Castle Aching

[Donw]

As someone who builds their own turnouts usually I can tell you that the main road is usually the route when the operating lever is normal in the frame. If set on a curve the curve would normally be continuous through the turnout, If you use Templot you can take a normal turnout and bend it to a curve until the diverging route is effectively straight. Full size a lot of track that looks fairly straight may have a very gentle curve in it. The radii used are generally much greater than we use. I think the minimum for passenger trains was typically 10 chains 660ft which would be 2.64 metres in 4mm nearly 9ft. I think big locos could go down to 4 chains 264ft  or 1.056meteres in 4mm taken dead slow. We on the other hand would think that suitable for an express at speed. So we are talking about compromise and creating an illusion building a turnout on a 10ft curve would look very different to one on a 3ft curve. You could even insert a straight turnout in the 10 chain curve without it being that obvious except from a helicopter. We can get the same view much easier. 

So for a PW engineer a turnout may be left or right handed from the main line whether or not it was curved. If you use google maps to look at a major station on a curve you will see it can be hard to determine which is the main route and what handed any turnout is. What may look like a left handed curved point could be a right handed one only knowing how the routes run will tell you.

Decide which are the main lines on your layout and label the turnouts from that.

Don 

[Northroader]

I haven't messed with OO track for a very long time, so a bit out of touch with what's on offer these days. Some thoughts:

A) at this stage of the proceedings buying points out of a box rather than trying to build them is sensible. You'll lose too much time and there's always the chance you won't get a perfect result.

B) if you get hold of paper patterns for the full set of products, Peco always used to do them, you can play at fitting it in. Your original plan looks very expansive, does this tie in with the boards you've made? (I'm usually shoe horning items into a very cramped area.)

C) when laying it out, avoid S bends, that is change of direction in curvature immediately on top of each other. Put a length of straight track in between the change of direction curves to get a reverse curve.

D) Dons use of a flexible batten will give you a good approximation to a transition curve, so if you're trying out patterns along the length of a batten you shouldn't go far wrong. Transition helps with the sudden throw over between the couplings on long bogie stock, so it isn't so vital in station limits on a slow speed, short bodied operation.

E) Model railway equipment is designed to be forgiving to less than ideal conditions, such as having oversize flanges.

F)there's nearly always a box at a collectors fair close to you with old track and points which isn't irredeemable, at a fraction of the costs of some of the new stuff. you can always replace it later.

[Nearholmer]

1896, not 1898.

 

And, actually, light railways were provided for in a much earlier Regulation of Railways Act, but I can't recall the date off-hand, maybe 1876? [Edit: it was 1868, see here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/31-32/119/crossheading/vlight-railways ]

 

The earlier iteration didn't work very well, because although it put in place a set of 'fit for purpose' material and operating requirements, my recollection is that it left in place the overly burdensome requirement to obtain an Act for each railway. The 1896 Act got rid of that, and introduced the simpler Order process.

 

What I can't name is any railway built in accordance with the earlier iteration, but I think that is because they weren't necessarily named xyzLR.

 

Again working from frail memory, IIRC the earlier iteration imposed definite speed restrictions, whereas the 1896 Act, which people commonly think did, didn't, although it was common for them to be set in either the Order made under the Act, or by The Inspecting Officer ........ there was a great deal of common sense applied, with designers informally declaring what speed they had designed for, and the IO then feeding that back as a limit.

 

If you want to get really complicated, study street tramway legislation.

 

(I hope I'm not courting trouble prating this sort of stuff at a lawyer)

 

Kevin

Edited April 27, 2017 by Nearholmer

[St Enodoc]

I looked at that article and thought to myself that will cause some headscratching.  I used a simpler method with is derived from that use by John Armstrong a US layout designer. Basically the transition needs to be two coach lengths to be effective so I would draw the plain radius circle ( e.g 3 ft)  mark a point one coach length about 9inch back along the curve. I mark the end point 9inch down the straight and about 1.5 inch out from it using a flexible piece of thin wood I align it to the curve and to the straight using the marks this will naturally take up a nice curve.

