Beginners OO 1950's Banff

[Tortuga]

I’m intending on using the copper clad sleeper method mainly for piece of mind - don’t want to rip the finished track out of alignment by catching it on things when moving the boards around!

[Ian Smeeton]

A tip I was given (just too late!!), was to butt the boards up with a couple of washers on the bolts, lay the track, cut with a slitting disc or razor saw, then part the boards, remove washers and rejoin the boards. 

 

This reduces the gap in the rails at the board join.

 

Regards

 

Ian

Edited September 24, 2020 by Ian Smeeton
Posted too soon

[Ian Smeeton]

A tip I was given (just too late!!), was to butt the boards up with a couple of washers on the bolts, lay the track, cut with a slitting disc or razor saw, then part the boards, remove washers and rejoin the boards. 

[26power]

I would suggest the brass screws approach for a couple of reasons.  Firstly, the screws can be right at the edge of the board and therefore support the rail at the most vulnerable location.  Secondly, you can adjust the height of the screws before soldering the rails across them and then cutting them.   Thirdly, if you use cosmetic sleepers around the join the screws can be fairly invisible.
 

The use of copperclad sleepers would seem to mean that support right at the baseboard edge cannot be achieved because of the sleeper spacing, even if the tracks are square to the baseboard join.  And possibly be even further away from the join if the tracks cross it at an angle.

 

Views perhaps coloured by the brass screw approach on the few layouts I’ve been involved in!

 

Hope this helps though.

[aardvark]

7 hours ago, 26power said:

I would suggest the brass screws approach.

 

Hope this helps though.

 

I appreciate your input and accept your reasoning, but your "vote" only confuses me, as I now have support for all the variants excepting the one I liked. 

 

[26power]

3 hours ago, aardvark said:

 

I appreciate your input and accept your reasoning, but your "vote" only confuses me, as I now have support for all the variants excepting the one I liked. 

 

Not counting your own vote then?!

 

Might it be worth you experimenting on some pieces of, say, thick plywood acting as a couple of pseudo baseboards and see how you get on?  I.e. two bits of ply that meet neatly and something to keep them in alignment between repeated separations?

[Signaller69]

Hi,

I would also generally go with the copperclad sleepers approach, especially if the layout needs putting away quite frequently; however if using any sort of foam underlay, however thin, I would want to hard-fix them in place to prevent any movement (eg via a plasticard or thin plywood spacer the same thickness as the underlay; as you point out, this might lead to slightly greater noise transmission but I suggest this is better than the risk of imperfect alignment should any flexing of track or underlay occur).

 

Otherwise, (and particularly if the layout doesn't need dismantling very often,) I think I would go with sliding fishplates across the join, just in case any small movement of the track/foam occurs while the layout is stored.

 

Martyn.

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, Signaller69 said:

this might lead to slightly greater noise transmission

I have short lengths of plywood trackbed in lieu of foam or cork at the ends of my lifting flap for exactly the reason you describe. Combined with the slightly larger rail gaps, this gives a very satisfying "clickety-clack".

[Signaller69]

On 25/09/2020 at 23:33, St Enodoc said:

I have short lengths of plywood trackbed in lieu of foam or cork at the ends of my lifting flap for exactly the reason you describe. Combined with the slightly larger rail gaps, this gives a very satisfying "clickety-clack".

Indeed! I must admit I have had no problems using cork underlay with just one copperclad sleeper bonded to it at board joints, with a length of flexi track placed over the join, soldered to the sleepers and then cut through.

 

This has survived over several years of taking Crinan to shows with no ill effects.

 

This method may work on Banff if the last (say) inch of foam is replaced with cork to the same thickness, with one or two copperclad sleepers either side of the board join, bonded to the cork with epoxy resin or good quality contact adhesive (as per my method on Crinan). The cork should not result in any noise increase, but is solid enough to keep alignment.

 

Martyn.

[aardvark]

13 hours ago, Signaller69 said:

I have had no problems using cork underlay with just one copperclad sleeper bonded to it at board joints.

 

Thanks Martyn, that's most interesting, and, as you say, provides a middle ground between foam and hard-fixed copperclad.  I'm presuming that you have glued you copperclad to the cork, and cork to your baseboard.

[Signaller69]

21 hours ago, aardvark said:

 

Thanks Martyn, that's most interesting, and, as you say, provides a middle ground between foam and hard-fixed copperclad.  I'm presuming that you have glued you copperclad to the cork, and cork to your baseboard.

