Jump to content

Collett

Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Location
    East Midlands
  • Interests
    Member of Scalefour Society with a love of the Edwardian GWR. Planning to build a classic clich

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Paul - could you let me know the sleeper dimensions for the Peco BH Code 75 flex track? Good luck with the layout BTW.
  2. Ah, of course, thank you. I couldn't get past the sandwich - Bacon, Lettuce,Tomato.
  3. Concerning the matter of cross overs for run 'round loops, the prototype had a couple of wheezes up their sleeve that could be very useful. Moor Street station in Birmingham used a traverser to move locomotives between the platform lines, providing the same facility as a cross over but in a length not much longer than a locomotive. Again with the GWR in Birmingham, Snow Hill station had a Sector Table at the end of a bay, switching loco's between lines without the length required for a turnout + loco. Still in the West Midlands but LNWR this time, Harborne Station had a small turntable at the end of the platform line. https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/harborne.htm is a little unclear whether this was 42' or 45' diameter, but whichever, you're not going to fit a locomotive release line and crossover turnout into 180mm, which is all a 45' turntable represents. Also turning the tender locomotives would add to operating interest and viewer interest. Something like the Moor Street traverser or Snow Hill Sector Table would fit perfectly in a Minories layout's cramped urban station context - since that's what Moor Street and Snow Hill were. http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/birmingham_snow_hill/ has some details of the traverser, I think I might have a copy of the Ransom & Rapier production drawings somewhere. You might also try and locate some of Ian Futers' layout plans, I recall he had a 'Layout in a Week' article in Railway Modeller in the early '70's. That had a six feet long scenic section, very basic with just four turnouts but possibly a good starting point for a first layout, I'll try and dig out the plan which was reproduced in the Railway Modeller a few years ago. Addendum: Ian Futers' Ashfield layout can be found in the September 2012 Railway Modeller along with a copy of the original article published back in September 1972... when the magazine cost the princely sum of 18p!!!!! I remember the plan's first appearance in RM, and my attempt to build it as a 'Layout in a Weekend' at the first show of the Keighley Model Railway Club. The original Ashleigh plan is actually only 4'6"x1', but as noted it is rather basic with just four turnouts. The Sept'12 RM is good value as it also contains Mr Futer's Fisherrow Yard layout and Paul Marshall-Potter's Albion Yard. BTW: What is a "BLT" layout? As with most TLA's the answer will no doubt be annoyingly obvious. Anyway - best of luck finding your dream plan for Dad's Railway.
  4. Thanks for looking Tim, I am aware of the Tyling Branch layout and it's quite a bit larger than the one I'm thinking of. Looking at cover pictures on magazineexchange.co.uk the edition for Jan 1975 looks promising, content index describes a GWR branch layout called Buxton Road by T.A. Quinn - no copies available at present. I think the logical way to progress this search is a trip to the British Library, there will be a charge but hopefully I can see all editions for MRC and Model Railways in one place and time. Unfortunately, it being Sunday, a lot of their website is not available at the moment, but they definitely have Ian Allen publications listed including MRC. Well it's certainly research.
  5. I've just been playing around with the layout with XtrackCAD This extends the basic plan but perhaps makes things too busy - as Inglenookfan says, the main appeal of this layout is its bucolic sleepiness. Plus there's an awful lot of facing points on the passenger line. Paring things back a little retains the two loops which were often a feature of GWR branch termini such as Fairford, Lambourn, Tetbury and Malmesbury. Although noted the second loop often went through the goods shed, or in the case of Malmesbury the loco shed. Minimum radius is about 8' and turnouts are all B6 and B7 I think the second siding, at the bottom (baseboard front?) of the plan works best coming off the loop. The rear siding (platform rear) serving a dock for milk traffic and livestock, plus unloading of horse drawn carriages and motor cars for guests weekending at the local estate. Things could get rather busy some weekends with estate guests bringing their hunters, the station master trying to figure out where to park the horseboxes and run his regular services. The occasional special train with additional first class coach accommodation for guests attending estate shoots, or additional coaches and rakes of cattle trucks for market day trains. So sleepy most of the time, but with the occasional bout of pandemonium. Ideal period, 1905-12 - GWR locomotive livery arguably at it's best until 1906, Class 517, 1076 and 2021 being the main motive power, with the occasional 3232 2-4-0, Armstrong or Dean's Goods. Coaching stock in fully lined chocolate and cream, and for the later years newly serviced stock in crimson lake lined in gold. If loco livery was unaccountably still in 1906 condition I don't see anyone complaining - the sight would be glorious.
