Ruston Quays

[Huw Griffiths]

I hope nobody minds if I start a thread about the new BRM project layout.

 

 

Although many of the issues affecting this layout will already have been covered in connection with "Edgeworth", I'm sure that a number of people will have further questions about "Ruston Quays".

 

If it's OK by everyone, I'd like to kick off with some questions of my own:

 

• Has any thought been given to what locos and stock might appear on this layout, during show outings?
  
  Obviously, there'd be scope for small industrial locos - diesel or steam (03, 04, 08, or Sentinel Diesel - L&Y "Pug" - perhaps an ex GWR Pannier) - but might there also be scope for relatively straightforward conversions of (eg) Bachmann Junior locos?
  
   
• In view of the "Inglenook" part of this layout offering the potential for use as a visitor operated switching puzzle, might there be any value in replacing the tension lock couplings with Kadee (or similar) magnetic couplings? If so, would these be operated using magnets between the rails - or a magnet on a stick?
  
   
• As for the "passenger shuttle" part of the layout, would I be correct in assuming that there could potentially be some flexibility when it comes to stock for this (pre-nationalisation petrol / diesel railcar - steam railmotor - loco + autotrailer - BR "Modernisation Plan" DMU or railbus - even a Pacer, if people aren't too fussy about epoch)?
   

OK - I can't see you taking a suitcase full of alternative stock options with you to shows - and I don't think anyone would want you to.

 

I'm actually trying to prompt some thoughts about what sort of stuff might be regarded as vaguely credible, if somebody seeing this layout at a show felt motivated to build their own version.

 

At the same time, I'm also trying to think of the sort of "beginner friendly" loco and stock conversions which might be usable - and might encourage new entrants to the hobby to have a go for themselves.

 

 

Apologies for the stupid questions.

 

 

Regards,

 

Huw.

[rue_d_etropal]

I was looking forward to this project, mainly because of my 3D printed track. Phil has gone down the code 75(code 83 for the Tillig) route. As there is very little rail showing in inset track, the finer rail does not, in my opinion add enough for most people. The extra point 6mm also helps with running, as traditional infill does cause problems with some people(here and elsewhere)I do like the appearance of the Tillig track, and will consider it for one of my own (non inset) track projects. I picked up some old Formaway(Graham Farrish) OO flexi track at an exhibition, thinking it was O16.5 as the sleepers were slightly bigger, but am actually considering that for another OO project. Despite being approximately 2mm under gauge, it does look slightly better.

The great thing about a dockside layout is that it can be done in a small space and still have a lot of operating potential and skilled driving. Much easier to store and carry around a sub 3ft long layout than a 6ft one.

I am experimenting with a lot of new ideas on my own Warwick Quay OO(code 100) layout. I have included a couple of my own working turntables. I talked to one of the demonstrators on the EM/P4 stand at a local exhibition, and they agreed that my code 100 approach was OK, as much of the rail was not visible. At the end of the day, reliability was more important than being pure scale ,as some in the hobby think. There does need to be a debate on various track standards, in magazine not online forums though.

 

Reliability for locos has dramatically improved over past 30 years. When Mainline(in effect what we now have with Bachmann) brought out extra detailed models, but were let down by the motors inside. The bodies were good enough and in many cases are still good enough, and all that is needed in many cases, is an upgraded chassis. IUt would cost a lot less(less grumbles from many in hobby). Also there is less reliance on live frog points. Phil makes the good point(no pun intended) that the weakness in the design is reliance on power going though point blades. All my  points(dead frog) are modified, Continental style, so that power goes to both tracks, and I use insulated sections to isolate sidings.  I have found this pretty close to 100% reliable. Looking at the base of the Peco points suggests Peco had considered this at one point. For very short locos, which still have a problem, it is easy enough to have a shunter's truck permanently coupled and wired up to for improved pickup. Those bogie diesels always seem to run better and slower. Some are very good at pointing the finger at the points, when in fact it is quite often poor track laying that is the problem with what some consider 'trainset' track. Badly bend flexi track and poorly connects rails cause many derailments.