However you will note that we have lost 9inch of the straight length so a pain on a cramped layout.  

Simpler method from the strart point of your curve use a 5ft radius curve for 10inch a 4ft radius curve  for the next    8inch then the 3ft curve you will not notice is is not a true transistion but it will look good and do the same job.

 

If you are going into a turnout at the end of the curve a 48inch turnout from a 3ft curve will work if the main is the curved route and the straight bit is a siding. If the diverging route needs to be on the inside use a 54/36 or a 48/32 curved turnout .

 

Once you have got the idea you can largely do it by eye but the thin bit of wood is most helpful as it naturally takes up natural curves.

 

The reason why transition curves make sense full size is it controls the forces generated by the change in direction

 

The reason why transition curves make sense on a model is it reduces the maximum coupling offsets.

Consider two long coaches on a curve the ends betwen them are both off centre but they are off centre on the same side thus the couplings are in line but at a slight angle

Consider two coaches approaching a non transistion curve as one enters the curve the end will swing out off centre but the coach it is attached to is still on the straight dead centre thus there is an offset between them

 

Consider the two coaches approaching a transistion curve the end of the first coach will start to swing out off centre but less so on a genrous curve as the curve increases the second coach will be on the generous bit of the curve and its end will be starting to swing out as well so the amount of off set is reduced.

A couple of minutes with two coaches and a bit of flexitrack should show you what I mean.

 

Lastly full size turnout have a transistion curve within many of them on a typical size the first part of the blades etc. will be at a larger radius that the closure rail the bit through the crossing can be straight or at the closure rail radius. On modern turnouts (post grouping is modern to me)  the blades themselves were curved or semi curved with gave a transition within the switch part. These transitions were needed to cope with the forces generated without them trains would be severely restricted in speed through turnouts.   

 

Don

 

 

ps. Model turnouts vary those building there own use prototype forms but often sharper than would be used full size. Manufacturers usually either use a simple curved turnout or something in between. These shortened turnouts do not cause problems in running but don't look as good as ones built to prototype designs.

 

pps I have given figures used for 4mm 

I endorse Don's first suggested method as it is probably the easiest to do in practice. I would personally make the "shift" (the 1.5 inch dimension Don mentions) rather less, probably in the order of 0.5 inches. The "two coach lengths" dimension is a very good rule of thumb for model railways.

[Tom Burnham]

1896, not 1898.

 

And, actually, light railways were provided for in a much earlier Regulation of Railways Act, but I can't recall the date off-hand, maybe 1876? [Edit: it was 1868, see here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/31-32/119/crossheading/vlight-railways ]

 

The earlier iteration didn't work very well, because although it put in place a set of 'fit for purpose' material and operating requirements, my recollection is that it left in place the overly burdensome requirement to obtain an Act for each railway. The 1896 Act got rid of that, and introduced the simpler Order process.

 

What I can't name is any railway built in accordance with the earlier iteration, but I think that is because they weren't necessarily named xyzLR.

 

Again working from frail memory, IIRC the earlier iteration imposed definite speed restrictions, whereas the 1896 Act, which people commonly think did, didn't, although it was common for them to be set in either the Order made under the Act, or by The Inspecting Officer ........ there was a great deal of common sense applied, with designers informally declaring what speed they had designed for, and the IO then feeding that back as a limit.

 

If you want to get really complicated, study street tramway legislation.

 

(I hope I'm not courting trouble prating this sort of stuff at a lawyer)

 

Kevin

There was the Culm Valley Light Railway (Tiverton Junction to Hemyock) opened 1876.  The Ilfracombe branch (opened 1874) was built to light railway standards - hence the special Ilfracombe Goods locos the L&SWR acquired to work it - but was later expensively rebuilt to main-line standards as traffic increased.

 

Tom

[Edwardian]

Re transition curves, I will try the Don W method and I note St Enodoc's suggestion.  I may well see what comes of the Digby method so that I can compare, but I like the sound of Don's method.  Very sensible stuff.

