Jump to content




Photo

Hull Bridge

Hull and Barnsley 2FS Layout



  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 Yorkshire Square

Yorkshire Square

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationThe North Riding

Posted 21 January 2017 - 16:54

I've decided to move this from a blog to a thread to allow ongoing posts from me and anyone else who wants to. Initial entry from November 2016:

 

Time to start on a new layout. After Brafferton, I want a bit of a change; a smaller layout and a different era.

 

Hull Bridge will be a Hull and Barnsley layout set in the early c20th. Hull Bridge itself is a fictitious location and supposes that the H&BR built another small goods yard just east of Sculcoates goods station, on the opposite side of the River Hull. It will be urban in nature with ranges of warehousing and goods handling facilities.

 

 

75-14-im-Image_Placeholder-9741.jpg

 

 

 

75-17-im-Image_Placeholder-6172.jpg

I already have a baseboard, built with foamboard, that was originally intended for a BR blue layout subsequently aborted as James lost interest in model railways. I have successfully used this technique for baseboard construction before on Masham.

 

 

I have also decided to go back to basics, so the trackwork is all copperclad soldered construction and of necessity I will have to scratchbuild/kitbash much of the stock. The buildings will be generally of card construction with brickpaper rendering.

 

So far I have developed a track plan and applied this to the existing baseboard. I have made a start on track work with some lengths of plain track and one crossover manufactured. ]

 

 

20161102_0837.jpg

 

 

 

20161102_0838.jpg

 

 

I have yet to finalise the scenic features and would welcome any input on the nature of the buildings and any photographic examples that might help me along.

 

As always, any comments are more than welcome.


  • Like x 6



#2 Yorkshire Square

Yorkshire Square

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationThe North Riding

Posted 21 January 2017 - 17:01

An update later that month:

 

Bit more progress on trackwork for Hull Bridge. The bottom three points are complete and have been glued down. The upper crossover need tie-bars and is then ready to place. Just one more point for the yard entrance to manufacture.

 

ouryqd.jpg


  • Like x 5

#3 Yorkshire Square

Yorkshire Square

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationThe North Riding

Posted 21 January 2017 - 17:03

And a post from last week:

 

Some more progress on the new layout. All the points are in place and I've nearly completed the intermediate trackwork. Just a couple of second rails to be soldered onto a few short lengths. Then on to wiring and a sector plate:

 

25zs9dz.jpg

 

Meanwhile I've been painting and lettering some 1887 RCH wagons. I figured that if they're around thirty years old, they'll be pretty grotty:

 

rarhqp.jpg


  • Like x 11

#4 Yorkshire Square

Yorkshire Square

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationThe North Riding

Posted 21 January 2017 - 18:57

With the trackwork all laid on the scenic area, I turn my attention to the sector plate/off scene storage. This will hold three short trains which should be sufficient for the size of the scene.

 

I knew that I would struggle to make a moving item such as a sector plate using foamboard. It just wouldn't be robust enough to cope with constant swivelling and the accuracy needed across the joint would be hard to acheive/maintain. I therefore decided to fabricate this from ply. The trackbed is 12mm high (two layers of 6mm foamboard. I had some 6mm and some 3mm ply to hand, so slowly but surely I drew my plans.

 

One layer of 3mm ply for the base:

 

rvwv1k.jpg

 

A second layer of 3mm ply to provide a lip on the plate and a recess on the trackbase proper:

 

308i255.jpg

 

A top layer of 6mm ply which protrudes over the 3mm beneath it, locking the sector plate in the vertical axis and providing a smidgen of friction so that there should be no need for locating pins (we'll see!):

 

a24sat.jpg

 

The sector plate is the same sandwich but the 6mm ply is short of the 3mm:

 

351cwsg.jpg

 

This then slots under the trackbase and the plate is pivoted at the rear with a nut and bolt:

 

24g6ru0.jpg

 

As I will be using DCC all the tracks will be live and there will be no need for wiper contacts or anything complicated.


  • Like x 9

#5 nick_bastable

nick_bastable

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,219 posts

Posted 21 January 2017 - 19:05

With the trackwork all laid on the scenic area, I turn my attention to the sector plate/off scene storage. This will hold three short trains which should be sufficient for the size of the scene.

 

I knew that I would struggle to make a moving item such as a sector plate using foamboard. It just wouldn't be robust enough to cope with constant swivelling and the accuracy needed across the joint would be hard to acheive/maintain. I therefore decided to fabricate this from ply. The trackbed is 12mm high (two layers of 6mm foamboard. I had some 6mm and some 3mm ply to hand, so slowly but surely I drew my plans.