 

Noticed Bachmann had their advert for quayside building in magazine, now that is a coincidence!.  Talking of buildings, I hope as much consideration will be given to the brickwork. For most people the brick bond might not matter, but if other scale issues matter then the brickwork should also be right. It is something I have looked into myself,

[Phil Parker]

Such enthusiasm for the new BRM project! Sorry, I wasn't straight on kicking the thread off but at least this way I have something to say. Let's pick up the points as they come:

 

Rolling stock - Eight wagons and a small loco for the yard. One of the locos will be an 03, it's ideal off the shelf motive power. We'll need spares though and so one will be a steam industrial and the other a modified RTR diesel. More on this in future months.

 

Couplings - Normal tension locks. I did ponder going for Sprat & Winkles but as shown on last months DVD, there are some funky motorised uncoupling devices installed now for the tension locks. Is this the best choice? Time will tell but I can always change if needs be.

 

Passenger shuttle - Currently a 2-car DMU but the facility is there for single car units and railcars. More on this next month.

 

Inlaid track - Apart from a short length where the road crosses the track, none. I'd love to do it and will be looking at methods in the future, but normal track is a lot easier to operate. If something falls off it falls off and putting it back on is easy. On inlaid track, wagons can run on the cobbles and you need a sharp eye to point the flanges into the flangeway. There's also an issue seeing which way points are set. None of this is insurmountable for regular operators but as I've said, we'll be inviting everyone to come and have a go at shunting RQ so abilities will vary.

 

Brick bonds - I'm a bit of an anorak about this so have an awful lot of English bond plasticard on hand for construction work. However, most of the buildings will owe their originas to kits and if the bond is wrong, I'm not fixing it.

 

Reliability - I hope I can build this in. If you look at my own layouts, short locos and smooth running are important to me. It's perfectly possible to achieve this with RTR, I've an old Mainline 03 that runs sweet as a nut along with plenty of kit built models that don't see action until I'm happy. I'd rather avoid extra pickups on shunters trucks if I can help it. To date, I've never found them necessary.

 

There will be plenty more answers in future issues of the magazine so while I'm happy to field questions, obviously we want you to buy the mags as well so I'm not going to give too much away now. Of course, the fact I'm still building the model means I can't tell you everything anyway!

Edited August 16, 2015 by Phil Parker

[Huw Griffiths]

Rolling stock - Eight wagons and a small loco for the yard. One of the locos will be an 03, it's ideal off the shelf motive power. We'll need spares though and so one will be a steam industrial and the o

Brick bonds - I'm a bit of an anorak about this so have an awful lot of English bond plasticard on hand for construction work. However, most of the buildings will owe their originas to kits and if the bond is wrong, I'm not fixing it.

 

This is one reason I'm not too keen on some of the Wills brick wall slabs - I seem to recall the plain stretcher bond looking vaguely OK - but the "bonding" of some of the bricks on the other slabs didn't look too good to me.

 

Of course, there might also be another reason for me not liking their brick wall slabs - when I tried using the things a number of years back, I had difficulty cutting them cleanly. OK, it's always possible that this might have been down to inexperience - but I've been wary of them ever since.

 

 

As for the couplings, I've seen a number of switching layouts at shows over the years - and I've noticed that some types of couplings seem to lend themselves better than others to visitor operation. The reason for the mention of Kadees was that I'd seen them on one such layout (admittedly an old HO scale US layout) and they seemed to work extremely well. Whether they'd work so well on any layout with "trainset" curves is another matter.

 

 

The questions about locos, stock and railbuses etc had more to do with a suspicion that many people would probably already have suitable gear (small shunters and 4 wheel wagons often appearing in train sets). If not - and people are willing to be reasonably flexible - suitable stuff could probably be obtained at reasonable cost (secondhand if necessary).

 

I was trying to get people thinking about what suitable locos and stock they've already got - and what they could get without needing a second mortgage.

 

 

There was also another reason behind the question about locos.

 

I've been led to believe that it might be possible to convert the Bachmann Junior diesel shunter into a reasonably acceptable freelance industrial shunter - perhaps slightly more to it than pointing a rattle can at it and replacing the black cab "windows" with something you can see through. Slightly more than this - but probably within the capabilities of a number of relatively inexperienced modellers.