 

So, at the cost of pushing the cost of the Bullhead points up £20 to £122.50, based upon the comments received and Don's explanation, Point No.1 will not only technically be regarded as right-hand point, but should be one!

 

So, for the running line into the platform road, left to right ,we would have (1) cassette yard - (2) short straight to align with cassette - (3) transition curve straight into 3' radius - (4) 3' radius segment - (5) transition curve 3' radius to 4' radius - (6) Point No.1, 48" Radius Curved Right-hand Point, 36" radius to sidings - (7) Point No. 2, 48" Radius Curved Left-hand point, 36" radius to loop - (8) Very gently curving platform road, tapering to turntable.

[Edwardian]

Thanks to Kevin and Tom for some good illustrative examples of early "light" railways; one of the things that (for me!) needs to be realistic, is the legal basis of the line.

 

The main trunk of the West Norfolk, including Castle Aching to Birchoverham Market, was a conventional railway of the period, with its own act of Parliament and built to the standard of the railways of the day (1850s).

 

The branch to Achingham followed in the 1860s.   

 

No Light Railway type legislation in any of this.

 

Then, however, we have the lines to Bishop's Lynn and Wolfringham, which I have down as 1880s.  

 

Here is scope for Regulations of Railways Act type Orders. 

 

The Bishop's Lynn line I see as a Tramway, owned and operated jointly with the GER.  It will have needed an Act essentially similar to that for the Wisbech & Upwell.

 

The branch to Wolfringham, open up traffic from the west Norfolk coast (and to connect with the GE's 1860s Lynn & Hunstanton line), might well be appropriate for an Order under the 1876 Act. 

 

We have to consider, however, the route GE trains might take to CA.  There may be other connections to the GE.  The GE's east-west West Norfolk Extension will cross the West Norfolk Railway's north-south mainline.  That might be the better connection, otherwise the Wolfringham line would need to be engineered to higher standards and permit faster running.

 

There will be no GE coach portions in WN trains; the GE's air-braked and the WN's vacuum-braked stock do not mix.  The GE will run their own trains to CA from time to time.  CA's turntable is very small, so the GE's preferred class for these workings is the Little Sharpie, or No.1 Class, which retained their original 4-wheeled tenders. These locos worked the Lynn & Hunstanton and down the West Norfolk Extension, so are the perfect choice. Any other GE tender engines will suffer the indignity of working tender-first from CA.  

 

The GE ran regular trains north on the WN to the resort at Birchoverham Next the Sea, and south to CA. 

[Edwardian]

 If you treat the platform line as the 'main' line, then continue the curve of the plain track in the same radius as the point, rather than a transition from straight. You can then transition this curve into your 3' curve.

 

Hope that make sense...

 

It does, now.

 

Thanks for your erudite perseverance!

[Nearholmer]

Legal pedantry coming up:

 

To operate a LR under the provisions of the 1868 RoR Act, one needed an Act of Parliament to build it, then a License from the BoT to operate it as a LR. The only two fixed provisions were that axle-weight couldn't exceed 8Tons, and speed 25mph, beyond which the BoT could effectively grant derogations from the usual obligations as part of the license.

 

Under the 1896 LR Act, no Act of Parliament was needed to build the railway (thereby adding certainty, and depriving the legal profession of vast sums in fees). One applied for an Order, and the LR Commissioners granted (or not) the Order by operating a process that was rather similar to "planning permission" processes today. The Order conferred the necessary compulsory purchase powers, and defined all the conditions, limitations etc etc. LR Oredrrs were sort-of standardised, the Commissioners clearly had a template, but each one was different, because it encapsulated all the annoying clauses that objectors had been able to bargain into it, plus anything that the Commissioners themselves thought wise under the particular circumstances. The LR Act was largely an enabler, so contained no detailed provisions about construction and operation, they were in an Appendix to the BoT "Requirements and recommendations", but since the LR bits were "recommendations", the Commissioners could vary from them.

