justin1985

I was rather hoping to be able to work up to that! I see the advantage though ... Haha that was one of my ideas earlier on, but I think @Nigelcliffe promised it wouldn't actually be too complicated!

Thanks Izzy! I THINK Bill had planned this all out on the plan drawn onto the board. It looks like the pink highlighter marks with thick pencil lines are all section breaks? Definitely a good idea to draw up a separate proper plan though, if nothing else to properly document everything. I've scanned in one of Bills outline diagrams and started tracing it as a vector image.

Thanks for all the thoughts! Looking again this morning I definitely agree the blade needed to be thinner - I've now replaced it. Thanks for the Templot tips, but seeing as I'm working to a fully laid out (pencil) design that meshes into completed sections of track, it's probably more trouble than its worth trying to replicate the design into Templot? Now it's finished and working! My little test "see through tender" ran flawlessly through the "main" Cambridge line even without checkrails, but occasionally rode up the nose of the vee when taking the sharper diverging Bury line - until I installed the check rail. It is always satisfying when things run through a turnout without check rails, but I realize checkrails are essential, so I'm happy that it seems to work nicely now anyway. The real test will be locos under power, I guess! The check rail is definitely one sleeper too long on the Bury route, which does look a little weird compared to the shorter flare of the wing rail. I had miscounted when soldering in the etched chairs, and decided to go with it for now. Not sure if I should pop it out and trim back, and trim back the check chair and use a solder blob to replace inside chair. Thoughts? Another question - I've had to use copious amounts of flux (Carrs Yellow) - any tips for in-situ cleaning to prevent any longer term corrosion from it? The big question is the order I tackle the rest of the board in? I have in mind to work my way down the Bury (right hand) line first - mainly because it seems the quickest route to getting a functional route! Am I right in thinking the best way forward will be to complete the two "normal" turnouts, THEN the diamond to fit into them? I was going to work from the existing turnout, soldering on the straight stock rails to both turnouts first to set a smooth alignment with the finished and ballasted plain track at the far end. Does that sound sensible? Justin

I wasn't really interested in what the original video was doing with the ATX power supply - just the connection strips they were using, that look ideal for linking many sections to a DCC bus. That little adapter is interesting though!

Slightly more progress - slow going! This is actually the first Wye turnout I've built - and the first pointwork I've built in absolutely ages. Without a detailed template, I'm not 100% about the alignment and curvature of the switches. Does this look OK / any tips on checking it's smooth enough?

Excellent, thanks @Damo666 - that is exactly how I imagined using them - seems an ideal way to distribute a DCC bus to many individual connections in a way that is flexible / reasonably easily removable. (I'm working on a complex bit of trackwork on a section of trackbed that lifts out from the rest of it's baseboard - this seems ideal) Seems like a the ones on Amazon are the same product available from a few Chinese sellers on AliExpress and eBay. The Molex barrier strips definitely look like the ones the guy in the video was using, but it seems like the jumper strip to match those is impossible to find outside of the US! (unless it's something silly like it comes with the barrier strip by default so not listed separately?) J

Some progress! Etched chairs (new type) fitted (apart from the slide chairs which were already Versaline) and vee fitted. I also found a crossing jig that Bill had made for a variety of angles - although not all of the angles needed for this formation. J

I was watching a YouTube video where an American modeller (Ron's Trains n Things) uses a type of screw-down connector strip designed for crimped spade connectors which seems to have a few advantages over the "choc block" plastic connectors that are often used for joining up layout wiring. I realise the ATX power supply conversion might not be regarded best practice, but to be honest that's not what I'm interested in here! It didn't seem too hard to find the connector strips he used: they seem to be called "Barrier Strips", e.g. at RS: https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/barrier-strips/8227216/ However in the video, he was using them in conjunction with some very neat ready made comb style jumper bars/strips that both made it super easy to join many connections into a bus, and because of the spade connector design, made it simple to connect BOTH the jumper bar and at least one spade connector to the same screw terminal, which would be a lot more efficient than. These jumper strips seem really difficult to find! RS, Farnell, etc., only seem to have quite specialised ones designed for DIN systems, rather than spade connector types. Pretty much the only one I can easily find seems to be from a Chinese seller on ALiExpress: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005001309933941.html Are these things just common in the US but not elsewhere? I get a bit of a sense they might be (have been in the past?) an automotive standard? Or is there just a different name I need to use to find them in the UK? J