 

I was just wondering if simple RTR conversions of this nature might, at some time, offer the potential for spin off "how to" articles.

 

 

As for trying to pre-empt future articles - no chance. That's never been my style - and I don't think it ever will be.

 

Quite simply, my questions were more to do with thinking aloud - and trying to encourage newcomers to think about what they'd like to achieve.

 

 

Regards,

 

Huw.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Huw Griffiths

[rue_d_etropal]

Phil, I know you have a lot of experience with quayside models, but I have not found a problem putting wagons back on inlaid track. In fact I find it easier, especially with bogie stock.

That apart, ease of building was one big reason I designed my track system. 

Points are the most difficult track, but anyone with point building skills should be able to build a fully working point . My own point building is not very good so I tend to use the inserts I have. Not as good looking , but the points work OK. I will be looking at other track geometry in future. Biggest hurdle for me is limit on file size, which limits number of stone setts I can have, and my aging laptop tends to fall asleep when I give it too much work to do!

 

As for seeing which way points are set, there are a variety of ways to make this easier. A simple indicator light on control panel is easiest.

 

Easy way to get around the brickwork is to assume buildings are pre 1880( this is when NORI bricks were first made, so older buildings may well have plain stretcher bond. It is also a lot easier to get corners looking right. Does anyone remember some plastic corner sections for model brickwork many years ago. I seem to remember something , maybe part of a system which used brick panels in 4mm scale. Not the Linka system before anyone suggests that. This was serious 4mm scale stuff.

 

Maybe I should ask Ben if I can build the next quayside layout!

 

I am demonstrating my track system at Heywood show next year, and am at Blackburn show in a couple of weeks, so hope to have a few bits to show alongside my 1/35th scale WW1 layout. It should also give me somewhere to run some of my normally unused WW1 locos which are a bit more fuzzy about sharp curves! Layout was only originally designed for small locos, and it will be its last outing.

Edited August 16, 2015 by rue_d_etropal

[Phil Parker]

Phil, I know you have a lot of experience with quayside models, but I have not found a problem putting wagons back on inlaid track. In fact I find it easier, especially with bogie stock.

 

Having watched a variety of operators trying to re-rail wagons on the inlaid straight track on my layout, I'd disagree. Once you have the hang of it, the task is easy but for those with limited vision/dexterity, it's initially harder. Of course, as a manufaturer of track inlay (as you constantly remind us), I expect you to have the knack of this.

 

As for seeing which way points are set, there are a variety of ways to make this easier. A simple indicator light on control panel is easiest.

 

There won't be a control panel as such but we are using levers. However, my experience is that people look at the track rather than the panel. Again, with regular operators, this wouldn't be an issue but we're going to let anyone who walks up to the model have a go.

 

Points are the most difficult track, but anyone with point building skills should be able to build a fully working point . My own point building is not very good so I tend to use the inserts I have. Not as good looking , but the points work OK.

 

Point building skills are uncommon nowadays. While you'll normally find some layouts at shows with hand-built track, this is the top end of the skill range. Most people are quite happy with RTR track as they quite rightly just want to get something moving.

 

Inlays are an excellent option but I've never been happy with the look around the flangeways. I'll be experimenting with filling the sleeper gaps with something before fitting the inlay in the future when we look at inlaid trackwork.

 

For RQ I'm keeping it simple so no dismantling points or risking mucking them up. We're also taking the change to compare two different track systems and from a layout viewers point of view, being able to see both clearly is an advantage.

 

Maybe I should ask Ben if I can build the next quayside layout!

 

Or perhaps you should build a demonstration layout and send a few photos in to Ben and suggest it would make a nice feature.

[rue_d_etropal]

Phil, I did send Ben a short article about my 'Monkey Island' mini layout.  Would have been a few months ago, I was going to give him a nudge to see if he still wanted it. I am also updating  a thread on my new 'Warwick Quay' module in this forum.

Monkey Island was built before I had designed the wagon turntables, and it's French cousin Ile de Singe was in Continental Modeller at start of the year. Both were only built last September and October in Ikea APA boxes. Both are intended to be used as part of my demonstration stand at Heywood show.

