Jump to content
 

Ruston Quays


Huw Griffiths
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

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.

 

The point is we are working several months ahead on this layout so I'm not going to rip it up and re-build just to incorporate and promote your product no matter how many times you mention it here, or e-mail the editor to try and get the plans changed. Sorry, it's not practical, I've nailed everything down, wired it and stuck ballast everywhere.

 

The reasoning behind the plan has been explained in the magazine and expanded on in this thread. The thread itself is to dicuss the layout we are building and answer questions thrown up by the build by anyone who fancies trying to do something similar. This worked well for the Edgeworth thread, hence the repeat with RQ.

 

As Andy says, we've looked at inlaid track in the past and will do again, but when designing the layout we considered an awful lot of options. I had several long chats with Paul where were added and removed features, then we arrived at a plan and any tweaks are now minor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

See post #22.

 

The only part of trackwork that the inside of wheels should ever be allowed to touch are check rails. Bare infill that wheels can touch is seriously in the wrong place and will cause derailments.

 

Check rail positions are controlled by the "check gauge". Infill is subject to the "Span" dimension of a wheel and track standard, not the check gauge. Same as is used on level crossings for example. You don't see passing trains crushing the road infill there either, regardless of their wheel base lengths.

 

Only if you get that span dimension right - or use a real check rail flange way inner sides do you get trouble free running - at any radius.

 

foambd3.jpg

 

 

e.g. http://www.proto87.com/media/vid1.gif

 

Maybe the earlier earlier discussions of cheap ways left that out?

 

Andy

Edited by Andy Reichert
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The point is we are working several months ahead on this layout so I'm not going to rip it up and re-build just to incorporate and promote your product no matter how many times you mention it here, or e-mail the editor to try and get the plans changed. Sorry, it's not practical, I've nailed everything down, wired it and stuck ballast everywhere.

 

The reasoning behind the plan has been explained in the magazine and expanded on in this thread. The thread itself is to dicuss the layout we are building and answer questions thrown up by the build by anyone who fancies trying to do something similar. This worked well for the Edgeworth thread, hence the repeat with RQ.

 

As Andy says, we've looked at inlaid track in the past and will do again, but when designing the layout we considered an awful lot of options. I had several long chats with Paul where were added and removed features, then we arrived at a plan and any tweaks are now minor.

 

I think I'd be right in assuming that magazine project layouts tend to be conceived - and built - to show relatively inexperienced modellers what they can achieve, using readily available stuff, without too much risk of getting things so badly wrong that things don't work correctly.

 

 

I believe there's also an element of magazines using them to teach the techniques involved in building a workable layout - and offering anybody who chooses to build their own version the opportunity of discussing whatever issues get thrown up, with somebody who's "been there before".

 

This discussion might take the form of seeing the layout concerned - and speaking with the guy who built it - at some show the magazine has a presence at.

 

However, excellent as "face to face" discussion is, a number of people might not be able to get to the shows concerned - so forum sites like this offer an alternative means of discussion, which could potentially draw more people (and their ideas / experience) into the mix.

 

 

Whatever form this discussion takes place, I think it relies on the fact that a significant number of people have encountered things before.

 

It also relies on the project layout only using readily available items - nothing too "leading edge" - and nothing that can only be obtained from one supplier.

 

I don't think it matters how good any "unusual" items might be - if any items needed to complete any magazine project are difficult to obtain, this would be guaranteed to turn people off having a go. It might also turn people off buying the magazine in future.

 

 

I'd be the first to admit that I haven't built any exhibitable layouts - I've never been on the "non public" side of any layouts at shows - and I've never been a demonstrator at any show. I also don't see this position changing any time soon.

 

Despite this, I think I can still speak from experience about the effect of using "non standard" items in magazine projects - well, "teaching" projects, in general.

 

For a number of years, I worked as a lab technician in a university - I set up and ran lots of practical classes, lab tests and experiments - I also supervised students doing practical work for their final year projects.