 

One layer of 3mm ply for the base:

 

 

 

A second layer of 3mm ply to provide a lip on the plate and a recess on the trackbase proper:

 

 

 

A top layer of 6mm ply which protrudes over the 3mm beneath it, locking the sector plate in the vertical axis and providing a smidgen of friction so that there should be no need for locating pins (we'll see!):

 

 

 

The sector plate is the same sandwich but the 6mm ply is short of the 3mm:

 

 

 

This then slots under the trackbase and the plate is pivoted at the rear with a nut and bolt:

 

 

 

As I will be using DCC all the tracks will be live and there will be no need for wiper contacts or anything complicated.

nice work but I think you will need locking pins  something like this works 1.5mm tube with  a 1mm rod/bolt to pass the current lock the track 

 

DSC_4390a.jpg

 

I really like your wagons a really nice finish on them

 

NIck


  • Like x 1

#6 DavidLong

DavidLong

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 905 posts
  • LocationMostly Atherton. Sometimes Old Colwyn.

Posted 22 January 2017 - 14:06

Hi Tony,

Nice choice in the Hull & Barnsley. I've long had a bit of a soft spot for this line as a small number of volumes on my bookshelf would testify. It also fits with my liking for those from the 'second division' of pre-grouping railways such as the Furness, the North Staffs, the Maryport and Carlisle. They usually had to fight for their existence against bigger and more powerful neighbours.

Any thoughts on motive power? You certainly wouldn't have to be too concerned about the production of domes as it was one of those railways that seemed to have an aversion to them! Even to the end the motive power was a tad idiosyncratic as the local pick-up freights were handled by WD 2-8-0s which probably didn't overstretch their capabilities.

David

Edited by DavidLong, 22 January 2017 - 14:06 .


#7 Yorkshire Square

Yorkshire Square

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationThe North Riding

Posted 22 January 2017 - 15:30

Thanks for the comments guys.

 

Nick, I got away without locating pins on Masham, but that had copper wipers underneath to power the road in line with the layout. Currently the new table lip is too tight a fit into the groove. I'll need to carefully sand it; but not too much!

 

David, I'm currently looking at a Class F3 0-6-2T (subsequently LNER N13) to run trains into the yard and a Class G3 0-6-0T (LNER J75) yard loco. As I am aiming for a pre-1914 period these will be unrebuilt with, as you say, no dome. This cabs will be a bit of a challenge with the sides curving straight into roof and the door opening extending into this curve. The F2 (LNER N12) was an initial thought, but these seem to have been almost exclusively used at the coalfield end of the line. That would have been the ideal as the F2 and G3 are basically the same loco with a bit tacked on the end of the F2. At some point I'll probably have a go at one of the 0-6-0 tender locos; one with an open cab is very attractive.

 

Right, off to do some sanding and then track laying!


  • Like x 2

#8 MarshLane

MarshLane

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,037 posts
  • LocationFlatlands of Lincolnshire

Posted 24 January 2017 - 17:06

Hi Tony,

Im not an N gauge person at all, but do like to take an interest into anything in the Humberside/Linconshire area, plus I am just starting to look at copper clad track work - yours looks lovely!  Shall be following along!

 

Rich


  • Like x 1

#9 Yorkshire Square

Yorkshire Square

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationThe North Riding

Posted 27 January 2017 - 15:04

Having defrosted from the lunchtime dog walk. I set to installing the track on the traintable. There is a third line to go in, you might just see the pencil marks.

 

I also thought it would be nice to put a small headshunt off the nearside line. This will allow me to sit a loco on scene (when I have some appropriate ones made) without it interfering with train manoeuvres. It also makes a nice juxtaposition to the curved line which will ultimately enter a shed or building.

 

292pmyf.jpg


  • Like x 2

#10 Izzy

Izzy

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 27 January 2017 - 15:27

Hi Tony,

 

Enjoying following this thread.

 

May I ask what tape you use over the foamboard joins? I have tried sellotape and brown paper parcel tape but I'm always on the lookout for something that is perhaps better/stronger.

 

regards,

 

Izzy



#11 Yorkshire Square

Yorkshire Square

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationThe North Riding

Posted 27 January 2017 - 15:34

Hi Tony,

 

Enjoying following this thread.

 

May I ask what tape you use over the foamboard joins? I have tried sellotape and brown paper parcel tape but I'm always on the lookout for something that is perhaps better/stronger.