 

Under both systems, the completed railway was subject to HM Railway Inspectorate review and approval before opening, and the IO could, and often did, make permission to operate conditional, again taking local circumstance into consideration.

 

Which is why LRs were all unique ...... local railways, for local people, with lots of common sense and horse-trading to settle the conditions.

 

The French system was a lot more effective!

 

Street Tramways fell under a different set of legislation and guidance, which is really, really difficult to pick-through. I think I posted a link to the text book about it before, and it is hundreds of pages of confusing and contradictory stuff! The problem is that it is a mush-mash of things from highway and railway legislation, with some extra bits thrown in for good measure ....... for instance, 'everyone' knows what the BoT requirements for a steam team loco resulted in, but it is very difficult to work out exactly which bits of the requirements were introduced when.

 

Ireland is different again, because the Acts applied there to "not heavy" railways were as much concerned with guaranteeing the shareholders an income as with anything else ....... the idea was to get communications into underdeveloped (confusingly termed "congested" in the legislation) areas, and parliament was able to compel local ratepayers to cough-up subsidies. This is one of the reasons why the Irish were, still are really, less dewy-eyed about railways than the English ...... to some degree they were seen as an imposition.

 

Most probably, most of the WNR would originally have been built and operated under the 'ordinary' provisions of the various Regulation of Railways Acts, because the LR provisions in the 1868 Act weren't much exploited ...... promoters of new lines and operators of existing ones didn't like the uncertainty attached to seeking a license, and they'd already shelled-out vast sums to lawyers to obtain an Act anyway. The Lynn Tramway would have been under the 1870 Tramways Act and whatever "requirements" the BoT had devised by its date of construction.

 

But, by 1905, the WNR May have used the 1896 Act to obtain an Order downgrading some or all of the empire to LR status. This was a good way of economising (especially on the cost of signalmen) in the case of railways that, by default, were already operating infrequent, light, trains at low speed.

 

To make the WNR as complicated, and therefore interesting, as possible, I'm going to suggest that the Wolfingham and Shepherdsport sprig was downgraded to LR status in the early 1900s, but the rest, retained original status.

 

Mr O'Doolight's Clerk will forward an invoice in respect of advice in these matters shortly.

 

Kevin

[NeilHB]

I hope that Edwardian won't mind the intrusion here - on my work away day yesterday, I stumbled across what appeared to be trackbed of the West Norfolk's route to Birchoverham Staithe, where it ran through the pine forests so common on the North Norfolk coast...

 

 

 

Actually in reality no-where near Norfolk, but at Sherwood Pines near Mansfield. On the way back to the car we crossed what I assumed to be a road for the forestry commission vehicles, but in my mind felt like a long lost part of the West Norfolk... 

 

Having spent many years as a child wandering round the woods near Holkham beach and the associated disused track bed there it just felt very 'Norfolk' to me! 

[uax6]

With regard to the mixing of WNR and GER stock in the same trains, I wonder if there would have been a percentage of the WNR fleet (loco and carriage) that was dual braked.

A good example of this is the highland railway, they were a vacuum railway, but so that through vehicles could be run to and from other railways (GNoS and CR, both of which had air tendencies) some of the better carriages were dual braked, and a few of the locos carried Westinghouse compressors. This enabled through coaches to run from the highland South, capturing long distance passengers, but also allowed the highland to use their locos of foreign stock.

 

I can see the WNR wanting to do something similar, GER through coaches to Birchoverham anyone?

 

Andy g

[DonB]

Since our Host confesses that maths and templot are a problem, I looked at the Castle Aching track drawing which I see tagged as June 2016. I looked at entries here in June and July '16 but did not find it. Where did it come from?

It occurs to me that the introduction of transition curves will significantly alter the trackwork profile and probably increase the overall length required. If the originator of the drawing is known, perhaps an alternative approach could be to get it printed at actual (model) size, (it would be several A4 sheets), and lay them out on the baseboard and blend the curves by hand and eye. 

