Castle Aching

[Edwardian]

Compound, I think it was, put me onto the topic about new, cost-effective, 'eezi-build' turnout kits.

 

These looked ideal, especially as there was to be both a thick and thin (e.g. for SMP track) sleeper versions.

 

Latterly, however, the idea seems to have taken route that standard OO gauge modellers (as opposed to EM or OO-SF) do not need a thin-sleeper option.

 

Perhaps I am truly alone in considering compatibility with SMP and C&L OO flexi-track a desirable good.

 

There is a poll at page 12 of the topic and I would encourage any OO modellers to vote:

 

[Compound2632]

As I understand it, in the context of Castle Aching, the issue is that you've laid the SMP. So, to use the Finetrax points with thick bases, there are two alternatives, both of which are a at the very least a bit of a faff:

• lift all the SMP and shim it with 0.5 mm thick card. This would be a major operation and would alter the height above rail level of structures already in place, I presume.
• gouge out the under-layer in the area where the points are to sit, replacing with material 0.5 mm thinner. What is the under layer?

I noted that mention was made of the transition piece, which seemed not quite thought through since one would end up with humps in the rail level, the pointwork being 0.5 mm above the level of the rest of the trackwork.

 

As the proud possessor of five lengths of thin-sleepered C&L, I share the disappointment that the Finetrax points as currently proposed seem to be heading in the thick-sleepered-only direction but I feel sure that the product is sufficiently attractive for a work-around to be worth the effort.

 

Beggars can't be choosers and something is better than nothing, as the Midland enthusiast said while contemplating the chimney of his Bachmann 1532 Class 0-4-4T.

 

Happy New Year everyone! 

 

[Regularity]

13 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Beggars can't be choosers

Well said: too often forgotten!

Four choices are always available:

1) Do it yourself;

2) Adapt/modify what is available;

3) Use what is available, accepting any “shortcomings”;

4) Go without. (Preferably without grumbling, although this often doesn’t happen!)

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Regularity said:

2) Adapt/modify what is available;

 

Could one sand 0.5 mm off the bottom of the point?

[Nearholmer]

If Sisyphus is free? Sounds like an ideal job for him, sanding the bottoms of sleepers.

 

Once he’s finished that, he can sand, prime and top-coat all the banisters and door frames in our hall, stairs and landing for me (three storey house - by the time he gets to the top the children and dog will have ruined the ground floor. I know, because I did the ground floor in the week before Christmas, and it’s already got marks in it).

 

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Nearholmer

[CKPR]

All this talk of 'transition track' is more suited to the Collectable & Vintage forum where there's a thread about Triang Series 3 track. OK, I know it's forever pre-1923 in our model worlds, but it's 2021 in the real world, not 1965 or whenever the Triang-to-HD adapter rail was first issued [looks at bookcase for relevant Pat Hammond volume].

Edited January 2, 2021 by CKPR

[Edwardian]

Well, I have started trying to lay track on the test track.  I cannot emphasise enough how poor I am at this.

 

Anything to do with model permanent way is a calvary of nerves, frustration and depressing failure.

 

Then there's wiring, which I'm also crap at (and don't understand).

 

I really feel that I have chosen entirely the wrong hobby.

 

I'm four years into this project and have not managed a basic working layout. Or a test track.

 

I have been seriously considering sacking it all to paint hobbits instead.

 

I'd miss CA and all you dear friends, but there is a limit to the failure and frustration one can endure.  

 

Sorry, that was not intended to end up as self-indulgent. 

[Regularity]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Could one sand 0.5 mm off the bottom of the point?

Possibly, but why not insert 0.5mm card/styrene under the plain track, rather than sanding down the points, or faffing around with different underlays?

 

(You can use sheet material, or Evergreen 126, which has 10x 14" lengths of 0.020" x 0.125" (350mm x 0.5mm x3.2mm) strip, which will provide for 100 sleeper-doublers, for a modest fee of 5p per sleeper.)

Edited January 2, 2021 by Regularity
Reference to Evergreen strip.

[simonmcp]

11 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Well, I have started trying to lay track on the test track.  I cannot emphasise enough how poor I am at this.

 

Anything to do with model permanent way is a calvary of nerves, frustration and depressing failure.

 

Then there's wiring, which I'm also crap at (and don't understand).

 

I really feel that I have chosen entirely the wrong hobby.

 

I'm four years into this project and have not managed a basic working layout. Or a test track.

 

I have been seriously considering sacking it all to paint hobbits instead.

 

I'd miss CA and all you dear friends, but there is a limit to the failure and frustration one can endure.  

 

Sorry, that was not intended to end up as self-indulgent. 

I know how you feel, I can't count how many times people have tried to help me in these two areas and I just don't seem to be able to grasp 'Electickery' at all, and even with a full sized track plan still mange to be inches out when transferring to the baseboard. I blame the fact that as far as I know, "Electrician" means someone who does magic with "Electri...", the 'cian' part of the word is actually what the modern use of the word "Magic" really means. The Magi actually means wise, as in the "Three wise men". So a Magician is a wise trickster.