 

I can confidently say that, when you're trying to teach people how to build things - how to do practical things - there's a lot to be said for not trying to be too clever. By this, I mean using only standard equipment and parts - things that are very much "known quantities" - items that you can easily and quickly get more of, if something goes wrong.

 

 

I've been actively into electronics for 38 of my 50 years - I've built lots of things in this time - and I've put together lots of circuits.

 

I've also read a lot of electronics magazines.

 

Nothing's guaranteed to make me see red any quicker than some magazine making a big fanfare about some interesting sounding project - only for said project to rely on the use of some non standard component, which can only be obtained from one guy (often the guy who wrote the article), for a limited time.

 

Once I'd sussed that one well known magazine seemed to be getting a lot of their projects from one such guy - and they always required the use of one of his, non standard, limited time only, parts, I stopped getting the magazine concerned.

 

If I take this sort of line, I'd be very surprised if I'm alone - and I'm sure that this is a potential pitfall which a number of model railway magazines are keen to avoid with their project layouts (or any of their "how to" articles).

 

 

Please don't take this as a rejection of anybody's "leading edge" modelmaking items - or anything innovative, for that matter.

 

Innovation certainly has its place - as do articles about innovation. It's just that a project layout - aimed at introducing newcomers to the basics of building a layout - and encouraging them to "have a go" - probably isn't the most appropriate place for anything which only a limited number of people have access to or experience of.

 

 

Regards,

 

Huw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

 

It also relies on the project layout only using readily available items - nothing too "leading edge" - and nothing that can only be obtained from one supplier.

 

I don't think it matters how good any "unusual" items might be - if any items needed to complete any magazine project are difficult to obtain, this would be guaranteed to turn people off having a go. It might also turn people off buying the magazine in future.

 

This is pretty much my philosophy for articles. The more readily available the products, the easier people can have a go themselves. That's not to say we shouldn't use new an inovative items - after all part of the role of a magazine is to showcase novel items to the readers. One of the benfits of BRM is that they give me a wide brief and let me get on with a project. Sometimes it's based around a novel item such as the Magnorail cyclist kit or the Make Your Mark rail crane, in which case we make it clear where everything comes from.

 

I'm certain that inlaid track will be a feature of a future article and probably discussions at shows, in which case I already have some places to point people at.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Just waiting for the magazine to arrive in my shop (should be mid September) then i think I might take a crack at this. 

 

Excellent! And if there are any questions you want to throw my way, please do. Anything to help.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Huw,

you make some interesting points about availability of products. It is not just the case you mention, but many of the traditionally produced items, often by one man outfits. All sorts of things can interrupt production, from holiday(??), sickness and retirement. This was one of the reasons I started looking at 3D printing, as it was (in theory) possible to design something and when I was absolutely happy with it, it would then be available for as long as 3D printing services existed. As it is an internet based set up this has not suited everyone, but I think there are ways to get over that hurdle.

 

What Phil has said, has also made me think. People these days seem to want something which is easier to set up, so I started looking at an improved insert system for my track, which (fingers crossed) looked about right, Still need to test some other bits. I had not realised Phil was going to use code 75 track until I saw the article, and so I have started looking at that as an option, still in test phase. I hope to have something to show at Blackburn show in a couple of weeks.

 

Innovation is  in effect is what I am doing, as far as the technology to produce it. New ideas will always attract attention, DCC does not really attract as much attention at exhibitions these days, and  DCC sound seems to either not be possible to hear in a noisy exhibition hall, or annoys other exhibitors because it is too loud. I remember David Boyle saying there were not enough 'action' things available. Maybe these are seen by many as gimmicks, but I am sure many of us remember the Triang Hornby action wagons, and how much fun they were.  It is usually difficult to get near any layout with some action features, such as a crane/digger loading a wagon.