[BlueLightning]

Since our Host confesses that maths and templot are a problem, I looked at the Castle Aching track drawing which I see tagged as June 2016. I looked at entries here in June and July '16 but did not find it. Where did it come from?

It occurs to me that the introduction of transition curves will significantly alter the trackwork profile and probably increase the overall length required. If the originator of the drawing is known, perhaps an alternative approach could be to get it printed at actual (model) size, (it would be several A4 sheets), and lay them out on the baseboard and blend the curves by hand and eye. 

 

The originator of the drawing is a former member on here, who from what I understand had some disagreements with other members and left deleting his account and taking all his posts with him. I saw at least one of these disagreements and will not publicly take sides as to who was right or wrong, however a lot of his postings were helpful and those at least are missed on the forums.

 

Gary

[Edwardian]

Legal pedantry coming up:

 

Good

 

To operate a LR under the provisions of the 1868 RoR Act, one needed an Act of Parliament to build it, then a License from the BoT to operate it as a LR. The only two fixed provisions were that axle-weight couldn't exceed 8Tons, and speed 25mph, beyond which the BoT could effectively grant derogations from the usual obligations as part of the license.

 

Understood. 

Under the 1896 LR Act, no Act of Parliament was needed to build the railway (thereby adding certainty, and depriving the legal profession of vast sums in fees). One applied for an Order, and the LR Commissioners granted (or not) the Order by operating a process that was rather similar to "planning permission" processes today. The Order conferred the necessary compulsory purchase powers, and defined all the conditions, limitations etc etc. LR Oredrrs were sort-of standardised, the Commissioners clearly had a template, but each one was different, because it encapsulated all the annoying clauses that objectors had been able to bargain into it, plus anything that the Commissioners themselves thought wise under the particular circumstances. The LR Act was largely an enabler, so contained no detailed provisions about construction and operation, they were in an Appendix to the BoT "Requirements and recommendations", but since the LR bits were "recommendations", the Commissioners could vary from them.

 

Under both systems, the completed railway was subject to HM Railway Inspectorate review and approval before opening, and the IO could, and often did, make permission to operate conditional, again taking local circumstance into consideration.

 

Which is why LRs were all unique ...... local railways, for local people, with lots of common sense and horse-trading to settle the conditions.

 

The French system was a lot more effective!  Doubtless, but Brexit will still mean Brexit, I'm afraid.

 

Street Tramways fell under a different set of legislation and guidance, which is really, really difficult to pick-through. I think I posted a link to the text book about it before, and it is hundreds of pages of confusing and contradictory stuff! The problem is that it is a mush-mash of things from highway and railway legislation, with some extra bits thrown in for good measure ....... for instance, 'everyone' knows what the BoT requirements for a steam team loco resulted in, but it is very difficult to work out exactly which bits of the requirements were introduced when. 

Ireland is different again, because the Acts applied there to "not heavy" railways were as much concerned with guaranteeing the shareholders an income as with anything else ....... the idea was to get communications into underdeveloped (confusingly termed "congested" in the legislation) areas, and parliament was able to compel local ratepayers to cough-up subsidies. This is one of the reasons why the Irish were, still are really, less dewy-eyed about railways than the English ...... to some degree they were seen as an imposition.  V. interesting

Most probably, most of the WNR would originally have been built and operated under the 'ordinary' provisions of the various Regulation of Railways Acts, because the LR provisions in the 1868 Act weren't much exploited Agreed

 

...... promoters of new lines and operators of existing ones didn't like the uncertainty attached to seeking a license, and they'd already shelled-out vast sums to lawyers to obtain an Act anyway.

 

The Lynn Tramway would have been under the 1870 Tramways Act and whatever "requirements" the BoT had devised by its date of construction. As was the W&U, following inclusion of the proposal in the GE's General Purposes legislation of 1880.