Ahhh ... I had thought that note couldn't have been right, but I was putting too much faith in the alignment of the tack soldered switch blade - it's final solder joint was too close to the stock rail, compared to its marked out line. Hence the discrepancy. I think I've got it sorted now

That's what I'm aiming for! Am I approaching this in a sensible way? I used Bill's adjustable vee jig to make up a 12deg vee, as the notes on the board suggest. Then I'm using the gauges between the tack soldered stock rail and the tack soldered switch rail (clearly acting as "bendy stick"?) to find the sleeper closest to where the vee intersects the tacked-in switch rail/bendy stick. Obviously the rails on my vee are not curved (yet) which accounts for some of the discrepancy in the picture, but it seems to me that the angle seems to need to be significantly wider? I can't actually find a protractor though! Perhaps the angles written on the board were simply taken before Bill had adjusted the track alignments to meet the neighbouring boards?

Thanks Izzy - this is a very good point. The extra short module that Bill had built with a simple crossover, plus the long siding approaching the bridge, might just about make a few more interesting moves possible in literal terms, but perhaps not in ways that would have been condoned on the prototype ... This does open the can of worms about whether, once this section is (eventually!) finished, I plan on building some version of Melford, as had been Bill's plan, or whether I substitute it with Clare, which I've always found a much more attractive station & setting (despite the fact I grew up in Long Melford). Melford was MASSIVE, as country stations go, and the extensive yard, turntable and maltings are clearly all "signature" features. Bill certainly had some initial drawings for the maltings, plus some aerial photos he'd taken personally, I gather. And the extensive yard is clearly make for a very interesting operating layout. However, I simply don't have the length to model the whole of Melford Yard + current layout in the garage I can use for the layout, and a layout that can only go up at exhibitions is definitely not my cup of tea at all. I'm now half wondering whether building the area covered by Long Melford Junction box (https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 1064) , and ignoring the area covered by Long Melford Yard box (https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 1065 ) might be a good way to develop the operating potential of the layout in a just about feasible space - although it would still involve some serious compression, and the extra crossover module would still be needed to return the up platform line into the bi-directional branch track. I think the other option that keeps knocking around my head is to basically, in the long term, treat it as a modular system, and build Clare as a swap-in replacement for the junction + crossover boards. i.e. "Stour Valley" that be assembled and run either as a roundy-roundy with interesting things happening with the junction, OR as a through station with yard shunting. Potentially even built in a way that, at an exhibition with the space, both could be used together (pie in the sky ...). Justin

I can't believe I have left this for so long ... I can't even remember why the junction board got packed back away, but it did, and stayed there until tonight. We're finally rid of the mass of furniture we were storing in the garage for a friend for the last few years, so at last there was the space to properly organise and sort out the layout. The junction board is back out, and alas the garage fairies hadn't made any progress on the track in the meantime. Looking back through all the wonderful advice I had when I posted about this board before, I guess I just need to get on and start by soldering up some vees to the angles pencilled in on the board, and work from there! I did spend some time looking at the Working Timetables digitised by the GER Society recently and noticed some interesting little quirks like a pair of fitted vans for Messers Greene & King being worked down from Bury and being joined to a Haverhill service at Melford. This made me realize I'm not actually 100% clear on how the track layout as modelled would operate! Given the size of the yard at Melford station, I'm left wondering what the branch sidings were actually used for, for example? Justin

I'm offering a nicely built square ply board with a circle of PECO N gauge Setrack 2nd radius track glued and soldered in place. The baseboard is a cross braced birch ply box, 60cm square and just over 10cm high. The track is wired to a pair of 4mm connectors (banana plug type) It's very useful for running in new locos etc., but I'm very pressed for space. I'd be happy to let it go to anyone who can collect it from very close to East Croydon. I'd appreciate it if a donation to charity was made in return. Anyone interested?

Many thanks for the positive comments - I'm glad I'm not the only cartophile here! This surprised me too! The basis of the railways and stations on my map is the data contained in the OpenStreetMap database, which contains MUCH more detail than is ever displayed on the main OpenStreetMap - someone has gone to the trouble of mapping this little narrow gauge line at some point. Some of this extra information is displayed on OpenRailwayMap, but that still excludes "abandoned" railways, even though the data is there. Really though, as the map I have used as a base here dates from 1903, I should aim to depict railways as they were at, or around, that time - and remove it. For those who like the idea, do you prefer the idea of maps based on individual map sheets, like the first image? Or maps of complete lines built up from a composite of several original map sheets?