 

regards,

 

Izzy

 

Hi Izzy

 

I just use masking tape and then hot glue on the inside of joint. Worked well with Masham and seems to be fairly resilient long-term.


  • Thanks x 1

#12 Yorkshire Square

Yorkshire Square

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationThe North Riding

Posted 30 January 2017 - 21:35

Tonight I have been doing a little planning for what I hope will be the first of several scratchbuilt locomotives for Hull Bridge. The Stirling F3 (LNER N13) was introduced in 1913. An 0-6-2T locomotive, the last example survived until 1956. Indeed 69114 was the last H&BR locomotive running on British Railways. In the time frame of the layout, the loco would actually be fairly new. As similar lower capacity loco, the F2, had been introduced in 1901, but they were mainly seen at the other end of the line working in the Barnsley coal fields.

 

Anyway, I have been trying to rustle up a working drawing to enable me to fabricate the mechanical element of the model. I scanned the drawing in HMRS book Locomotives of the H&BR and blew it up to 8mm:1ft, the original having been 4mm:1ft. I then used the tables in the 2mm Handbook and my rudimentary drafting skills to get some idea as to where gears/motors etc would fit. After a couple of attempts I came up with this:

 

281qwpf.jpg

 

The gear on the wheel axle is a 25T M0.3. At 8.1mm dia this should be okay with the 9mm driving wheels (I hope!). This meshes with a 14T gear on a lay shaft combined with a 30:1 worm/gear set. I was very taken with Tim Watson's method of mounting a worm shaft in a solid block screwed to one frame, so I thought I would incorporate that method. The ability to tweak the mesh slightly is attractive to me as a very non-technical person. The motor, a Nigel Lawton 6x12 could sit in the bunker and drive via a UJ shaft. This should leave the cab area fairly clear. A DCC chip will be mounted on top of the motor and the whole covered with a load of coal.

 

I think my main concern is that the two shafts are quite off centre in relation to the short distance between them; c8mm for a 1.5mm offset. I see two possible solutions. 1. Slightly tilt the motor up and the worm shaft down. This might seem easy, but I'd need to be careful as to the worm shaft mount and it would probably need to be a different shape to avoid fouling. 2. Recess the left hand side of the worm mount so that the shaft can be shortened. I'd need to watch that I didn't make the mount weak in doing so.

 

Does anyone have any thoughts? Have I made any obvious boobs that mean I need to start from square one? Thanks in anticipation!


  • Like x 2

#13 Caley Jim

Caley Jim

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,464 posts
  • LocationBiggar, South Lanarkshire

Posted 30 January 2017 - 22:20

could you not get away with just tilting the motor up a bit.  I don't think you would be weakening the worm mount too much too tilt it.

 

If you don't have a drawing program to experiment with positions, cut out paper templates of the motor and gearbox and play about with these on the master drawing.

 

Jim



#14 garethashenden

garethashenden

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,089 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire

Posted 31 January 2017 - 00:45

How about the Nigel Lawton 8mm motor? Since it's bigger the shafts will line up better and it's a much stronger motor.
  • Agree x 1

#15 Yorkshire Square

Yorkshire Square

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationThe North Riding

Posted 31 January 2017 - 08:28

Thanks for the responses guys. Yes, I think that I could use the larger motor and then position the chip over the worm mount. That seems like a way forward.

#16 2mmMark

2mmMark

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 766 posts
  • LocationA stone's throw from 70B

Posted 31 January 2017 - 08:34

Tonight I have been doing a little planning for what I hope will be the first of several scratchbuilt locomotives for Hull Bridge. The Stirling F3 (LNER N13) was introduced in 1913. An 0-6-2T locomotive, the last example survived until 1956. Indeed 69114 was the last H&BR locomotive running on British Railways. In the time frame of the layout, the loco would actually be fairly new. As similar lower capacity loco, the F2, had been introduced in 1901, but they were mainly seen at the other end of the line working in the Barnsley coal fields.

