Eridge (P4) rebuilding

 

by 10800

 

original page on Old RMweb

__________________________________________

 

??? posted on Sat May 19, 2007 1:37 pm

 

As mentioned on the 'Eridge revisited' thread viewtopic.php?t=394" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and at the end of the 'Heckmondwike' thread viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2858" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

we have decided to rebuild Eridge because of unacceptable baseboard deterioration and consequent negative impact on running and general reliability.

 

The rebuild will involve scrapping all the track and scenery, but retaining the buildings, platforms etc. Full-width baseboards (3'6" wide and up to 4'3" long) will be replaced by a system of 'solid' boards just covering the trackbed width with lightweight scenery modules plugging in from the sides, the whole lot being supported on an independent framework. The whole design is in fairly fluid brainstorming mode at the moment, and I'll put up some sketches later for comment.

 

The biggest board may well be about 7ft long (but only 1ft wide at one end and about 3ft at the other). This isn't a problem in length terms because we would still have to hire a van for transport in any case, but has the big advantage of getting all the turnouts except three onto a single board. The length of this board can be seen from the photos below, extending from the far crossover to just this side of the platform ends. The only turnouts on the layout that would not be on this board are the three nearest the camera on the first photo.

 

 

 

It may also be desirable/possible to split the trackbed sections lengthwise into two across the station and goods yard, so that the loops on the right and the siding extreme right are separated from the tracks to the left, with the right-hand platform sitting across the gap between them - otherwise we end up with boards as wide as they are now.

 

We also want to be able to shunt the yard properly, so we're thinking of moving the operator side from the left where it is now to the right.

 

Turnout operation will by necessity have to change from tube-in-wire to electric, and signals (not finished yet anyway ) will also be electrically operated. The layout is currently DC/cab control operated, and we see no reason to change from that for the rebuild.

 

The rebuild will also allow for features such as point rodding runs and signal mounts to be designed in from the outset.

 

Hopefully the outcome will be an Eridge that looks much the same but is more robust and future-proofed to give it a decent exhibiting lifespan.

__________________________________________

 

??? posted on Sat May 19, 2007 6:33 pm

 

Some sketches of what in conceptual form might be involved.

 

The 'trackbed boards' would be in the form of an inverted U-channel in section, depth to be decided but certainly enough to accommodate Tortoise motors, signal mechs, and sub-track scenics (there is a stream going under the tracks on the section shown).

 

 

The support framework will obviously be a bit more than a collection of wooden goalposts but you get the general idea.

 

Scenic modules would be supported by the same framework but just plug in from the side or sit between boards 4/5 and 5/6.

 

This is a possible configuration of the boards. The siding (4) has been included as a separate board because otherwise the maximum width of (3) and (5) would be too much.

 

 

Any comments even at this outline design stage would be welcome.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by MooUK on Sat May 19, 2007 6:37 pm

 

Interesting concept for those separate scenery boards. Should make moving it etc and replacing sections of damaged scenery (if such ever happened) a lot easier, I'd expect.

 

The whole sectional thing appeals to me, especially since that general idea is what I'm intending to use (at a smaller scale, likely).

__________________________________________

 

??? posted on Sat May 19, 2007 6:47 pm

 

Looking at it again there are probably good reasons for keeping 5/6 together as a single board as long as it's not too unwieldy.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by Re6/6 on Sun May 20, 2007 5:50 am

 

Wow Rod Richter 7 situation there Excellent proposals but can you not save the superb looking trackwork by careful removal . It would be such a shame to loose all that work

 

Perhaps since you are scrapping the baseboards could you not soak the whole lot in water (if PVA was used to secure track)

 

Very inovative method with the scenery, nay revolutionary

 

Have these nagging doubts about the MDF (unsealed) baseboard tops, they all seem to suffer from 'ajoining end lift' on Matford. problem all seems to stem from living above that b***** creek, all that salt moisture

getting into everything. As you know I have the layout semi-permanently erected in my dining room, prior to Exeter show & depending on the moisture & temperature the performance (excluding known faults) is highly variable, in damp periods the 'end lift' problem seems to rear its ugly head, then it seems to settle down Hence my paranoia about DRAG's test track mk2 being thoroughly sealed from the outset with either 'Danboline' bilge paint which is very tough & knock resistant, it has to protect in an extreme environment in the bilges of a boat with salt water, diesel & lubricating oils swilling around or 2-pack epoxy yacht primer (or similar).