  6. Thanks for the reply EJ - that's a nice small layout, very reminiscent of Fairford with the loop placed beyond the platform, but I'm afraid it isn't the one. I'm almost certain it wasn't in RM. Also by 1978 I had discovered women, beer and loud loud music so I wasn't spending much time reading the model railway press. Many thanks for responding anyway.
  7. This may seem an odd request. I am seeking a model railway of my youth that appeared, I think, in the Model Railway Constructor or possibly Model Railways, but I'm pretty sure it was not Railway Modeller circa 1972-3. Unfortunately I can't be definite on the dates, but this is around 43 years ago. This is what I can recall of the layout - it was '00', the display baseboard was only 6-7' long and 12-18" wide, locomotives in the photographs definitely included a Dean's Goods (K's kit) and possibly an 850 Class saddle tank. The platform was curved along the mainline with a small station building at the back of the scene, on the left most siding was a loading dock with crane, no goods shed building I'm pretty sure. I couldn't swear but it may have had a line running behind the platform but whenever I draw that in it seems to make the layout seem cramped. Also a headshunt off the loop, but that never seems to work without a double-slip. I think it was one of the first layouts I had seen with almost all the running lines on a curve and I absolutely fell in love with it. I am fairly sure that the points and track were the old GEM fibre base, and I'm afraid that is pretty much all I can recall. Whenever I see piles of old MRC's at shows or in the better sort of model shops (you know, the ones with little dusty corners you can rootle in and find hidden treasures) then I often will flick through a few copies in the hope of finding this elusive layout.... but no joy so far. I do often end up buying a handful of copies though. If I could identify the magazine and issue date/number I could start hunting a copy down on the internet, but without knowing for sure which publication it was in or what month/year published... well, you get the picture. If anyone believes they recognise this layout from my hazy description then please post a reply, if you can identify the magazine and year then even better. Many thanks.
  8. Work in progress for some 7mm/ft GWR wagon underframe parts to be 3D printed. Working in Sketch Up Maker, with its attendant frustrations. SU doesn't seem to handle curves very well, is that what others are finding? Unfortunately I don't have the time or patience for FreeCAD, plus my copy keeps crashing so I reverted to Sketch Up for the moment. Working on a scanned template I see that the graphic seems to have some dimensional instability, whether that's part of the printing process or due to scanning I can't tell but it does produce some odd results as seen in the screenshot. Currently I'm working on the Grease axlebox because (1) Sketch Up doesn't seem to like curves much, at least not as much as straight line geometry (2) Mr Dean built the OK-F axle box as a replacement part, therefore I hope that once I have the geometry correct for the grease box I only have to amend the front of the box unit. Does anyone have any advice for making rivet/bolt heads in Shape Up? When I get onto the solebars I'll need stacks of the little devils. I've been reading through the materials and production limits for Shapeways - and I would appreciate any details concerning UK based printers. While I'm thinking about getting a Prusa i3 at some point I'd like to test out the software first.
  9. Tony I don't suppose you're still looking for this info but there's a fairly clear diagram of the Grease Axlebox on a shunting truck, Figure 201 of Atkins, Beard & Tourret's GWR Goods Wagons at the start of Chapter 16. Photographs on the early pages of Chapter 18 show the Grease Box on Open wagons in the 1900's, although some of the captions indicate these had been withdrawn from the operating fleet (awaiting refit?). However, plate 345 of three plank 34920 with a load of carboys has an estimated date of 1910 and I see there's another Grease Box four plank wagon in the background of the picture. I have modelled a 7mm example in Sketchup with a view to 3D printing and have attached a dimensioned diagram. Hope these are of use to somebody.
  10. I see from www.gwr.org that the coach livery changed in 1908 from the fully lined Chocolate with Cream panels above the waist (Livery 1880-1908) to "all brown", apparently a livery so unremarkable that no illustration is provided, and then in 1912 to Crimson Lake (Livery 1912-1922). The short tenure of the brown livery is notable. My question concerns how quickly would the 1908 livery change have been applied? How often were coaches repainted, particularly Branch sets? And would a branch set have remained in its pre-1908 livery as late as 1911?
  11. Work in progress on the SMP point - First experiments with the carbon rod tie-bar - insulated. A bit of a fiddle but very strong and I like the look in preference to the moving sleeper - needs some black insulation though. Early tests show that a fairly 'course' 4mm wheel rim isn't fouling on the insulation. It ain't perfect but it's progress.