 

But, by 1905, the WNR May have used the 1896 Act to obtain an Order downgrading some or all of the empire to LR status. This was a good way of economising (especially on the cost of signalmen) in the case of railways that, by default, were already operating infrequent, light, trains at low speed. The only lines I can see as suitable for this treatment would be the Wolfringham line and the line to, and along, the north Norfolk coast in the vicinity of Birchoverham Staithe, whose decline as a port would reduce traffic and justify demoting the line.  In the case of Wolfringham, the place simply never took off.

  

To make the WNR as complicated, and therefore interesting, as possible, I'm going to suggest that the Wolfingham and Shepherdsport sprig was downgraded to LR status in the early 1900s, but the rest, retained original status.  Good idea, but why only this section (do you intend running Merchant Navies to Wolfringham)?!?

 

Mr O'Doolight's Clerk will forward an invoice in respect of advice in these matters shortly. Would he accept West Norfolk stock in lieu of payment?  Otherwise, I refer him to the Company's Receivers.

 

Kevin

 

I don't know what you'll run in the '30s, but currently I have a Fox Walker 0-6-0ST slated for Wolfringham traffic, but it might be fun to add one of the Ex-Cornwall Minerals 0-6-0s to the roster.  Might look good on the coal trains.

[Nearholmer]

Mr O'Doolight already holds stock in numerous bankrupt enterprises, and says that he supposes "the more the merrier".

 

He had in mind the whole of the Wolfringaham section for an LRO, not just the final couple of miles.

 

Anyway, pause to get my breath back over; back on the bike!

 

K

[Edwardian]

I hope that Edwardian won't mind the intrusion here - on my work away day yesterday, I stumbled across what appeared to be trackbed of the West Norfolk's route to Birchoverham Staithe, where it ran through the pine forests so common on the North Norfolk coast...

 

WNR 1.JPG

 

WNR 2.JPG

 

Actually in reality no-where near Norfolk, but at Sherwood Pines near Mansfield. On the way back to the car we crossed what I assumed to be a road for the forestry commission vehicles, but in my mind felt like a long lost part of the West Norfolk... 

 

Having spent many years as a child wandering round the woods near Holkham beach and the associated disused track bed there it just felt very 'Norfolk' to me! 

 

Brilliant!  Yes, for me, too, they evoke the gloomy pine stands planted behind the beach on the Holkham Estate in the Nineteenth Century as a windbreak.

 

As such, I propose that the West Norfolk line to Birchoverham Staithe passes through this convenient scenic break, sorry, prototypical feature, in its way inland to the other Birchoverhams.

 

 

With regard to the mixing of WNR and GER stock in the same trains, I wonder if there would have been a percentage of the WNR fleet (loco and carriage) that was dual braked.

A good example of this is the highland railway, they were a vacuum railway, but so that through vehicles could be run to and from other railways (GNoS and CR, both of which had air tendencies) some of the better carriages were dual braked, and a few of the locos carried Westinghouse compressors. This enabled through coaches to run from the highland South, capturing long distance passengers, but also allowed the highland to use their locos of foreign stock.

 

I can see the WNR wanting to do something similar, GER through coaches to Birchoverham anyone?

 

Andy g

 

Good point.  One might have thought the directors of the WNR would be equally keen to exploit the possibility of through traffic by investing in dual fitted stock that could, thus, be exported via the GE.  Gosh, that means that potentially a WN coach could end up anywhere!

 

I am thinking a 6-wheel brake/luggage composite.  or perhaps even a very short bogie or radial coach?  How about a family saloon whilst we're about it?

 

I am open to the suggestion of running GE through coaches on the WN, using dual-braked WN motive power, but do not wish to negate the rationale for running whole GE trains behind GE locomotives.  Worth further thought. 

 

 

Since our Host confesses that maths and templot are a problem, I looked at the Castle Aching track drawing which I see tagged as June 2016. I looked at entries here in June and July '16 but did not find it. Where did it come from?

It occurs to me that the introduction of transition curves will significantly alter the trackwork profile and probably increase the overall length required. If the originator of the drawing is known, perhaps an alternative approach could be to get it printed at actual (model) size, (it would be several A4 sheets), and lay them out on the baseboard and blend the curves by hand and eye. 