 

I had never thought of 'future proofing' except for T/T mk2 which will have to take a lot of abuse being assembled & taken to bits far more than your average layout.

 

Just received my new Vitrains cl37 in EWS maroon. Well I'm very pleased with it it looks fairly straightforward to convert to P4 (famous last words ) . Well it looks like a 37 to me, not a Black 5, so it must be one ---------that's another thread I think.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by cornelius on Sun May 20, 2007 7:26 am

 

Definitely a very interesting concept.

 

I suppose in theory* you could even have alternate plug-in boards to modify the scenery for different eras.

 

* Duplicated amount of work and hassle notwithstanding.

__________________________________________

 

??? posted on Sun May 20, 2007 10:28 am

 

I don't think there's anything particularly new about lightweight plug-in scenery - Vincent de Bode did it on 'Flintfield' and wrote it up in MRJ or Scalefour News (can check out the refs if anyone's interested), and I think 'Lee-on-Solent' is another one.

 

There are some minor mods to the trackplan we want to bring in John, so the (nice) idea of soaking it all off would not help much anyway. On the current version some turnouts had to be moved because of the positions of the baseboard joints, these can now be put where they should be. In particular I was never happy with the alignment of the up loop rejoining the main road (centre foreground of second photo above).

 

You could have alternative scenery boards Cornelius, although it wouldn't do much for us because they're not 'era-specific'. You would have to change all the buildings as well (and the stock of course!). There is a layout in Scotland however that has alternative drop in scenery modules for doing different seasons - springtime, snow cover and so on.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by John B on Sun May 20, 2007 3:52 pm

 

[snipped]

 

Lee on the Solent, as Rod says, uses the same system of a trackwork spine with lightweight plug-in scenery. When we were given the original layout by Colin Hayward (he built it in the 1970s) it ran like a dog, and there wasnt much scenery past the trackbed. The buildings were lovely, though, and they remain.

 

The rest of the layout, trackwork and all, was scrapped, and a new start made. The track "spine" is an inverted U-channel made out of MDF, sealed with varnish to prevent damp expansion. It's solid, deep enough to house tortoises, and can be set up in isolation of the whole layout for testing / playing purposes. (None of us had a room large enough to erect the whole layout, apart from the clubrooms.) Track was hand-laid - ply and rivet, a mix of bullhead and flat-bottom to replicate the extremely light construction of the prototype (code 40 FB rail used on the "loop").

 

The "spine" sits on a framework which flat-packs for transport. (This is the part of the layout that while setting up and knocking down at exhibitions draws most commnt from fellow exhibitors, amazed we can get a 18ft x 3ft layout, plus lighting rig, into two small cars..) The framework / legs are no more than pieces of jig-cut birch plywood, 6mm thick, all lettered / numbered and sealed, which ###### together with captive nuts and bolts like a giant meccano set. Powered screwdrivers are de-riguer for the operating crew...

 

This setup gives us a very stable base for the narrow spine, and support for the lightweight scenery modules which plug into the spine on either side. It was so successful that a similar system is being used for the (eventual) successor, "Cosham", another local South Hants prototype, a big mainline roundy this time though instead of a bucolic light railway branchline terminus...

__________________________________________

Comment posted by Pudley Wonderer on Sun May 20, 2007 4:25 pm

 

Steering away from the current subject matter a bit for a mo, I see in the new edition of the Toddler that the next issues gonna feature Eridge, by Vivien Thompson!!

 

Could this be the same Vivien that built Eastbourne all them years ago

 

Puds

__________________________________________

 

??? posted on Sun May 20, 2007 4:42 pm

 

It would be a bit of a coincidence if it wasn't the same one! Glad to see she's still around

 

I look forward to those with considerable interest!

__________________________________________

Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Tue May 22, 2007 1:01 pm

 

Whatever else happens, I wish you the very best of luck, Rod and the rest of KAG with what must be a daunting prospect, from the point of view of having to virtually rebuild most of the layout from scratch. You Men of Kent (or are you Kentish Men? ) must be made of stern stuff!

__________________________________________

Comment posted by MartinWales on Tue May 22, 2007 2:57 pm

 

Depends if they're north or south of the Medway!

