontal in both directions they work just fine and they hardly ever both lift together.
Brian Meldon
Thanks both - Phew.
Roy.
As MinitrainS are designed to traverse 9
Here is a video of my Brigadelok on an 8" curve. No problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4Ty5UYAxw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4Ty5UYAxw)
Thanks Ted for the reassuring video, will now crack on and see how I get on, non of my curves are 8" trying to keep to min of 10".
Roy.
Much to my astonishment, the brigadeloc will pull/push 22 bogie wagons around a 9
;D I told you so!