 

The originator of the drawing is a former member on here, who from what I understand had some disagreements with other members and left deleting his account and taking all his posts with him. I saw at least one of these disagreements and will not publicly take sides as to who was right or wrong, however a lot of his postings were helpful and those at least are missed on the forums.

 

Gary

 

Pas possible.  As Gary says. The person concerned was once a great friend to this topic, and, I believe, to others.  Then, one day, his posts started to get a bit cranky.  I suspect he involved our esteemed Mods in drawing attention to all sorts of things to which he began to take exception.  I have no idea what was going on, but I suspect there were wider issues than this topic, and, much as I find the whole thing very regrettable and upsetting, I suspect that his deletion of his own membership was unrelated to this topic, because I really cannot see a casus belli in the content here.  It was his prerogative to do what he did, but I still view his departure with regret.

 

The transition curve will add to the length, which might prove a problem, but when I suggested it, I only had Mr Digby's 500mms in mind! 

 

If the running line-platform road uses 2 48' points, I like the idea, for both visual and practical reasons, of using a transition section to link to the 3' radius section at the apex of the curve.

 

BTW, I assume the reference to 2coaches in plotting the curve length is to 2 57-60' bogie coaches, and not to 2 of my planned 6-wheelers?

 

 

Mr O'Doolight already holds stock in numerous bankrupt enterprises, and says that he supposes "the more the merrier".

 

He had in mind the whole of the Wolfringaham section for an LRO, not just the final couple of miles.

 

Anyway, pause to get my breath back over; back on the bike!

 

K

 

That makes perfect sense to me, down-grading the whole Wolfringham branch.  You've sold that one to me. Thanks.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Edwardian

[DonB]

Since our Host confesses that maths and templot are a problem, I looked at the Castle Aching track drawing which I see tagged as June 2016. I looked at entries here in June and July '16 but did not find it. Where did it come from?

It occurs to me that the introduction of transition curves will significantly alter the trackwork profile and probably increase the overall length required. If the originator of the drawing is known, perhaps an alternative approach could be to get it printed at actual (model) size, (it would be several A4 sheets), and lay them out on the baseboard and blend the curves by hand and eye. 

I was intending to add an apology for a rather negative post (above) but was called away and closed the post. I seem to have opened up a few sad memories, but at least we know that my suggestion is not available.

 

Sorry again.

[Donw]

Yes the 9 inches I mentioned was an approximate length for a bogie coach. The first bogie coaches were mostly fairly short although Mr Churchward did go in for some 70footers I avoid those for my 0 gauge layout much too long.  The offset couplings problem is less with 6 wheelers than bogie coaches but 6 wheelers are more fussy about curves than bogies.

There is something to be said for using a transition even if the main bit of the curve has to be tightened a little provided the curve does get too tight in the midde.I presume because the wheels etc can move slowly to the right position rather than being forced to do it immediately.

 

Having explained to you that the first turnout is right handed please remember that the traders will describe it as left handed they assume the straightest route to be the main.

 

The pines behind Holkham Beach are indeed a delight we walked in them most days when staying there. When living in the Forest of Dean we regularly walked the old railway lines a particular favourite was speculation curve. A proper model curve https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Coleford/@51.8170606,-2.5597317,365m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4871b082a918c3af:0x843e001054bf2592!8m2!3d51.7934409!4d-2.6174728

 

Don

[Compound2632]

1896, not 1898.

 

I have dutifully removed myself to the back of the class where I will apply myself to my neglected Ratio clerestories.

[Edwardian]

I was intending to add an apology for a rather negative post (above) but was called away and closed the post. I seem to have opened up a few sad memories, but at least we know that my suggestion is not available.

 

Sorry again.

 

Please don't apologise.  It was an odd episode, and, yes, it still saddens me, but these things happen, and you weren't to know!

