Godstone Road - Platforms and 3rd Rail

[Lacathedrale]

Hi Mike,

 

You may be right, but I've never finished a layout anyway - even when they are as simple as an 00 gauge inglenook. So if this layout is due to fail, at least it won't be another inglenook to add to the proverbial pile.

 

That said I do have a pair of spare modules (3' and 4' x 16") already built that I could put some kind of intermediate test-bed layout onto, but even with 'just' an inglenook and a runaround that's 4 turnouts and already half of all the pointwork  on Godstone Rd. Suggestions happily taken, of course.

 

All the best,

[Siberian Snooper]

 

Thanks Flacky, that's really kind.

 

Siberian Snooper, I did already try to smush the chair down with some butanone but it's made no difference. I'm in two minds: whether to leave it as-is and then perform whatever surgery is required when it's transported to the layout (incase the issue is the paper/board as per Martin's thoughts), or trying to head it off at the pass now.

 

After some discussion with Martin and a fresh look I've smoothed out the geometry of the pointwork leading into the layout -the angles are all the same but this time the turnouts are slightly curved instead of being ramrod straight with a curved piece of flex on the end. I mean hey, if I'm going to all the trouble of laying my own track I may as well do some 'custom' formations, right? I also have consolidated the CCD and carriage sidings into a single connection to the up mainline (TR218 in the diagram) - this way it's alot more like a 'real' old goods yard to my untrained eye:

 

 

The horror that is the timbering around TL186 needs resolving but now it's just a plain branch crossover I think that's easier to manage. The string of PL239/PL232/PL231 I'm not happy with either but I'm not sure how to fix it as the gravel shed needs to go roughly at PL232 and there's not enough separation from the running lines if I use straight track.

 

 

First off if TR218 leads too the goods yard, you will need a catch point between it and TR227. As to the PL239/PL232/PL231 string, what is the minimum radius of turnout TL190 and is it a Right hand turnout? if it's above your minimum radius us the F5 function to reduce the V angle a bit, this will then allow you to widen the gap between the adjacent mainline. Ideally PL191 and should have a 10 foot space between it and PR195 as it's not a running line, but I know that some compression may be needed to get it all to fit the baseboards.

[Lacathedrale]

Here's a slight revision. Like Beeching I have swung and 'rationalised' a little more - I just could not find any kind of justification for the 'gravel shed' line to connect to a headshunt accessed via a platform road. It was total caprice, and have killed my darling. Operationally it's not a big change, it just removes the ability for the loco to runaround (I can't see any examples of gravel sheds with this as an operational requirement). Also, a catch point ahead of TR227:

 

 

Martin W did some AMAZING work with sweeping lines of trackwork on the templot forum which I can't hope to emulate, but I have asked if I could possibly impinge on his good will.

[Lacathedrale]

Are you having fun yet?

 

Well, erm, I think? Except for the C&L order fiasco. And the EMGS membership delays. And the DCC system being lost in Germany. And the DCC controller being at-sea with a shop in Taunton. And a 10 month delay on wheels from Ultrascale. And that I will need to spend another £75 on jigs from the society, not to speak of the extra components.

 

The very original post in this thread was:

 

 

The idea is to build a layout that can in theory be completed within a year or so, rather than a decade-long odyssey ... I feel like finding an achievable middle ground is more important.

 

I've decided to take Mike's (and others) advice to heart, and do this in 00. Order placed with Hattons for bullhead track to the revised layout plan as above, to be delivered tomorrow. If I want to try my hand at hand-laying track on this layout, I will do it in 00-SF. I really do enjoy track laying and the watchmaker-style modelling of finescale, but the goal of this project was ALWAYS to have a layout done, far more than having 'the perfect layout'.  There are just too many compromises involved in sourcing components and building each part with my limited spare time. I am also acutely aware that my capacity for frustration/patience ebbs and flows, and so far the EM and DCC side of this project has been  a big drain there - given the issues still to be dealt with, it's too much friction and is killing my enthusiasm.

 

My dabble in EM will chug along as a separate concern, maybe as suggested as a smaller micro/cameo-layout - but not as part of Godstone Rd.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[Ian Smeeton]

A shame that events have conspired against you.