 

When demonstrating/education getting the balance right between something which attracts more attention and something that is practical and possibly less likely to break down, is important. One difference between the college classroom, and the exhibition hall is that people can move onto something else, they are not there just for the demonstrations. This is something I need to put some thought into for some demonstrations I am doing next year.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
New ideas will always attract attention, DCC does not really attract as much attention at exhibitions these days, and  DCC sound seems to either not be possible to hear in a noisy exhibition hall, or annoys other exhibitors because it is too loud. I remember David Boyle saying there were not enough 'action' things available. Maybe these are seen by many as gimmicks, but I am sure many of us remember the Triang Hornby action wagons, and how much fun they were.  It is usually difficult to get near any layout with some action features, such as a crane/digger loading a wagon.

 

When demonstrating/education getting the balance right between something which attracts more attention and something that is practical and possibly less likely to break down, is important. One difference between the college classroom, and the exhibition hall is that people can move onto something else, they are not there just for the demonstrations. This is something I need to put some thought into for some demonstrations I am doing next year.

 

I remember having a very enjoyable chat with you about some of this 3D stuff, at last year's Festival of Model Tramways.

 

If I recall correctly, a number of the exhibitors there (layout exhibitors and demonstrators) also seemed to be looking at what 3D printing could offer - even though it still seems to be very much a developing technology.

 

At the time, you also had a sample of your track inserts with you - although I wasn't in the market (and am still not), this doesn't take away from the fact that it looked good.

 

I suspect that your inserts - and 3D printing in general - will be worth watching, in the medium to long term - much like DCC was a few years ago.

 

 

Turning to the subject of "action" stuff - and demonstrations, I think you've made a number of excellent points.

 

Some people might know that, earlier this year, I visited the Model Engineering show at "Ally Pally".

 

It had been quite a few years since the previous time I'd visited that show - but I intend to visit next year's.

 

Apart from all the machine tools - and live steam demonstrations, an area had been set aside for a demo of R/C trucks, diggers etc effectively doing a spot of earthmoving around an improvised construction site and road network. When I was there on the Friday, there did seem to be rather a lot of people watching - I'm sure there would have been even more on the Saturday and Sunday.

 

 

Changing the subject again, it will be interesting to see how the new layout - and this thread - progresses.

 

 

Huw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huw,

glad you remembered me . I was chatting to quite a few people. A lot has happened since Manchester Tram exhibition last year. Expect to see something in one of the tram journals, as someone is trying out my track.

I don't where this year has gone. It doesn't seem that long ago talking to Ben and Phil at Doncaster, and about putting something in magazine. Chris Leigh had just done a feature in Model Rail, so it was decided to wait. It has, though, given me more time to perfect some things, and try some new ideas.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold

Here's the Harrap method taught to me some years ago. Cheap and effective for concrete or with extra effort, cobbles as well!

 

I hope you don't mind if I ask:

 

What's used for the infill - Plaster of Paris (or tile grout) - either mixed with paint, or painted afterwards, using suitable coloured matt emulsion?

 

While I think of it, is some sort of improvised stamp used for producing the grooves in the sett pattern?

 

My reason for asking this stuff is that I seem to recall something similar being used on one part-built layout I came across at a Bristol (Brunel) show a number of years back.

 

 

Huw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EA%20RTR%20curve+%20wagon.jpg

 

The issue with dockside track, is that you need to keep the flangeway widths realistic, and have great continuous pick-up and live crossings for the slow movements. But if you use traditional RTR "slotted" track work, the flange way widths needed to correctly avoid the derailing impacts of your wheels rubbing the center infill are huge.

 

That's why the RTR system above is quite a breakthrough in that regard. It solves all those three factors at once.

 

There's a big difference between leap forward innovation by design, and merely early adoption of new, expensive technology that just replaces the old established plaster or injection moulded infills.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Perhaps we should be talking a bit more about the design of this layout and its operating potential.

 

I have designed (but never built) a few like this over the years. One was for a competition in a magazine. The selected winner was a design which could not possibly have fitted on a baseboard of the prescribed maximum size, or even on a board twice that size. Why does one bother?