 

For the flangeways, it is a case of compromise, I have given enough space for older stock(many starting in the hobby start out with cheap second hand, something I witnessed a lot when runing local model railway shop), and it would not be difficult filling part of it to make it slimmer. A fellow member on Gnatterbox forum (Michael Mott) tried using some thin paper tissue I think. It looked very good. I am thinking of trying something similar with my point inlays.

The only difficult part to build on my full point sections(not the inlays), is the point blades and tiebars.  I have managed on a couple, so it does not need to be an expert track builder. I also have made it possible for either live or dead frog, but only code 100 rail. The minimum thicknesses for 3d printed plastic, make using anything smaller very close to not being possible. As I said, much of the rail is hidden.

 

My two mini layouts were built for demonstration purposes, not just to show off the track, but to show one in OO and one in HO, thus showing differences and similarities. Educating the punters is important to me, and I have found many welcome my different approach to the hobby.

 

Thought it might be useful to add photo of Monkey Island. Note it is also dual level, and has tall warehouse buildings(Miniart, because I was less bothered about bond on this model, but would use LCUT now for stretcher bond)

Edited August 18, 2015 by rue_d_etropal

[sjrixon]

That really is a mini layout.. Isn't the front point a little short to get any stock in?

[rue_d_etropal]

sjrixon said

 

Isn't the front point a little short to get any stock in?

Well it is only for show, partly to show comparison of one of my full point items and the inlays used on other points.

 

One of the things about quayside railways is the amount of track there is sometimes, some of it disused as it is too much trouble to rip it up. I have even seen it on tramways.

 

 

Just a plug , but I am at Blackburn show in a couple of weeks,with my 1/35th scale WW1 layout,not a dock layout, but will have some 3D printed track to look at.

Edited August 19, 2015 by rue_d_etropal

[5050]

I think the brick 'panels' referred to above is probably the system introduced about 20 years ago by Len Newman (of K&L/C&L track fame)  Initially they were individual bricks (in 4mm scale!) and then larger 'panels' and possibly windows.  Much heralded and advertised at the time in MRJ, they seemed to disappear from the market quite quickly.

[Huw Griffiths]

I think the brick 'panels' referred to above is probably the system introduced about 20 years ago by Len Newman (of K&L/C&L track fame)  Initially they were individual bricks (in 4mm scale!) and then larger 'panels' and possibly windows.  Much heralded and advertised at the time in MRJ, they seemed to disappear from the market quite quickly.

 

I take it you mean individual bricks - 3mm * 1.5mm * 0.75mm - or something pretty close to this?

 

Somehow, I doubt if many modellers would be too happy assembling these into complete walls or buildings.

 

After all, a number of people have commented about the age profile of what they see as typical modellers - with an implicit suggestion that "near" vision etc might not be as good as it might once have been.

 

This makes me wonder just how good the "bricklaying" would have been - how straight the walls - how square the corners - if these "bricks" had become mainstream.

 

 

Obviously, if anyone's really desperate to try their hand at this sort of stuff, there'd be nothing to prevent them chopping up lengths of 30 * 60 thou strip.

 

In practice, though, I can't see many people going down this route.

 

 

Huw.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Huw Griffiths

[Moxy]

I take it you mean individual bricks - 3mm * 1.5mm * 0.75mm - or something pretty close to this?

This makes me wonder just how good the "bricklaying" would have been - how straight the walls - how square the corners - if these "bricks" had become mainstream.

 

It wasn't very straight!  I had a 'starter kit' to make a small waiting shelter and it ended up looking pretty derelict.

 

The idea behind these was the bricks had holes in and that you threaded them on to microrod, but there was no interlocking, they were scale flat sided bricks, so any slight misalignment by the full size builder (me) was magnified by a factor of 76.  I think that's probably why the product fell by the wayside.

 

Anyway, we're drifting away from Ruston Quay project layout.  As soon as I saw Paul Lunn's artist's impression I immediately thought that could be any number of small run down wharves in Lancashire in the 1950's/60's and it reminded me of a picture I have seen in a book, which I can't of course find online to illustrate the point, of Church Wharf in Bolton with Burnden Viaduct in the background.  Bolton Great Moor Street station was on a viaduct too.  I know that in real life Church Wharf and Great Moor Street are a couple of miles apart on either side of Bolton Trinity Street station, but invoking modellers licence, if we extend the canal a bit further north & west and move Great Moor Street station a bit further east, the result could look like Ruston Quays.