__________________________________________

 

??? posted on Sun May 27, 2007 4:22 pm

 

Strangely enough we don't see it as 'daunting', just an exercise in improving our skills, developing new techniques and getting the layout into a condition where we can really enjoy it rather than fight with it.

 

Of the four main KAG members, only one is a 'Man of Kent' (east of the Medway) as far as I know - one is a 'Kentish Man', one is from Norfolk and I'm a sarf lunnoner originally (south side of Westminster Bridge next to what was County Hall).

 

Ta for the good wishes in any case!

__________________________________________

 

??? posted on Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:45 pm

 

One of the issues with the rebuild is integrating the fixed infrastructure we have now with the updated track configuration that we have the opportunity to do. By this I mean that the alignments of the main roads through the platforms are defined by the platforms, which ain't gonna change, and all this (and the pointwork) was done B.T. (Before Templot).

 

I'm now doing the layout beyond the platform ends with Templot, using the 6-inch OS and 1:480 plan that we have (courtesy of Alan 'Cuckoo Line' Elliot), but the platform roads will of course have to be exactly as they are now. So this section of the existing trackwork has been 'brass-rubbed' onto paper - one of the advantages of having a clubroom associated with the former Reeds Paper Mills is that we have a huge roll of 3ft wide paper which is ideal for this. This was then sent to me in Devon and I nervously plotted out the Templot bit adjoining it, but lo and behold they matched almost perfectly so a short session finetuning one or two of the track joins next time I'm up in Kent should sort that.

__________________________________________

 

??? posted on Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:55 pm

 

Just picked up a copy of the new RM with Vivien Thompson's 'Eridge' on the cover and featured inside. Some of the buildings are very nice as you'd expect (apart from the grossly oversize canopy support columns) but overall I was disappointed. The scenery in particular is very dated looking, and the whole thing is too bright - somehow I was expecting more, especially remembering her architectural models of Eastbourne etc from the late 60s and early 70s.

 

Still, she's finished her Eridge which is more than we can say!

__________________________________________

Comment posted by sunshine coast on Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:19 pm

 

Rod ,

I know what you mean about Vivien's layout ,I have a copy of April 1971 RM featuring her Eastbourne layout and the modelling looks identical especially the scenery,apart from being in black and white,almost as though time had stood still .......most odd ?

 

 

Regards Trevor....

__________________________________________

Comment posted by Pudley Wonderer on Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:14 am

 

See Rod, I might be a bit NUTS , but I told you it was gonna feature in the next issue of Toddler

 

Have to say, you dont actually hear much of the lady in question hese days, a bit like you dont hear much of Shirley Rowe, and they bith were rather highly regarded modellers then

 

Spooky also how only the other day I picked up a copy of Viviens book for Trev

 

Puds

__________________________________________

 

??? posted on Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:33 pm

 

Before designing and building new baseboards, first task is to (re)confirm the track plan. We are very fortunate in having an official 1:480 scale plan for Eridge covering more than the whole of the layout as modelled, so what's the problem you say? Well, it dates from 1979 by which time all the goods yard had disappeared and the down loop had been truncated, much the same condition it is now, and our model based in the 1950s includes the goods yard.

 

 

The best basis for the track plan including the goods yard is this 6":1 mile OS map from 1950 (so now out of copyright) which, although it is not fully accurate is pretty good, and we would have happily used this in the absence of the 1:480 BR plan.

 

 

The track plan for the first version of Eridge was done by scaling up the 1:480 plan to 1:76.2 and using that as a template. The goods yard was scaled in from the OS map as best we could, and the lines through the platforms were defined in detail by the platform dimensions which we measured for real in the field. Some of the pointwork was also moved to avoid the baseboard joints we had at the time. At this stage we didn't have Templot, although Templot was used for the last two boards away from the station to the 3-arch bridge, which were done later. This time, in order to avoid manual transfer, I wanted to do the whole layout on Templot, and a first pass was done by building the trackwork onto the 1:480 plan, having scanned and imported it into the programme. This is a section of the result, plotted at full size but with rails only for clarity at this stage, and stitched together (I only have an A4 printer at home). The crinkles are just a function of the glue and registration process (my errors, not Templot's).