 

I like a lot about Ruston Quays but I think it would be so much better at 8' long (in 4mm). That would allow a hidden siding (fiddleyard) at the upper level to improve operation of the passenger service and a much more interesting track layout for the goods area at lower level.

 

I am even tempted to try it in 2mm as I have a 4' x 1' board going spare.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I hope you don't mind if I ask:

 

What's used for the infill - Plaster of Paris (or tile grout) - either mixed with paint, or painted afterwards, using suitable coloured matt emulsion?

 

While I think of it, is some sort of improvised stamp used for producing the grooves in the sett pattern?

 

My reason for asking this stuff is that I seem to recall something similar being used on one part-built layout I came across at a Bristol (Brunel) show a number of years back.

 

 

Huw.

 

Huw,

 

Some use 'Polyfilla' quite successfully but Brian H uses good quality tile grout (Tetrion and the like) which is available in beige or grey. It is rather fine and can be smoothed well with 800/1000 wet'n'dry paper. Colour variations are made carefully using weathering powders.

 

The setts are hand carved using a pin vice with a dressmakers pin in it (cheap and disposable when worn). It is a job best done in small doses as after a while it drives one nuts! This method scores over the usual Wills setts/cobbles sheets as the joins are very hard to disguise without a lot of work and in my view the setts look 'oversize' for 4mm.. More importantly they cannot be curved or contoured.

 

This method gives flexibility and, in my view, better realism.

 

Apologies but this pic has been posted before. It's the main 'complex' bit of the stalled (20 yrs + !) dock layout....watch this space...!.

post-6728-0-45566100-1442152200.jpg

 

This is the work of the master who has taught me all that I know on the subject!

post-6728-0-11424600-1442152686.jpg

 

post-6728-0-11845100-1442152800.jpg

 

This is what we aim for.

post-6728-0-87628100-1442153249_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian's hand crafted work is fabulous, (and well beyond my skill level), but it's also built to Proto:87 standards flange ways, not ordinary RTR 00 or HO..  So yes the flange ways look prototypically correctly narrow. His work is probably the best advert for the beauty of Proto scale modelling there is.

 

But there is a big "BUT". No out of the box RTR vehicles will even sit on Brian's paved track, let alone run on it. So it's not something you can write a magazine article up as a DIY project for the average 00 modeller.

 

OTOH, using the same "hand carved plaster technique", but with pre-formed, realistically shallow bottomed, girder rail set to a proper narrowed gauge, WILL allow almost all RTR vehicles to run absolutely unmodified. And be visually almost as good as Brian's work, but available and easy for the "average  modeller" to implement. 

 

Here are a few of "hand carved", street/dock examples of UK shown exhibition layouts using the special rail. Apologies for using extracts from a prior "Grime Street" RM Web posted photos.

 

grime-street-setts-band-grey.jpg

 

dual_gauge_street-700.jpg

 

nberg2-4-close-700.jpg

 

 

Andy

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I like a lot about Ruston Quays but I think it would be so much better at 8' long (in 4mm). That would allow a hidden siding (fiddleyard) at the upper level to improve operation of the passenger service and a much more interesting track layout for the goods area at lower level.

 

There is a fiddle yard behind the main warehouse for the upper level. Admitedly, it's only a length of track but that's all I need - the important point is I don't want exciting operation up there, I want a shuttle unit (as shown in the current mag) to do all the work. We're not going to have lots of different trains up there. Now, for a home layout, or one that can bring several operators to shows, then a more extensive yard would be a nice idea. Of course you might then want steam trains, which means the station needs a release crossover...

 

The lower level yard is stunted for a similar reason. We're going to let visitors to the show operate it as an Inglenook shunting puzzle. You have to be very strict about siding length and configuration to make this a challenge. It's also one of the reasons we don't have inlaid track.