 

I have to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed hand building track and S & C in 2mm fs. It has taken 2 years of an hour here and there, and a complete restart after 6 months as I was not happy with what I had built.

 

The great thing about it was that the cost of components was low enough that it did not hurt (too much)!

 

Crack on with the OO version for now, but the pleasure in track building can always be used on something smaller, later, as suggested.

 

Best Regards

 

Ian

[Lacathedrale]

Hi Ian, to be honest I enjoy it alot, I've just realised that an appropriate sidestep for Godstone Rd was needed because I want to experience the whole gamut of the hobby rather than have this be another benchwork-trackwork cul-de-sac.

 

I found this thread and really like it: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/544-southern-region-photos-1980s/page-6

 

• I'm torn whether to model with NSE branding at the station - those curved steel benches, red/white and navy blue everywhere like this shot across the platforms at Clapham Junction (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/544-southern-region-photos-1980s/page-11&do=findComment&comment=1014983)  or the much more subdued look a-la Purley Oaks in this shot: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/544-southern-region-photos-1980s/page-6&do=findComment&comment=641932 - I don't think I'll go as far as to have a grassy station platform and wooden fencing though, never saw that anywhere - even if it does look lovely. Something like Selsdon (adjacent to Purley) seems a little bit TOO decrepit (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/544-southern-region-photos-1980s/page-16#entry1970617).
• Lots of shots with 33's and 73's with interesting short trains: Single BGs and/or GUVs, one or two HEAs, a single BSK
• I'm struck by how much semaphore signalling was still around, would there have been a mixture or would a station have switched over in one fell swoop?

[Enterprisingwestern]

Man up you wimp!

 

Mike.

(TFIC)

[Lacathedrale]

 

Whilst waiting for my track to be delivered, I whipped up a 3D model of the gravel shed at Ardingly that will balance the scenics on the layout - the concrete base is around 30' wide and 80' long. I've estimated the opening aperature to be 12' wide and 15' tall.

 

 

The interior framing I've guesstimated at 9" x 4" girders based on the photos provided by SED Freightman (here: https://imgur.com/a/OvHsfqf )

 

Luckily (and probably intentionally, given the mundane and practical nature of construction) everything is standard in dimension - 80' long with 20' between girders/rooflight holes, etc.  Other prototype pics show telegraph/electrical wires, oil drums, a deck chair, portacabin and various other detritus  - so that should be a pretty cool structure.

[Lacathedrale]

So yesterday I spoke to Hattons and said I had trouble recieving packages in the past, that I had a number of orders messed up from them. Requested the agent confirm that if I ordered at 11am I would recieve the components today - was advised this was the case.

 

Package delivered, only contains flex track - no turnouts, no rail joiners, no sets of buffers. Sigh.

[SED Freightman]

 

Whilst waiting for my track to be delivered, I whipped up a 3D model of the gravel shed at Ardingly that will balance the scenics on the layout - the concrete base is around 30' wide and 80' long. I've estimated the opening aperature to be 12' wide and 15' tall.

 

 

The interior framing I've guesstimated at 9" x 4" girders based on the photos provided by SED Freightman (here: https://imgur.com/a/OvHsfqf )

 

Luckily (and probably intentionally, given the mundane and practical nature of construction) everything is standard in dimension - 80' long with 20' between girders/rooflight holes, etc.  Other prototype pics show telegraph/electrical wires, oil drums, a deck chair, portacabin and various other detritus  - so that should be a pretty cool structure.

 

I like your drawing of the hopper house but from memory it was only about the length of the loco (ie 60ft ish) so I suspect the internal stanchions may only be about 15ft apart if there are four of them.  The building would accommodate one bogie hopper or two x 2 axle (PGA) hoppers for discharge at a time.

[Lacathedrale]

Hi buddy - I used Google Maps to measure it in-situ and it came out to 25m. I think it makes sense to do a quick mock up either way - I don't want it to dominate the scene.

 

Here's some peco flex against the point I was building - very close! The shadows underneath the Peco skew the view somewhat, but really very very close:

 

[Enterprisingwestern]

I like your drawing of the hopper house but from memory it was only about the length of the loco (ie 60ft ish) so I suspect the internal stanchions may only be about 15ft apart if there are four of them.  The building would accommodate one bogie hopper or two x 2 axle (PGA) hoppers for discharge at a time.

