Kenton Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Well considering I started all the trouble I suppose it would just be rude not to throw my gauntlet / hat / toys into the ring. Scale: undecided (decided on 4mm) Gauge: undecided (decided on OO) Size: 2010 something or other within the rules (1950 including FY and growning) Baseboard material: undecided (but less prone to warp than the last one) (decided on 18mm ply on 12mm ply frames) Motive power: probably electric (12V maybe) DC more likely than DCC - but ya never know Track Plan: There will be one .... but maybe .... several evolving Shape: well have I ever let you down yet? let's just say not your normal rectangle. - Wedgy Now to go rummage in the loft and see what spares are gathering dust .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium cornelius Posted November 16, 2009 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 16, 2009 How about Longer Thinney? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 More thoughts out loud: Sure I suppose I could start all over again with Long Thinney and make sure I use heavier frames ... no I don't think so. I have also considered the unfinished Noquay and Sychpwll as potential entries - they both fit the rules very comfortably - and the Challenge could be incentive - but, well you know, I do like to start something new The scale and gauge question: My problem is that I model in too many scales and gauges. I have a loco in 7mm (OO) on the WB that needs completing and no less than 8 assorted wagons (an Inglenook's worth) to go with it (also in various stages of "incomplete") but very little space for what I would wish to do in 7mm for a layout. Too much would be new territory in terms of modeling so I am now shying away from 7mm for the Challenge. 2mm - I think 2010sqin is just too much space and my eyes struggle these days. What I have in mind is a rehash of Pavillion - a simple automated end-to-end SLT ... perhaps operationally too simple and scenically to vast to detail in the time. 4mm is my usual scale with loads of RTR stock (so no problem there, except it is all pre-nationalisation - and I am a bit bored with that ATM) - but I have, of late, sort of re-focused on OO9 (Sychpwll). I tried EM a long time ago and though some of you are trying to get me back - again stock is one big empty box. I have a small pile of shunters (all 4mm) supposedly to complete by middle of next year - the problem with that is that they would have never been seen together. At least some nondescript industrial may make use of them in separate scenes. Along those lines I have an idea for a board shape (not quite so weird) and a variant/copy of a common track plan that may fit. More thought has to be given over to how to find some space for it in the house. In particular gaining the required permissions and ear defenders for the outlay. So ATM that is the way I'm thinking Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie!! Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Go OO gauge modern day lots of 66s all with EWS logos or GBRF you could always throw in a 60 How about a little shunting layout with all them shunters?? I would sit for hours 'playing trains' on a shunting layout! Whats ATM?? (I know im not bright, thats why im learning to be a welder ) P.S - must be modern day (sorry I like smiley faces) George Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 Whats ATM?? "At The Moment" ... and 1960's is about as modern as I get ... but do like EWS livery ... but blue just doesn't do it for me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie!! Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 ooh At The Moment Blue locos... out of my time frame .... and a horrible colour for a loco really ... Stick to EWS well DB Shenker now George Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckjumper Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Scale: undecided Gauge: undecided Size: 2010 something or other within the rules Baseboard material: undecided (but less prone to warp than the last one) Motive power: probably electric (12V maybe) Track Plan: There will be one .... but maybe .... There's nothing like being decisive... :icon_wink: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 Well I'm going to use the blog so it begins here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?app=blog&module=display§ion=blog&blogid=373& but your welcome to continue to pass comment in this thread which I may use from time to time as a diary Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 That factory is quite a bit smaller than I thought it would be - even correced for 5 bays it comes in at just over 12" x 5" by my conversion. I'm beginning to realise just how BIG the boards will be. By my standards this is a monster. Anyway a really rough draft of a track plan below. It is upside down with operator side at the bottom. There will be more curvy bits (I was just experimenting) I am a little undecided on the track along the backscene - it is intended to enter (maybe exit) a warehouse/shed but I'm also toying with the idea of a platform (only toying!) One of the big factory sidings will be into the building, one as a loading bay at the front and the other ending short. Even the sector plate is not a given as a 3 road traverser may just fit One of the features I wanted was the very long run across the front of the layout - though I may put a kink into it about half way. Nothing is cast in stone and I still have a lot of internal negotiating to do with the current owners of the land, not to mention the clearing of the brownfield site of assorted debris - the hire of a skip is currently being suggested. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 A hinge in the centre of the viewing side, would let you fold it sideways to form a 2' x 5' unit for transport Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 A hinge in the centre of the viewing side, would let you fold it sideways to form a 2' x 5' unit for transport You've been reading either the blog or my mind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Feel very afraid - it must be your mind - I haven't seen the blog! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 21, 2009 Author Share Posted November 21, 2009 Feel very afraid - it must be your mind - I haven't seen the blog! nothing much to worry about ... in fact nothing much in there ... ... and not much in my blog yet either Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 23, 2009 Author Share Posted November 23, 2009 I was hoping to have made a start on some wood work at the weekend but ... Negotiations with the current landowner are proving to be protracted and arguments among the other directors of the Railway Company regarding the state of other unfinished track-laying and infrastructure projects are adding to the delay. Clearing the site has been held up by the Department of Environment and Health & Safety regarding the demolition and disposal of wooden and metal structures currently occupying the site. On top of that the Works Manager is having serious reservations about the ability of the contractors to be able to transport the new foundations from the suppliers to the site. He is asking for more consideration to be given to smaller units and prefabrication. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Mikkel Posted November 29, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 29, 2009 Ah yes, the hassles of planning! That's a really interesting trak plan, Kenton. I like the idea with the long run at the front. Would it maybe need some view blocks in front of it here and there? The track along the back scene: I can see how both a platform and a warehouse would work, but maybe the latter would give the best visual impact, in order to balance the factory at the other end, and provide a pleasing backdrop to the spur and long run in front of it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 Would it maybe need some view blocks in front of it here and there? I was thinking of an overgrown foot path along the front of the left board leading to an overbridge about the middle (going where?) then continuing as just a fence/concrete wall for the rest. The idea being more of a open appearance on the narrow taper. ATM I am swaying more towards cutting the length of the back track along the backscene to end in another large warehouse. Then extending that short headshunt into a platform (derelict/overgrown/out of use). With the enormous space I really want an excuse to run something passenger for a change - even if it is empties to storage. Disguising the exit to the traverser/SP is not clear - I had thought that the warehouse was much bigger than it is - I'd rather not extend the backscene behind it. But the problem remains one of real world logistics and so haven't even bought the wood in yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 30, 2009 Author Share Posted November 30, 2009 Well the days are ticking by and still not started But at least today's 3 trips to the recycling center managed to dispose of the shredded contents of a 4 drawer filing cabinet and its drawers. Tomorrow another trip - somehow following the cut up of the carcass. It doesn't mean that planning permission has been granted, but offering to clear the site of old accumulated junk may help sway the landowner's decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted December 13, 2009 Author Share Posted December 13, 2009 Well some small progress on the land acquisition front. An area of exactly 10ft wide has been cleared in what is rapidly becoming a very cold and inhospitable garage. That does not mean that permission to cut wood has been granted but at least there is somewhere other than the hall floor to layout proposals and then eliminate them as being ridiculous. The latest revision to the plan below, has resulted from the realisation of just how much bigger 10ft is over anything preceding it. (I have never understood all those who were unable to fit something in 6sqft) I cannot now resist to include some excuse for passenger traffic. The right hand board (thinner wedge) is now developing into some station area. The two tracks now becoming more of a through line disappearing off scene to a potential for extension or cassette (end-to-end operation potential - I still have lots of challenge sq.in. to spare). Thinking along the lines of a over line station building or just a simple enclosed passenger foot bridge making the scenic break. Playing with the plan I think a 3car DMU or a loco+2 would be perfectly feasible. At the other end of the platform would be a standard bridge to nowhere break angled across the tracks. The backscene being retaining wall much along the lines of this photo link. To the other side of the road bridge the track works has changed slightly (still 5 points) and I'm still toying with the idea of moving the other point from what will be now main line. The sector plate is now definitely (more useful) as a traverser (3 or 4 road) and the backscene storage off the traverse is now on the optional list. One problem with the move to having some passenger operation has forced the increase in the size of the traverser. With absolutely no spare space beyond the 10ft, I do not think the current 24 inches will be enough and may have to be 30 or even more (what do you think?) The trouble with this is that it forces an increase in the size of the scenic break and an exaggeration of the curves into that break. Still nothing is cast in stone (or wood) yet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Mikkel Posted December 13, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2009 That photo in your link from Edingburgh Haymarket is certainly appealing. If that's the kind of thing you have in mind it should be really good. It does sound as if you'll need at least a 30 inch sector plate/traverser. Having never tried making one of that size I always wonder whether they are not a bit unwieldy to operate? Just curios, it's obviously been done by many many others before so it must be possible! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted December 13, 2009 Author Share Posted December 13, 2009 I have done an 18 inch one using the same drawer runners that I would intend to use for this one. As so often with these sort of things it is the planning of the frame and supports to get the table level then making the runners parallel. These have ball races in them and I think will work just as well over 30". The traverser will be limited in forward travel with probably only the front 2 tracks in use for the out (down?) line. I am trying to get my head round a possible over extend at the side (only 6 inches - or may be 5 inches ) A 3 car DMU needs 29 inches min. I don't know about say a Cl.33 +2 coaches. The problem remains that it will still be visible if anyone looks down the track to the FY area 4 tracks is also going to be difficult to disguise at that angle. All of a sudden 10ft doesn't seem so big. Perhaps passenger operation was not such a good idea after all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted December 14, 2009 Author Share Posted December 14, 2009 A few more minor adjustments to the plan. Adding the slight curves to the main line to bring them parallel for the traverser, should allow it to be obscured easier - but still unsure of how. I still like the idea of a footbridge from the path at the front over and into the yard. I guess it could also continue out to back. I have redrawn this with a loss of the 5" RH end, increasing it to 7.5", that would be a loss of one of the 5's but does give the station that little more space. The factory area has just turned into a rather big Inglenook (now how did that happen http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/public/style_emoticons/#EMO_DIR#/biggrin.gif ) - but just couldn't have two entrances to the yard from a main line. Still cannot make my mind up about the hidden storage siding - just seems superfluous somehow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted December 15, 2009 Author Share Posted December 15, 2009 As mentioned above the following image has been in my mind regarding both the NBL0-4-0DH kit build and with regard to a station aspect for Quintland. http://alansgallery.fotopic.net/p46817492.html This is taken at Edinburgh Haymarket 1960. I know little about the station arrangement and have been trawling fotopic to see if I can find more photos of the era. With hardly any success The following image is I believe the tunnels/bridge that lies off to the left of the above photo ? Going by the building on the right above the tunnel. http://dougieslinesidegallery.fotopic.net/p62362019.html This structure fits perfectly with the current plan for Quintland - except it is at the wrong end Possibly just as good with this location the following station building ? and walkway ? cross the tracks at the other end. The plan for Quintland is therefore a mirror image of Edinburgh Haymarket - but with only two of the four tracks. This is potentially encouraging (prototypical features) http://www.simplytrains.fpic.co.uk/p62221273.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Mikkel Posted December 15, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 15, 2009 Kenton this is way out of my territory, but did you also try flickr. There are a number of photos there from Edingburgh Haymarket, although whether they are of use to you I can't quite judge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted December 16, 2009 Author Share Posted December 16, 2009 Mikkel, yes thanks, still digging. The problem is that, despite frequenting Glasgow and south Scotland for much of the 70's I rarely had the inclination to travel by train let alone photograph - so it is one of those, many, stations I never visited. Therefore have no memory of the general arrangement. Modern photographs are potentially not too much help - This layout is supposed to be 60's.ish in character and also I gather the station underwent quite radical changes in the 70's and again lately with the addition of a new platform. (platform 0)! I am beginning to rethink my ideas about that station (not the model) layout expressed above. At the Waverley end of the platforms are the entrances to the bridge/tunnels (with a road above) in the second photo ? The station building and the footbridge from it in the third photo are positioned about half way along the platforms. ? The other end of the platforms are open to the tracks. The platforms on a slight curve. The location of the photographer in the main photo was therefore on the open end of platform 2 ? facing platform 1. This, as I suggested puts the arrangement in mirror image of what I require for the model. But then it was never intended to be Haymarket - it is just that retaining wall, station building/footbridge suits my layout I will continue to seek a more complete (in period) photo of the station canopy area and footbridge. As so often with these photos the photographer tends to clutter up the foreground with a loco ignoring the important infrastructure. It is the infrastructure that needs to be recorded for posterity - so easily forgotten. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 A small amount of progress What ever let me think that this layout would be portable? I struggle as a 1 man job to lift my other "portable" layouts and they are of the size 48"x24" or less. Today the cut wood for the baseboards were delivered into a very cold garage with snow still lying all around. The invoice very kindly stated the approximate weight of the order .... slightly over 58Kg !!! now I know glue, card structures and other additions are not going to add very much but I think the idea of a portable hinged layout is going to be ditched in favour of preventing a hernia. Also noted is the difference in maneuverability of a 60" board compared to a 48" board. I can see me only being able to lift the station board with any ease. Of course having the cut wood is a long way off from a finished baseboard - but at least it is a start Oh, and permission has not yet fully been obtained ... but it has something to do with a complete redecoration of the master bedroom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.