Yes, that is correct - PVA to fix the cork to the baseboard (weighted until dry) and 2 part epoxy resin or contact adhesive to fix the sleepers to the cork (I have used both on different parts at different times, depending on what was to hand). I also use contact adhesive to fix each track length to the cork during tracklaying.

 

I think that whichever method you use though, if you catch or knock the rail ends hard enough, it will likely cause damage to be honest. So some sort of board protectors fixed or clamped to the end during moving and/or stacking might be prudent.

 

Martyn.

[aardvark]

15 minutes ago, Signaller69 said:

I think that whichever method you use though, if you catch or knock the rail ends hard enough, it will likely cause damage to be honest. So some sort of board protectors fixed or clamped to the end during moving and/or stacking might be prudent.

 

Yes, much what I was thinking.  Banff has an escarpment behind the track that slopes up at a step angle, so I do need to protect it from clumsy handling.

 

[aardvark]

I've just posted an open question concerning the operations at 1950's Banff here.

 

Feel free to drop by and make a contribution if you know anything about prototype operations which, frankly, I don't.

[aardvark]

I’ve spent time getting my head around laying track across baseboard joins.  I’m going to try cork under 3 copper-clad sleepers on each side of each join, plus plywood protectors bolted to the ends of each baseboard while they are in storage or transit (most of the time).

 

 

I think the process might go like this

1. Rough fit tracks, mark edges of cork insert.
2. Remove track, remove foam, install cork. Weight.
3. Paint, droppers, TrackLay and ballast track
4. Install 1st track using paper template. Insert "TrackSetta" block to keep track straight across join. Pin.
5. Mark limit of cork on TrackLay, remove track and remove TrackLay where it is to be replaced by cork.
6. Re-fit track.
7. Mark ends of 3 plastic sleepers each side of baseboard join.
8. Break webbing beside sleepers to be removed. Slide plastic sleepers by half a sleeper spacing.
9. Fit copper-clad sleepers under track. Glue. Weight?
10. Solder track to copper-clad.
11. Remove plastic sleepers.
12. Cut through rails.
13. Repeat 4-12 with 2nd track using paper template against 1st track.”
14. Etcetera.

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by aardvark
manually restored lost images

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, aardvark said:

I’ve spent time getting my head around laying track across baseboard joins.  I’m going to try cork under 3 copper-clad sleepers on each side of each join, plus plywood protectors bolted to the ends of each baseboard while they are in storage or transit (most of the time).

 

 

I think the process might go like this

1. Rough fit tracks, mark edges of cork insert.
2. Remove track, remove foam, install cork. Weight.
3. Paint, droppers, TrackLay and ballast track
4. Install 1st track using paper template. Insert "TrackSetta" block to keep track straight across join. Pin.
5. Mark limit of cork on TrackLay, remove track and remove TrackLay where it is to be replaced by cork.
6. Re-fit track.
7. Mark ends of 3 plastic sleepers each side of baseboard join.
8. Break webbing beside sleepers to be removed. Slide plastic sleepers by half a sleeper spacing.
9. Fit copper-clad sleepers under track. Glue. Weight?
10. Solder track to copper-clad.
11. Remove plastic sleepers.
12. Cut through rails.
13. Repeat 4-12 with 2nd track using paper template against 1st track.”
14. Etcetera.

 

I don't think you need steps 8 and 11. Just take the plastic sleepers out altogether instead at step 8. In step 13 I'd recommend something rather less flimsy than paper - even thin card would be better.

 

Otherwise, I can't see any problems with it.

 

Have fun!

[aardvark]

13 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I don't think you need steps 8 and 11. Just take the plastic sleepers out altogether instead at step 8. In step 13 I'd recommend something rather less flimsy than paper - even thin card would be better.

 

Otherwise, I can't see any problems with it.

 

Have fun!

 

Thanks St. Enodoc.

 

Having never done this before, I'm being cautious - probably overly - about keeping the rails in-gauge after the removal of the plastic sleepers.  Perhaps, as a middle ground, I might remove and replace 3 plastic sleepers from one side of a join before repeating at the opposing side.

 

As for the templates, I'm led by Gordon S's example of printing on 120gsm paper which works quite well.

 

As for there being any problems, well, time will tell .

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, aardvark said:

 

Thanks St. Enodoc.

 

Having never done this before, I'm being cautious - probably overly - about keeping the rails in-gauge after the removal of the plastic sleepers.  Perhaps, as a middle ground, I might remove and replace 3 plastic sleepers from one side of a join before repeating at the opposing side.