Part of my day job involves working with cartography, and there is a bit of a trend at the moment for combining historical maps with modern 3D rendering of topography. The idea is usually to create a map that combines the beauty of vintage hand-drawn cartography with the relief detail now obtainable via satellite or LiDaR, to create a map that uses light and shadow to "pop" from the page. I thought this style of mapping would really help make railways in the landscape come alive ... Here is a sample I've made using a Bartholomew map of Oban. This was pretty fun for me to do, and I'm really pleased with the way in which colour coding railways by pre-grouping company really helps make sense of their routes when seen in the landscape like this. There is cost, and quite a bit of time, involved in producing just one map sheet. There is still work to be done on this sample to perfect it, but I think it is pretty representative. So, the question is, would anyone be interested in more of these? And would people buy these as either high quality prints, or perhaps even some kind of atlas? I could potentially make them available as giclée art prints (probably anywhere up to A3 size, which as a ballpark figure might cost around £25-30). Another thought I've had is to use this approach to compile a "strip map" of a swathe through the landscape either side of the line, allowing more detail to be reproduced at a reasonable size (cutting the line into sections) - perhaps as a large print, or as the basis of a kind of atlas. Here is a quick and basic mock-up (the real thing would be neater) Any thoughts would be appreciated! Justin (I have checked and @AY Mod has given permission for me to post this in terms of proposing a commercial product. Copyright and permission to use all of the source data is in place.)

Couldn't agree more with this. Through work I've taught a training course for Geographic Information Systems (cartography) for several years, and despite it being advertised as only being suitable for people with advanced Excel / spreadsheet experience, I've had to literally show some attendees how to use a mouse on occasion. Those who have needed a very literal "click by click" level of support have, alas, tended to get very little from even intensive support with technical software in my experience. To be perfectly honest, I think if someone is thrown by instructions that skip the opening screen, they'd be far better off getting more hours under their belt with something much simpler (i.e. becoming genuinely confident with Office software and their operating system) before trying to tackle Fusion360 (or QGIS ...)

Thanks for all the great inspiration! I've been thinking about how I might model the GER train. So far its taken me about 2 evenings to draw up the tool / ballast brake van - almost finished. Just some detailing around the windows to do. I might leave the roof off and add from brass or something this time - I can imagine the open verandah with roof above causing problems for the printer! And this afternoon I made a start on designing the jib - which turned out to be really tricky! The only surviving diagram of this crane, a very simple outline type diagram. This shows the crane jib in cut-off format. Working out how to join up the geometry of the jib when extending it took me quite a while ... As discussed on the "Any Questions" thread, it looks like a pair of hidden bogies inside the outside frames might the best way to make the four-axle chassis work. Its certainly going to be an interesting thing to get running! Justin

Thanks Jim - I had been thinking of allowing the outside axles the side play as per a 2-4-2 tank - but I see what you mean about keeping the outside axles rigid for stability on the track. I don't think a Cleminson chassis would cater for a four axle chassis though? This sounds promising! Would you mount the two central axles together on a single "bogie" sprung this way? Or individually? Justin

If you were going to model this crane in 2mmFS, how would you tackle the crane chassis? It has a very peculiar axle spacing of 6’6” + 6’0” + 4’6” (17’ total wheelbase) plus 3’ 7 1/2” overhang at each end. So far as I can work out, the wheels are 3’ diameter. I’d imagine it wouldn’t really be viable to make a rigid chassis this long, which pretty much rules out using wagon wheels and bearings. So, functional inside frames and bearings hidden behind cosmetic outside frames, like a tender? Which would be better though? Inside frames narrower than usual to allow more side play on all axles? Inside frames that step down to a narrower section to allow more side play on the two end axles only? Pony trucks? (Strikes me as a lot of extra work - and vertical clearance here would be virtually nil - is it worth it?) All thoughts gratefully received! Justin

I'm not a 4mm modeller, so just curious here - but these images make it look an awful lot like the handrails by the door in the brake portion are simply printed on. The fact the Network Rail coach has no sign of them at all makes me suspicious that they look printed on the other models because they are just printed on! Surely that can't be, in this day and age, in the larger scales? Or are we confident that they are just poorly done Photoshop'ed images?