 

Anyway, I have been trying to rustle up a working drawing to enable me to fabricate the mechanical element of the model. I scanned the drawing in HMRS book Locomotives of the H&BR and blew it up to 8mm:1ft, the original having been 4mm:1ft. I then used the tables in the 2mm Handbook and my rudimentary drafting skills to get some idea as to where gears/motors etc would fit. After a couple of attempts I came up with this:

 

281qwpf.jpg

 

The gear on the wheel axle is a 25T M0.3. At 8.1mm dia this should be okay with the 9mm driving wheels (I hope!). This meshes with a 14T gear on a lay shaft combined with a 30:1 worm/gear set. I was very taken with Tim Watson's method of mounting a worm shaft in a solid block screwed to one frame, so I thought I would incorporate that method. The ability to tweak the mesh slightly is attractive to me as a very non-technical person. The motor, a Nigel Lawton 6x12 could sit in the bunker and drive via a UJ shaft. This should leave the cab area fairly clear. A DCC chip will be mounted on top of the motor and the whole covered with a load of coal.

 

I think my main concern is that the two shafts are quite off centre in relation to the short distance between them; c8mm for a 1.5mm offset. I see two possible solutions. 1. Slightly tilt the motor up and the worm shaft down. This might seem easy, but I'd need to be careful as to the worm shaft mount and it would probably need to be a different shape to avoid fouling. 2. Recess the left hand side of the worm mount so that the shaft can be shortened. I'd need to watch that I didn't make the mount weak in doing so.

 

Does anyone have any thoughts? Have I made any obvious boobs that mean I need to start from square one? Thanks in anticipation!

 

If you're looking for a way to accomodate a small discrepancy in height between the motor shaft and worm shaft, flexible silicon rubber tubing could be the way to go. It's available from fishing suppliers as "rigging tubing" in a range of useful internal diameters like 1mm & 1.5mm. I've got some 1mm bore tubing that grips a 1mm motor shaft and stretches easily to fit a 1.5mm shaft.

 

Readily found on eBay.

 

Mark


  • Thanks x 1

#17 Izzy

Izzy

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 31 January 2017 - 10:26

Hi Tony,

 

Is this any good as an alternative suggestion?

 

RMweb 2mm F3 01.jpg

 

Drive off the rear axle with one of the 7x16/8x16 motors in the front. Plenty of room in the bunker for the chip and the backhead should cover the worm/gears. No need for a gearbox/support shaft with the worm just straight onto the motor shaft, which could shift a bit towards the motor to clear the backhead better.

 

Izzy

 

 

sorry - edited to remove comment about 25T gear clearance. Unneccesary. Doh!


Edited by Izzy, 31 January 2017 - 10:43 .

  • Thanks x 1

#18 Yorkshire Square

Yorkshire Square

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationThe North Riding

Posted 31 January 2017 - 10:41

Thanks Izzy. I did wonder about the final gear which will only have 0.5mm clearance above the track. I could use a smaller gear and rotate the lay shaft around the axis of the wheel so that the intermediate gears meet the worm. Food for thought!

#19 Chris Higgs

Chris Higgs

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,536 posts

Posted 31 January 2017 - 11:54

Hmm. The coupled wheelbase is the same as a GWR 57X Pannier or a Dean Goods. As I have the latter chassis in development for 2mm scale, you might be able to use that, as it drives off the rear axle in the same way as you have drawn. What height are you aiming to get the motor shaft at?

 

Chris


  • Like x 1

#20 Izzy

Izzy

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 31 January 2017 - 12:08

So sorry Tony.

 

I removed the remark about the 25T from the post because I realised that I'd had (another!) one of my brain out moments and somehow deducted the flange dia from the wheel dia. 0.5mm clearance is fine, the same as exists on the 08 I just finished and more than enough. The 53-1 ratio you have arranged would be good to have in my experience.

 

This almost crossed with the post Chris made, and it's interesting in that I was just thinking that the overall total wheelbase is quite a bit and might prove a challenge in getting sufficient sideplay while keeping the end throws minimal. Might I offer the suggestion that you treat it like a 0-8-0 in this respect, giving only as much sideplay to the leading and trailing wheels as needed and as much as possible to the middle sets. If you have gentle radius trackwork it might not be an issue as it normally is for me, but perhaps worth mentioning anyway.

 

cheers,

 

Izzy


  • Like x 1

#21 queensquare

queensquare

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,511 posts
  • LocationWiltshire

Posted 31 January 2017 - 12:23

Hi Tony, great project. My advice would be to stick with your original arrangement but use either the Lawton 8mm motor or Farish/cheap ebay 7mm motor instead. The Lawton 6mm motor is a bit wimpy. The problem with Izzys suggestion is that the space over the drivers would be much better used for weight rather than the comparatively light motor. The latest CT chips can be fitted anywhere, including down between the frames as I've done on several of my smaller locos.