  12. It seems it depends on whether the carbon is in contact with the switch rail or the resin. Good point though, I made some searches and kept getting a "no it doesn't" response. Potentially if the rod or tube interface is set with a suitable Araldite insulation then it might negate the problem. Will have to experiment.
  13. Always wary of posting to these forums as I don't want to teach Gran'ma how to suck eggs, but here's a couple of things I learnt recently, plus a really interesting material I'm looking into. I've always been confused and confounded by the standard EMGS/Scalefour instructions about how to file V rails for turnouts from Bullhead rail. First file down one side of the rail to the desired angle/ratio, then bend the angled section back to the straight line so the web is bent, and then file across the whole width of the rail to the required angle. My problem has always been that bending the angled section seems to go every which way, and trying to bend it back ends up in a distorted mess. However, as an experiment I tried to modify the order and have had success with it. Bend the rail to the desired angle Cut the bent section with a razor saw so it's approximately in line with the rest of the rail - CAREFUL, this leaves very jagged tongs of metal from the rail head and foot File back the jagged ends and finish the cut straight with the rail length This effectively gets you to point 'b' on the diagram, filing then proceeds as before Bending the rail before filing makes it easier to handle and get the desired set on the rail. Again, filing the switch rails in the "approved" manner requires the rail foot to be retained when 'planing' away the inside of the switch rail, then bending the rail before filing the back of the switch rail. This has been frustrating mainly because I have never been able to find small flat files with a "blind" edge that would avoid the rail foot. Some while ago I bought one of those four sided diamond sharpening blocks for sharpening chisels and kitchen knives and yes, with a little bit of brute force and ignorance, it has been possible to removed the cutting edge from one side of a flat file with no notable ill effects to either file or sharpening block. This modified file now allows me to plane down the rail head and web without damaging the rail foot. Now having my V and switch rails sorted, I was looking at ways to improve on the tie-bars and stretchers between switch rails. The turnouts under construction are the SMP plastic base kits, 3' radius with a 1:5 V. I have seen some interesting results from copper clad fibre-glass used vertically, but I'm presently investigating the use of carbon rods and tubes as used by the model aircraft fraternity. These are very impressive materials. I purchased a sample of four lengths (1m each) of 0.28mm rod (4mm/ft = 8/10"), 0.5mm rod (4mm/ft = 1.5"), 0.7mm tube (4mm/ft = 2") with 0.3mm I/D and 1mm tube with 0.5mm I/D. The supplier is easycomposites.co.uk. The 0.3mm rod is flexible, but the 0.5mm rod is surprisingly rigid under compression, the 0.7mm and 1mm tubes are also very strong under compression but they do have a tendency to split lengthways if pushed against a sharp object. My intention is to use the rod and or tube as tie-bars between the switch rails. I'm still working on connection methods, drilling the tie-bars and reinforcing the join with a short length of brass tube seems favourite at the moment but I will update with some photos when available.
  14. I was very pleased today to take delivery of a GW Models Rivet Press - not so much a modelling tool, more a family heirloom. However, it won't quite do what I want it to do, at least not until the Portrait made a little work holding table for me. As well as pressing out rivets on etched brass kits, and pressing rivets into virgin brass for some of my odder intended prototypes - I don't see Bachmann making an outside framed 2-4-0 anytime soon, at least not before I've finished sweating blood over mine. What I also want the Rivet Press to do is make rivets inside 3mmx1mm U section for solebars and 1.5mmx1mm T section for stantions. But, the Rivet Press uses an anvil to form the rivet shape, and the anvil won't allow the angles of the U channel or T section to position correctly. I hope you can follow my prototype solution from the pictures - this was knocked up in about an hour using 30 thou styrene sheet - by strange coincidence the channel in the 3x1 U section is.... 30 thou deep. Of course I just had to try it before the solvent had properly dried off, so the thing was a bit soft and... it may be that it is too soft full stop. But it's a prototype, and maybe it's a case of taking the design and, having proved the principal, remake it in more hardwearing materials. Still loving this Silhouette though. And the Rivet Press, having just made a perfectly straight row of rivets spaced exactly 1mm apart... wow, impressed. Need to get the hang of the force levels though to impress the rivet but not distort the metal - need to reset the lever stop as well.
  15. Well the Lambourn shed is coming along - some interior walls done - hand scribing. My reasons for buying the Silhouette Portrait are well demonstrated by the occasional slip with the plank scribing. Fortunately the exterior planking will be handled by the machine, just as the lovely square doorways, windows and walls were.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.