Fascinating! By "unpeeled", am I right in interpreting your photo as meaning two of the arch spans have been combined through the central part, but left "as nature intended" at the ends (pillars visible)? To my eye, the transition from two spans with pillar to single wide span gives it a very contemporary look - like some kind of architectural project by Zaha Hadid ! Or will the central row of columns be represented/suggested in some other way?

I've just been catching up with GER Society Journals from 2020 over the last few evenings, and came across a short article by John Watling based around a wonderful photograph of a Great Eastern breakdown train at Brentwood goods yard in 1911. The photo shows a C32 (LNER F3) 2-4-2 suburban tank loco with the GER's home-brew 20t crane no. 5A, one runner wagon, one high sided open, and a tool/brake van. The GER was apparently unique in building their own cranes, rather than buying from Ransomes etc. (I'm not sure about rules on posting the image here? Photo of magazine page only. Original photo is credited to the LCGB Nunn collection). This got me thinking - first of all about whether or not I'd ever seen a breakdown train modelled in 2mm? I've searched the 2mm Magazine archive, and AGM competition galleries on the website and found nothing. I'm pretty sure I do remember seeing one modelled at one point though? Perhaps by @Caley Jim or the late Steve Sykes? I also have a vague feeling that @-missy- might also have shared some experiments with a crane? Looking at the MRJ index only seemed to bring up one reference also - a Portfolio page in the 1988 compendium showing a stunning P4 LBSCR breakdown train set scratch built by Charlie Trace. I would have thought breakdown trains would have been more popular modelling subjects than this seems to suggest! Any pointers to examples or articles I've missed? The train looks such an attractive ensemble that I can't deny feeling very tempted to make a stab at it with a combination of 3D printing and scratch building. I've already got the high sided open in the bag, at least! Justin

But the fact that many goods will no longer be available, because many specialist things simply aren't available in the UK, is itself a long term net loss to the UK. Model trains and bike parts might be seen as trivial by many people, but this obviously includes all kinds of other specialist bits and pieces and widgets, which in the long term will make it harder for small businesses, makers, innovators, entrepreneurs, to make new things themselves and keep innovation going. There is a big reason that historically Britain was such a big advocate of "free trade" - the more freely stuff moves, in the long term, it creates a multiplier effect and fosters growth. This change was clearly brought in with the mindset that "goods will now be bought in the UK", but that only really favours existing established VAT registered businesses, presumably only serving sectors and markets where they see a big enough existing market for whatever imported goods - but it will stifle tomorrow's growth. Again, in economic terms, protectionism rarely benefits anyone in the long term. When I first heard this issue would be coming up I looked into EU based parcel forwarding / consolidation services. This looked like the most promising: https://www.mailboxde.com This kind of service ironically seems much more popular in the opposite direction (or at least did last year) - plenty of services allowing online shoppers to get all their UK or US online shopping delivered to a PO Box type address, then forwarded on to the EU in a single parcel. I've actually had eBay buyers from Ireland use these services to get their deliveries from me. MailboxDE seems one of very few working from the EU shipping out, but presumably this might be a sector that will grow - and this might be the only way to get things from one man band type suppliers in Germany etc. However when I emailed them in December, their angle was basically again "waiting for clarity": Justin

Except the new regulations don't allow for that when sending into the UK : (my bold). This explicitly relates BOTH to things sold through an "Online Marketplace" (eBay, Amazon, etc.) which will handle the VAT for the seller, AND anything sold to a UK consumer NOT using an online marketplace. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-and-overseas-goods-sold-directly-to-customers-in-the-uk

I think the point is that it legally COULD be - but whether any or many retailers will be sufficiently set-up to do so is a different question! Again, a retailer could now deduct the UK VAT from an order from an EU country, if they are organised enough to do so. I don't believe any other country in the world has tried to be so draconian as the UK in attempting to force retailers outside of their jurisdiction to collect their taxes for them, so I don't think your UK retailer would be expected to collect the Luxembourgish VAT. They'd simply deduct the UK VAT (hopefully) and attach a full customs declaration. Your local carrier would then process this declaration and invoice you for any applicable local VAT (and Duty?) before delivery. (This is how it used to work in the UK for receiving parcels from China, the US or Australia etc. - but now only over £135 - everything else must now be pre-paid)