 

As for the templates, I'm led by Gordon S's example of printing on 120gsm paper which works quite well.

 

As for there being any problems, well, time will tell .

Over such a short length you shouldn't need to worry about the gauge, particularly as the tracks are just about straight. Make sure the tracks are fixed down as close as possible to where you will be cutting the sleepers away. Use your gauge block if you have any concerns. I suspect that messing about with the plastic sleepers might actually create more problems than it would solve.

 

120gsm paper is almost like thin card so that will probably be OK too.

Edited October 29, 2020 by St Enodoc

[aardvark]

3 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Over such a short length you shouldn't need to worry about the gauge, particularly as the tracks are just about straight. Make sure the tracks are fixed down as close as possible to where you will be cutting the sleepers away. Use your gauge block if you have any concerns. I suspect that messing about with the plastic sleepers might actually create more problems than it would solve.

 

120gsm paper is almost like thin card so that will probably be OK too.

 

Many thanks for your input.  I will simplify my life by following your advice .

[aardvark]

Disappointed to read that TMC has cancelled their 35-258Z LNER G5 Class 0-4-4T No. 67327 BR Lined Black Early Emblem with Westinghouse pump and 2-rail cage back bunker [Scottish Region loco].  I think that all the variants with the 2-rail bunker have been cancelled.

[aardvark]

I picked up a container of florist sand from a local store on clearance for $1.  I thought I would try it out under the ever-critical digital eye. Here it is in comparison to GreenScenes 2mm ash ballast.

 

 

I don't intend it as a replacement ballast, and it doesn't appear completely awful to my eye, so may well find use in time.  I might invest in a second container.

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by aardvark
manually restored lost images

[Signaller69]

9 hours ago, aardvark said:

I picked up a container of florist sand from a local store on clearance for $1.  I thought I would try it out under the ever-critical digital eye. Here it is in comparison to GreenScenes 2mm ash ballast.

 

 

I don't intend it as a replacement ballast, and it doesn't appear completely awful to my eye, so may well find use in time.  I might invest in a second container.

 

It looks pretty good for representing klinker I think, mixed in or on the ballast anywhere a loco might stand? Even as ballast it looks much better than some of the vastly oversized products on the market. I must say your ash ballasting is very neat as befits well tended p.way.

 

Martyn.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Signaller69

[SHerr]

46 minutes ago, Signaller69 said:

It looks pretty good for representing klinker I think, mixed in or on the ballast anywhere a loco might stand? Even as ballast it looks much better than some of the vastly oversized products on the market. I must say your ash ballasting is very neat as befits well tended p.way.

 

Martyn.

I agree. The ‘ash ballast’ looks too big to be ash but looks good as normal ballast ie for main running lines. 
 

actual Ash ballast is much smaller and would be found in sidings etc which the sand product you have found looks like it would be good for. If you look at goods siding or loco shes photos it’s almost like mush in places.

 

I would use the 2mm ballast on main running lines and the sand on sidings

[aardvark]

I agree about the ash ballast not being fine enough to accurately model the prototype, but there's a trade-off, as there is with most things.  Using TrackLay, the ballast is only one grain deep.  If the model ballast is too fine, then it isn't sufficiently deep, even for thin sleepers.

 

But you probably know that.

 

In the meantime, tracklaying continues apace, and I seem to have a handle on copper-clad sleepers and baseboard joins.

 

 

 

 

[Signaller69]

The sleepers and ballast look neat, evidently trains run over the join without issue.

 

I found this photo of Banff in 1968 on Pinterest whilst looking for something:

https://pin.it/lkW3IjT

The Sulzer type 2 (later class 24/1) appears to be running into the sidings to allow an engineering train (a "Shark" Ballast plough Brake Van appears to be the first vehicle,) to run into the Station under gravity.

[aardvark]

16 hours ago, Signaller69 said:

The sleepers and ballast look neat, evidently trains run over the join without issue.

 

I found this photo of Banff in 1968 on Pinterest whilst looking for something:

https://pin.it/lkW3IjT

The Sulzer type 2 (later class 24/1) appears to be running into the sidings to allow an engineering train (a "Shark" Ballast plough Brake Van appears to be the first vehicle,) to run into the Station under gravity.

 

Thanks for the kind words, and for explanation of the image.  I doubt that the engineering train was up to any good - the photo is dated as April 1968 with the station closed to all traffic on 6 May 1968.  I also note the Man In Black standing by to work the lever frame, the signalbox having been gone for some years by then.