 

From my investigations of portal frame buildings, which I would assume your shed was built to the design of, stanchions are 6 to 8 metres apart.

 

Mike.

[Lacathedrale]

25m long with three stanchions means four sections of 6.25m - which jives with my google mapping and guesstimation (I assumed the rooflights would be central to each section, and there are four rooflight areas of five 1m^2 panels each. Shame that 12.8mm/m doesn't have the same ring as 4mm/ft as it would make this building alot easier

 

Starting to wish that I'd checked out Peco Bullhead before I got involved with the EM escapades to be honest, the below shows just how close it really is:

 

 

I tipped over my bottle of flux onto the dining table and so while that dries out I literally ran some trains, in an oval, in the carpet. In my defense I had never actually seen either of my EMUs running.

 

 

The more I think about it, the more I reckon that the attic (as opposed to the garage/shed/office) is the best place for a permanent layout. Bright, temperate (except in the very coldest and hottest of days), mostly finished - and the wife never goes up there

Edited November 18, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[EmporiaSub]

 

The more I think about it, the more I reckon that the attic (as opposed to the garage/shed/office) is the best place for a permanent layout. Bright, temperate (except in the very coldest and hottest of days), mostly finished - and the wife never goes up there

A friend of mine found out otherwise......

When his wife noticed storage space under his layout, in the attic, and 'requested' some of it for her stuff!!

[SED Freightman]

I'm now puzzled by the building dimensions and have had a further careful look at the photos.  Taking the internal view, a known measurement is the track gauge (4' 8.5"), which would suggest that the operators cabin is about 5' wide and gives the wider part of the building an internal width of about 20'.  The building itself is an agricultural type concrete framed structure, probably from local manufacturer Atcost and due to its age it is almost certainly constructed to standard imperial dimensions rather than metric.  The asbestos or fibre cement cladding sheets could also give a clue to dimensions as they presumably came in standard sizes.  The building sits on top of a larger underground chamber holding the discharge hopper and conveyer with a short transverse conveyor at one end feeding onto the rising conveyor, the concrete slab roof of the chamber can be seen extending beyond the shed which sits on top.  I would still hazard a guess that internally the building is around 60' x 20' narrowing to 15' at one end, I cannot see why the building would need to be any larger (or more expensive for ARC) when constructed.  I am of course very happy to be proved wrong as it would be useful to have some accurate dimensions rather than guesswork, I only wish I had taken a tape measure on one of my visits.

 

Anyway, good luck with your model, I will be interested to see how it turns out.

[Lacathedrale]

Hello sir, I'm not really sure what to say, this is the measurements from google maps:

 

 

 

In other news, my bullhead track arrived and I managed to get it laid out on the layout boards - there's an intermediate layer of cork for the track ballast still to come, but I think it's looking pretty good. In the packet, your eye is drawn to the sleeper spacing and it just looks strange, because (I believe) one is so much more used to seeing HO-scale sleeper spacing on the usual ready-to-plonk turnouts. In situ however, they look very authentic to my eyes:

 

Superimposed over the C&L B6 pointwork, they're basically identical other than a) being about 5mm shorter and b) being fully rather than semi-curved - both of  which are not very noticeable to me.

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[Zomboid]

For me, the bullhead track (and any other "finescale OO" track for that matter) emphasises the fact that the rails are too close together. I think the sleepers are the correct length for 1:76, so they poke out proportionally too far from the rails.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

this is the measurements from google maps:

 

 

If the measurement tool is as accurate as the find an address capability, I'd say you were looking at an accuracy tolerance of +/- 100 metres...

 

[martin_wynne]

For me, the bullhead track (and any other "finescale OO" track for that matter) emphasises the fact that the rails are too close together. I think the sleepers are the correct length for 1:76, so they poke out proportionally too far from the rails.

 

00 sleepers are 8ft long instead of 8ft-6in. They don't extend further from the rails than other track.