 

How about a version based around Wigan Central?  The CLC line crossed the Leeds Liverpool canal on its way into Central station, so again with a bit of rearrangement, perhaps with a fictitious canal basin serving a former cotton mill, it would fit.

 

I think that is the beauty of this design - it could be built with almost any regional 'signature' building style and be believable.

 

Moxy

[Phil Parker]

Formcraft bricks were certainly a challenging way to make a model building. Originally tiny modules, the company quickly worked out that these would take forever to assemble and produced larger lumps of brickwork, although this defeated the purpose of the system as it was obviously less flexible. The advantage was that you didn't go mad using it!

 

 

I have a "Building in progress" kit to hand - which I will NOT be using for the moment. It certainly isn't the way to bulid the RQ warehouses, one of which has to be wide enough and tall enough to hide a 2 car DMU.

 

 

More to the point, if I had built them this way, the first 20 articles would be full of descriptions about sticking bricks together. Hardly a thrilling read and not one that would encourage anyone to have a go.

 

(I'll do a bit more digging and write more about Formcraft on my blog in the middle of next week as it's a bit off topic here)

[Phil Parker]

As soon as I saw Paul Lunn's artist's impression I immediately thought that could be any number of small run down wharves in Lancashire in the 1950's/60's and it reminded me of a picture I have seen in a book, which I can't of course find online to illustrate the point, of Church Wharf in Bolton with Burnden Viaduct in the background.  Bolton Great Moor Street station was on a viaduct too.  I know that in real life Church Wharf and Great Moor Street are a couple of miles apart on either side of Bolton Trinity Street station, but invoking modellers licence, if we extend the canal a bit further north & west and move Great Moor Street station a bit further east, the result could look like Ruston Quays.

 

How about a version based around Wigan Central?  The CLC line crossed the Leeds Liverpool canal on its way into Central station, so again with a bit of rearrangement, perhaps with a fictitious canal basin serving a former cotton mill, it would fit.

 

I think that is the beauty of this design - it could be built with almost any regional 'signature' building style and be believable.

 

Moxy

 

That's the point of BRM projects. If we can inspire someone to have a go then they have worked. I know a lot of people looked at Edgeworth and realised they had the space to build an interesting model railway. Plenty have mentioned that they are trying a similar project, which makes me feel really chuffed.

 

RQ is the same. For a start, it's even smaller and and Moxy says, there were plenty of locations around the country that looked a lot like it. As I like industrial layouts, I look forward to lots of gritty urban models appearing at future shows!

[Neil]

Without wishing to steal any of BRM's thunder, do you have a layout plan that you're able to post Phil so that I can get the gist of what might go where. I'm intrigued by the rather fab warehouses which hide a dmu.

[Andy Y]

Without wishing to steal any of BRM's thunder, do you have a layout plan that you're able to post Phil so that I can get the gist of what might go where. I'm intrigued by the rather fab warehouses which hide a dmu.

 

Phil posted one on his blog last week - http://philsworkbench.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/ruston-quays-plan.html

[Neil]

Thanks Andy; trust me to miss the obvious.

[rue_d_etropal]

Formcraft, that it is. Didn't they also look at something for 7mm scale. Also remember big panels, to reduce amount of work, and corner units. The flat brickwork is relatively easy, I even considered cutting up some Slaters plastic sheet, but the corners .....

 

I have most of my brickwork now, but got distracted by other 3D printing ideas. Something for code 75 rail on the cards!!!!!!

[Andy Reichert]

Having watched a variety of operators trying to re-rail wagons on the inlaid straight track on my layout, I'd disagree. Once you have the hang of it, the task is easy but for those with limited vision/dexterity, it's initially harder. Of course, as a manufaturer of track inlay (as you constantly remind us), I expect you to have the knack of this.

 

 

There won't be a control panel as such but we are using levers. However, my experience is that people look at the track rather than the panel. Again, with regular operators, this wouldn't be an issue but we're going to let anyone who walks up to the model have a go.