 

 

Yes the 9 inches I mentioned was an approximate length for a bogie coach. The first bogie coaches were mostly fairly short although Mr Churchward did go in for some 70footers I avoid those for my 0 gauge layout much too long.  The offset couplings problem is less with 6 wheelers than bogie coaches but 6 wheelers are more fussy about curves than bogies.

There is something to be said for using a transition even if the main bit of the curve has to be tightened a little provided the curve does get too tight in the midde.I presume because the wheels etc can move slowly to the right position rather than being forced to do it immediately.

 

Having explained to you that the first turnout is right handed please remember that the traders will describe it as left handed they assume the straightest route to be the main.

 

The pines behind Holkham Beach are indeed a delight we walked in them most days when staying there. When living in the Forest of Dean we regularly walked the old railway lines a particular favourite was speculation curve. A proper model curve https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Coleford/@51.8170606,-2.5597317,365m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4871b082a918c3af:0x843e001054bf2592!8m2!3d51.7934409!4d-2.6174728

 

Don

 

 

First, many thanks indeed for the photographs of Snettisham and Wells, which I have now downloaded.

 

Second, the line "Having explained to you that the first turnout is right handed please remember that the traders will describe it as left handed they assume the straightest route to be the main", I am now confused again.  The choice seems to be between a straight left-hand point with the left fork a 48" radius, or, a curved right-hand point, with the main at 48' radius and the right fork at 36".  It must seem like trying to teach the unteachable.  Sorry 'bout that.

 

I have, however, ordered the SMP templates and should receive them next week.

 

Nice curves at Coleford.  That's a lot of trees to model, though!

 

 

I have dutifully removed myself to the back of the class where I will apply myself to my neglected Ratio clerestories.

 

Your revenge will come when I start posting stuff about the Midland.

 

Out on the tiles!

 

The postman came today.  As the Memsahib observed, somewhat sourly I thought, "he brought me a Reminder, but you got a package!".

 

She forgets that it can often be the other way around, with bills for Yours Truly and various oddly shaped packages containing equine impedimenta for her.

 

Anyway, today I received a goodly quantity of oddly textured paper.  This foxed the Mem and I had to explain that it was wallpaper that serendipitously resembles pantiles, courtesy of Mr Phil Sutters of this Parish, to whom I am extremely grateful.

 

Many thanks, indeed, Phil.

 

I think I shall try it out on the Post Office.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Edwardian

[Nearholmer]

That is incredibly like tiles.

 

But, what does it look like once pasted to a wall, I wonder?

[Edwardian]

But, what does it look like once pasted to a wall, I wonder?

 

 

We shall never know; it's far too useful to go sticking it on walls!

Edited April 28, 2017 by Edwardian

[phil_sutters]

We shall never know; it's far too useful to go sticking it on walls!

I could post a photo of our living room! It's due for a redec soon. If I peeled it off carefully, perhaps I could set up an on-line business flogging it off in model-making-sized packs. Currently it is in a creamy colour - which was regarded as a mistake almost as soon as I painted it. Anyway, I am glad it arrived safely and shall look forward to seeing your painterly conversion of it into tiles.

[phil_sutters]

That is incredibly like tiles.

 

But, what does it look like once pasted to a wall, I wonder?

As the ribs are only about 3.5mm from ridge to ridge, it looks like a fine corduroy. The walls had a fair amount of blemishes and I wasn't prepared to have them skimmed or replastered, so a painted textured wallpaper was the answer - well my answer!

[phil_sutters]

 

Out on the tiles!

 

The postman came today.  As the Memsahib observed, somewhat sourly I thought, "he brought me a Reminder, but you got a package!".

 

Anyway, today I received a goodly quantity of oddly textured paper. 

 

I think I shall try it out on the Post Office.

The Post Office was quite happy to accept it, when I posted it!

 

Nice curves at Coleford.  That's a lot of trees to model, though!

 

We got away with a two or three Britain's farm ones and some sawdust lollipops back in the 60s - Oh but that was the Somerset Coleford - silly me.

Edited April 28, 2017 by phil_sutters