 

The rails are the correct distance apart for 4ft-1.5in gauge track, which is what 00 track is modelled on. Likewise 00 rolling stock is made for 4ft-1.5in gauge, so it makes sense for the two to match.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Hello sir, I'm not really sure what to say, this is the measurements from google maps:

 

Alternatively, use OS maps. Go to:

 

 https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/land-waste-and-housing/public-paths-and-the-countryside/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-imap/imap/

 

and keep zooming in until it will zoom no further. The final zoom is a detailed map, from which you can make reliable measurements.

 

The specific tile you want is:

 

 https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/maps/ArcGIS/Rest/Services/6070d67f-bcea-48c5-8fd7-f1391e9f1a8e/MapServer/tile/8/427/789

 

(Thank link may be temporary.)

 

Martin.

Edited November 22, 2018 by martin_wynne

[martin_wynne]

Another way to measure is to go to:

 

 https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/51.03217,-0.09329,18

 

Zoom in on your browser. Right-click on the corners of the building to get the OS grid refs. The 5-figure refs are in metres.

 

On the rear corners I get:

 

33737,27581

 

33760,27588

 

Which makes the difference triangle = 23,7 metres.

 

Then with help from Mr. Pythagoras, the distance along the rear wall is 24.0 metres.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Another measurement. From tile: https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/maps/ArcGIS/Rest/Services/6070d67f-bcea-48c5-8fd7-f1391e9f1a8e/MapServer/tile/8/427/789

 

Here is that tile copied and pasted into a picture shape in Templot:

 

 

(I hope that tiny bit of the OS map falls within fair dealing for copyright.)

 

The tile is 512 pixels wide, and at that zoom level the scale is 3024 pixels per km. This can be measured by zooming out and measuring the OS km grid lines. Each zoom step back in doubles the scale. A free pixel ruler can be downloaded from: http://www.spadixbd.com/freetools/jruler.htm

 

So the tile represents 1000 x 512 / 3024 = 169.312 metres full size, and scaled to 4mm scale = 169312 mm / 76.2 = 2221.94 mm, which is the image width for the picture shape in Templot in EM. You can see from the EM track that it has matched correctly.

 

I then added a rectangle in the Templot sketchboard function, and rotated and dragged it to fit the gravel shed. The model size turned out to be 325.5 x 104.6 mm. Scaling back up by 1:76.2 = 24.8 x 7.97 metres, say 25 x 8 metres in round figures.

 

Martin.

[Lacathedrale]

Thanks Martin, that's very helpful

 

I injured my back this morning but managed to get a few minutes in the garage to cut the ballast cork. It was a little challenging to work with, because it kept curling up on contact with the PVA - but I used some track pins to hold it. Here's the track just placed for now. The engineer's square is the track-side wall of the gravel shed: limited clearance signs mandatory. It's only a few MM but I'm also not going to have the gravel shed line raised on the 2mm cork. There are alot of subtle level changes which I hope capture some realistic contours.

 

 

Looking from the old goods yard at the gravel house, as a brake composite slides into Platform 2 from the down main.

 

An opposite view, showing the Mk. 1 aiming directly at Platform 1, and the sidings to the goods yard fanning off to the right

[SED Freightman]

William & Martin, thanks for taking the trouble to show how you arrived at the discharge shed dimensions.

[Lacathedrale]

Today I got the main formations soldered up and the wires drilled for frog droppers and actuating wires, and some feeds to the centre section. There's a bit of wiggle room but they're effectively set in place now.

 

The boards will be fed at the joins too, and the plan is to screw and glue PCB sleepers at the board edges for solid alignment. Before I start that I need to get the station board cork laid. The CCD track at the front will be lowest, at 5mm below the main lines and the carriage siding at 2mm below. Again, this is all very subtle and I don't know if it's wasted time but I feel like it will help.

 

The thing that jumped out at me the most when I got the boards together (this is the first time that I've seen then with track on, as opposed to just planks of wood) was that they are LONG. It seems almost decadent to have a 15' long layout that has precisely two platforms and two sidings. I haven't had a chance to glue anything on the station board yet, but here's the state of play:

 

Looking across the station throat from the coal concentration depot track at some PGA hoppers:

 

All quiet in the station area, but for a solitary BCK at the end of Platform 2