 

 

However, the defining markers from Eridge Mk1 are the platforms, and so the new Templot version, as well as enabling some pointwork to be moved to more authentic alignments, will have to be jiggled a bit to make sure the platform roads are spot on. The best way to check that was to do a 'brass rubbing' of the current trackwork in the station throat area to compare with the Templot version:

 

 

Not too bad, but a bit of work required in places. Rather than trial-and-error, I will probably scan the brass rubbing in and adjust the track over the Mk1 alignments on computer screen.

 

As far as baseboards are concerned, we are pondering with the idea of having just three solid trackbed boards of 8ft length each, which will cover the whole scenic section of 24ft. This stems from the concept of having a middle board on which nearly all the important P&C work was situated. These will be kept as narrow as possible with scenery on lightweight sections plugged in from the sides as per the sketches at the beginning of the thread. We are also pondering widening the scenery by up to a foot either side of the trackbed (limited by the reach required for uncoupling and coupling when shunting the yard from the front of the layout) to make it look even more like a landscape with a railway set in it.

 

Progress will inevitably be slow, but I'll update as we go.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by sunshine coast on Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:13 pm

 

Looks like you have got yourselves a lot of work there Rod,,but it will be interesting to follow,when your team gets to the scenic parts please give me a shout I may be able to help out.

 

 

Regards Trevor..

__________________________________________

Comment posted by number6 on Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:14 pm

 

This is going to put that P4 Lewes on the back burner then?!

 

I had my first ever ride up from Uckfield the other day. Amazing really seeing as I've lived nearby pretty much all my life. It is easy to forget this line was heavily engineered and not really the bucolic branchline it is today. The tunnels and bridges give it away - all fairly heavily engineered and when you reach Ashurst the junctions to Tunbridge and East Grinstead and Three Bridges give a real sense of this network of lines that is now all missing. If the line was still intact I got the sense I would always chose to travel up this way to London if I had the time!

 

Eridge is very over-grown these days - I'd visited here a few times when the Groombridge line was open and when climbing at Harrisons Rocks nearby. Nice to see all the buildings and canopies intact. How did that happen as everywhere else is bus shelters?

 

The killer reason for closure of the Uckfield line was given to be the weak bridges over the old goods yard in Lewes. I've never worked out why this couldn't have been infilled as an embankment as there was no reason for the bridge at this point anymore. The real reason for closure was actually being the internal ringroad built in 1968 crossing at right angles and at the same height as the line...

 

Best of luck and look forward to seeing that module approach develop.

 

regards

Raphael

__________________________________________

 

??? posted on Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:19 pm

 

Cheers Trevor, I must drop into your shop one day for a natter

__________________________________________

 

??? posted on Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:25 pm

 

Just a little! I'm not sure if the group will want to do it realistically. At the moment if we ever do something beyond Eridge it might be London urban based around Factory Junction and Wandsworth Road. I still might do just the main junction at the eastern end of Lewes platforms for myself as a masochistic exercise in trackbuilding!

 

I've a feeling the buildings have a listed status?

 

Thanks Raphael

 

Might even have to organise a SAG visit one day!

__________________________________________

Comment posted by Pudley Wonderer on Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:14 am

 

I'll second that favour

 

Puds

__________________________________________

 

??? posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:01 am

 

There have been some developments and the rebuild is gathering pace. The middle (longest) trackbed board has been constructed to test the methodology of all-glued construction using 6 mm ply and MDF top. I've seen some photos of it and it looks impressive - especially given that it's about 12 inches (whaaaattt! ) deep - I'm not sure why that was done, other than Mike saying "this one ain't gonna sag", and apparently it doesn't make much difference to the handleability. At that size we could store all the stock and other stuff inside it during transport!

 

There will be some weekend sessions coming up to build the rest of the boards before starting on trackwork. I'll post pictures as soon as I get electronic copies of them or take some myself.

 

The Templot version of the whole layout has been adopted (with possible some minor tweaks to come) since it won't affect the buildings and canopies already constructed, and the platforms themselves can be adjusted or at worst done from new if necessary. A rails-only version has been exported to DXF and printed out full-size and in one piece on a roll-plotter so that board construction can continue knowing where all the point motors, signals etc are going to be.

 

Another decision made without any further prompting from me is to go DCC on the rebuild, which suits me fine as it will much improve compatibility with Camberhurst.

__________________________________________

 

??? posted on Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:06 pm

 

Dismantling of Mk1 has now commenced, with switches, magnets and salvageable wiring being recovered last night from underneath. No turning back now!

__________________________________________