 

Jerry


  • Agree x 1
  • Like x 1

#22 Yorkshire Square

Yorkshire Square

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationThe North Riding

Posted 31 January 2017 - 13:55

Hmm. The coupled wheelbase is the same as a GWR 57X Pannier or a Dean Goods. As I have the latter chassis in development for 2mm scale, you might be able to use that, as it drives off the rear axle in the same way as you have drawn. What height are you aiming to get the motor shaft at?

 

Chris

 

Hi Chris

 

If I go with a flexible drive from the rear, the worm height isn't critical. Based on comments so far, I'll probably opt for the 8mm motor so the shaft will be c 4mm above the footplate.



#23 Yorkshire Square

Yorkshire Square

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationThe North Riding

Posted 31 January 2017 - 13:59

Hi Tony, great project. My advice would be to stick with your original arrangement but use either the Lawton 8mm motor or Farish/cheap ebay 7mm motor instead. The Lawton 6mm motor is a bit wimpy. The problem with Izzys suggestion is that the space over the drivers would be much better used for weight rather than the comparatively light motor. The latest CT chips can be fitted anywhere, including down between the frames as I've done on several of my smaller locos.

 

Jerry

 

Thanks Jerry

 

I agree that a rearmost motor would probably give me the best chance, not least as it allows me to have a flexible drive and makes the motor mount slightly less critical. There is (relatively!) loads of room in the tanks and boiler so the chip and lots of weight can go there. When I get to the 0-6-0T G3 I'll have to think again! :D



#24 2mmMark

2mmMark

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 766 posts
  • LocationA stone's throw from 70B

Posted 31 January 2017 - 14:56

I definitely agree with the rearward motor and tanks full of weight. My J69 is arranged like this and pulls well.


  • Like x 1

#25 Chris Higgs

Chris Higgs

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,536 posts

Posted 31 January 2017 - 22:55

Tonight I have been doing a little planning for what I hope will be the first of several scratchbuilt locomotives for Hull Bridge. The Stirling F3 (LNER N13) was introduced in 1913. An 0-6-2T locomotive, the last example survived until 1956. Indeed 69114 was the last H&BR locomotive running on British Railways. In the time frame of the layout, the loco would actually be fairly new. As similar lower capacity loco, the F2, had been introduced in 1901, but they were mainly seen at the other end of the line working in the Barnsley coal fields.

 

Anyway, I have been trying to rustle up a working drawing to enable me to fabricate the mechanical element of the model. I scanned the drawing in HMRS book Locomotives of the H&BR and blew it up to 8mm:1ft, the original having been 4mm:1ft. I then used the tables in the 2mm Handbook and my rudimentary drafting skills to get some idea as to where gears/motors etc would fit. After a couple of attempts I came up with this:

 

281qwpf.jpg

 

The gear on the wheel axle is a 25T M0.3. At 8.1mm dia this should be okay with the 9mm driving wheels (I hope!). This meshes with a 14T gear on a lay shaft combined with a 30:1 worm/gear set. I was very taken with Tim Watson's method of mounting a worm shaft in a solid block screwed to one frame, so I thought I would incorporate that method. The ability to tweak the mesh slightly is attractive to me as a very non-technical person. The motor, a Nigel Lawton 6x12 could sit in the bunker and drive via a UJ shaft. This should leave the cab area fairly clear. A DCC chip will be mounted on top of the motor and the whole covered with a load of coal.

 

I think my main concern is that the two shafts are quite off centre in relation to the short distance between them; c8mm for a 1.5mm offset. I see two possible solutions. 1. Slightly tilt the motor up and the worm shaft down. This might seem easy, but I'd need to be careful as to the worm shaft mount and it would probably need to be a different shape to avoid fouling. 2. Recess the left hand side of the worm mount so that the shaft can be shortened. I'd need to watch that I didn't make the mount weak in doing so.

 

Does anyone have any thoughts? Have I made any obvious boobs that mean I need to start from square one? Thanks in anticipation!

 

Have a quick check that the worm wheel will not be fouling against the muff that will be on the driven axle. Should be alright, just about. If not, you'll have to use a gear with slightly more teeth than the 14T to increase the meshing centres.

 

EDIT: I've just checked. It is OK, when using the 3mm diameter muffs.

 

Another thing to check is that the hole for the idler shaft is not located just where you will want to mount the brakeblocks.

 

Chris


Edited by Chris Higgs, 31 January 2017 - 23:09 .

  • Thanks x 1











Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Hull and Barnsley, 2FS, Layout