 

A bigger yard would need to be operated by someone who knew what they were doing, or at least it would be if I'm taking the thing out to show people. Operator training during quiet times at shows on a reasonably simple layout is one thing but at peak times you need a team who know what they are doing to entertain the visitors.

 

I'd agree that an extra 2 foot of space could make a difference. The RQ design citeria are deliberatly strict - it's a one man exhibitable layout that will allow me to spend lots of time chatting and answering questions rather than getting hands-on with the controller. I'm delighted if anyone is inspired to do something along the same lines. One thing we found with Edgeworth was that people were impressed with the amount we crammed in a small space. They would start talking about building something similar and then say they had a little bit more area to play with. I'd then delight in explaining how you could make an even better Edgeworth with the extra space.

 

Key thing is, if I work to the minimum space, most people can find the same or more at home. That way they feel their layout can be even better than the one in the mag. If they have to cut space then the tendency is to feel your model isn't as good, even if it is, and I don't want that. I want people building models.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

There is a fiddle yard behind the main warehouse for the upper level. Admitedly, it's only a length of track but that's all I need - the important point is I don't want exciting operation up there, I want a shuttle unit (as shown in the current mag) to do all the work. We're not going to have lots of different trains up there. Now, for a home layout, or one that can bring several operators to shows, then a more extensive yard would be a nice idea. Of course you might then want steam trains, which means the station needs a release crossover...

 

The lower level yard is stunted for a similar reason. We're going to let visitors to the show operate it as an Inglenook shunting puzzle. You have to be very strict about siding length and configuration to make this a challenge. It's also one of the reasons we don't have inlaid track.

 

A bigger yard would need to be operated by someone who knew what they were doing, or at least it would be if I'm taking the thing out to show people. Operator training during quiet times at shows on a reasonably simple layout is one thing but at peak times you need a team who know what they are doing to entertain the visitors.

 

I'd agree that an extra 2 foot of space could make a difference. The RQ design citeria are deliberatly strict - it's a one man exhibitable layout that will allow me to spend lots of time chatting and answering questions rather than getting hands-on with the controller. I'm delighted if anyone is inspired to do something along the same lines. One thing we found with Edgeworth was that people were impressed with the amount we crammed in a small space. They would start talking about building something similar and then say they had a little bit more area to play with. I'd then delight in explaining how you could make an even better Edgeworth with the extra space.

 

Key thing is, if I work to the minimum space, most people can find the same or more at home. That way they feel their layout can be even better than the one in the mag. If they have to cut space then the tendency is to feel your model isn't as good, even if it is, and I don't want that. I want people building models.

 

I don't think that we disagree fundamentally.

 

You have a very specific need for exhibition purposes. And the design meets that. But is it something which, if copied by others, would give them long-term satisfaction? I think it needs a bit more for that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I don't think that we disagree fundamentally.

 

You have a very specific need for exhibition purposes. And the design meets that. But is it something which, if copied by others, would give them long-term satisfaction? I think it needs a bit more for that.

 

The problem is that I can't design a layout for everyone. Nor am I suggesting they would copy it exactly. That's why we gave over quite a lot of page space in the magazine explaining the process by which we came up with the design. For the purposes of the series, we need to pick a plan and build it. Preferably one that doesn't take too long but incorporates plenty of different techniques.

 

The other thought it that a lot depends on what you enjoy. If it's operating than yes, long term you'll want more trackwork and a larger space. If your pleasure is in the building rather than operating then track doesn't matter as much, you'll be enjoying putting the scene together. For me, the modelling is more fun than the operating, even on a complex layout.

 

Both this and Edgeworth are also designed to be starter layouts. They could be built quickly and then you move on with a bag full of skills aquired. As it happens, both are fun to operate - Inglenook puzzles have amused people for far longer than their apparently limited potential would suggest. But it's still best to start small rather than diving straight into the "dream" layout.

 

And of course, there are lots of plans books available already, including those by Mr Lunn if anyone fancies something more ambitious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...