 

 

Point building skills are uncommon nowadays. While you'll normally find some layouts at shows with hand-built track, this is the top end of the skill range. Most people are quite happy with RTR track as they quite rightly just want to get something moving.

 

Inlays are an excellent option but I've never been happy with the look around the flangeways. I'll be experimenting with filling the sleeper gaps with something before fitting the inlay in the future when we look at inlaid trackwork.

 

For RQ I'm keeping it simple so no dismantling points or risking mucking them up. We're also taking the change to compare two different track systems and from a layout viewers point of view, being able to see both clearly is an advantage.

 

 

Or perhaps you should build a demonstration layout and send a few photos in to Ben and suggest it would make a nice feature.

 

 

I solved the putting wagons and locos on inlaid dock track problem (even for those with good  eyesight) quite a few years ago. You only have to put the wagon roughly in place and then just slide it sideways until it clicks. You can actually do it with  abig American 4-8-8-2 with your eyes closed.

 

Andy

[Phil Parker]

 

I solved the putting wagons and locos on inlaid dock track problem (even for those with good  eyesight) quite a few years ago. You only have to put the wagon roughly in place and then just slide it sideways until it clicks. You can actually do it with  abig American 4-8-8-2 with your eyes closed.

 

Andy

 

That's a neat fix, but I was refering to re-railing in the visible area of the layout .

 

Mind you, I can think of plenty of people who would benefit from having a fiddle yard with a set-up like this so they can get the things on the track in the first place!

[Phil Parker]

Without wishing to steal any of BRM's thunder, do you have a layout plan that you're able to post Phil so that I can get the gist of what might go where. I'm intrigued by the rather fab warehouses which hide a dmu.

 

Sorry about that. the thread spiralled out of control before I posted the plan:

 

 

This is Paul Lunn's version of my rather angular original. Needless to say, I've fiddled with it even more now building is well advanced! Nothing major, just a few tweaks to building sizes.

[Andy Reichert]

That's a neat fix, but I was refering to re-railing in the visible area of the layout .

 

Mind you, I can think of plenty of people who would benefit from having a fiddle yard with a set-up like this so they can get the things on the track in the first place!

 

I guessed so. And those "railer" units are intended to be in hidden areas.  But you really shouldn't have any derailments in your visibletrack that are specifically due to have inlaid track in the first place.

 

I suspect that many people laying or making inlaid track make the serious mistake of having the inlaid track flangeway the same width as the crossing flangeway on turnouts. It should actually be quite a bit wider to meet the same track standards as non-inlaid track.  Otherwise there is a tendency to have wheel climbing over the centre infill.

 

Andy

[Neil]

Thanks for the plan Phil. Though it's not the first bi-level overlapped design I've seen it's taken till now for the realisation to dawn that there's a considerable saving in space by doing so partly because of the interlocking of each levels off scene bit with the others on scene bit but also because isolating goods from passenger saves on the track needed for one to diverge from the other. I could see this having applications in flatter designs too.

[rue_d_etropal]

This is the type of discussion I was hoping for, which is why I was a bit disappointed when Phil said he wasn't having inlaid track. It would make a good discussion topic in the magazine, as I suspect more people might see it.

From my own experiments with very sharp curves(for a narrow gauge layout), I found that shorter wheelbases bogies ran a lot better than longer ones, as the wheel flange would ride up on the infill, even on my non finescale gaps. On gently curved sidings I would not only get away with longer wheelbases, but also be able to have a narrower flangeway. Any running problems would then be more likely to have been caused by uneven track .

I am currently experimenting with an infill/wrap around for code 75 track.

 

On searching out inspiration, I noticed many urban dockside lines were upgraded with flat infill, possibly a post war necessity due to bomb damage, so I am also looking at something with a flat surface. This will allow far more varied  and complex track layouts as well, but does not have that 'quaint' dockside look some want.

[Andy Y]

It would make a good discussion topic in the magazine, 

 

We have had quite a bit on inlaid track before now, here and in the mag so I don't think essential that Phil includes it; every (fictional) layout is a matter of preference.

 

 

(A cheap and easy way to do it).