 

As you will very likely know from your profession Edwardian, the English language is a mangled thing indeed but not quite as mangled as most of my track laying.

 

I believe that a certain Mr Rice and others advocate a mirror to line up their tracks, not tried it myself but others swear by it.

[CKPR]

5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Well, I have started trying to lay track on the test track.  I cannot emphasise enough how poor I am at this.

 

Anything to do with model permanent way is a calvary of nerves, frustration and depressing failure.

 

Then there's wiring, which I'm also crap at (and don't understand).

 

I really feel that I have chosen entirely the wrong hobby.

 

I'm four years into this project and have not managed a basic working layout. Or a test track.

 

I have been seriously considering sacking it all to paint hobbits instead.

 

I'd miss CA and all you dear friends, but there is a limit to the failure and frustration one can endure.  

 

Sorry, that was not intended to end up as self-indulgent. 

 

Join the club - I despaired at ever being able to produce a working locomotive chassis, let alone one that ran slowly and smoothly, and was convinced that I couldn't lay track over which anything would run without derailing. The big leap forward came when I stopped trying to rectify [i.e. bodge] my own mistakes and just made or got a new part. Other lightbulb moments were deciding that good running must come before strict accuracy, sticking to approaches that worked and not chasing after fads and fancies, and realising that damaged paintwork,details etc can all be fixed afterwards. I suppose the proof of the pudding is that I have actually exhibited 'Mealsgate'  (single-handed I might add, bar half an hour when the stalwart  Cumbrian railway modeller Tom Jenkinson took over to give me a break) and it all worked really well.

Edited January 2, 2021 by CKPR

[CKPR]

When comes to track, I've long standardised on SMP 'EM' flexitrack and tarted up Marcway (or similar) copper-clad pointwork even though this is very passe these days. Old-fashioned it might be but it is robust and easily adjustable. Also, although I didn't follow his particular method of building trackwork, I found Iain Rice's book on finescale track to be very useful.

 

I should also give public thanks to Chris Gibbon of 'High Level' for not only producing the wherewithal for superb running in 4mm but also for his advice and patience with when I was similarly despairing - High Level gearboxes, Markits wheels and simple beam compensation using London Road Models components have been the means for me to build smooth running pre-group engines in EM.

Edited January 4, 2021 by CKPR

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

I have been seriously considering sacking it all to paint hobbits instead.

 

There is a better alternative (well, there are millions of better alternatives, but sticking with one just for now): set-track, possibly even ready-ballasted set-track. I don't know all the makers, but besides Peco there are some very credible set-tracks out there from European makers and, once they have been weathered-in, they very much do not leap-out and jab the viewer in the eye.

 

In short, what compromises are you ready to make to avoid painting hobbits (I would accept that grey-based Triang stuff from the 1950s personally).

 

Or, use Marcway stuff, assuming that they still exist (having checked, they do, and still in the same shop as fifty years ago by the looks of it).

 

Which will possibly offend people who like making models of track - my defence being that CA promises to be be a model of a place, in which there is a railway, and that it would be a pity for it all to degenerate to being a model of a place without a railway ........ or more succinctly, the best is sometimes the enemy of the good.

 

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Annie]

I have to confess that track was one of the several reasons why I ran away from being a 4mm scale finescale modeller to becoming a 7mm coarse scale modeller.

 

 

I will confess though that my solution was somewhat extreme and would be no use at all to our gracious host.  I have to agree with Mr Nearholmer that finding an off the peg 00 gauge track system that works and doesn't offend the eye too much could be the simplest way to end up with a satisfying model railway that functions well and will allow the building of the rest of the layout to proceed without further worry as to whether the trackwork will cause further problems.

[sem34090]

I'm making do with Peco Bullhead and normal Code 75 points. Not great, but with limited abilities like mine it works.

 

And, @Edwardian, I think everyone here would probably be overjoyed if even after any change of modelling hobby you were to stay around here and share what you do. After all, it's only occasionally that this thread talks about railways.

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

I have been seriously considering sacking it all to paint hobbits instead.

 

Nooo... (Not that I've got anything against the painting of hobbits per se, but pursuing your own version of Middle Earth has to be more creative than pursuing another's.)

 

I'm feeling particularly guilty since it was my attempt to be helpful by pointing out these points that has brought you to this point of desperation. 

[nick_bastable]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Well, I have started trying to lay track on the test track.  I cannot emphasise enough how poor I am at this.

 

Anything to do with model permanent way is a calvary of nerves, frustration and depressing failure.

 

Then there's wiring, which I'm also crap at (and don't understand).

 

I really feel that I have chosen entirely the wrong hobby.

 

I'm four years into this project and have not managed a basic working layout. Or a test track.

 

I have been seriously considering sacking it all to paint hobbits instead.

 

I'd miss CA and all you dear friends, but there is a limit to the failure and frustration one can endure.  

 

Sorry, that was not intended to end up as self-indulgent. 

track laying is a slow sometimes painful slog but watching something move after is magic.   I feel sure amongst the parishioners  a suitable simple wiring plan could be devised 

 

A 20 thou card underlay will solve your mismatched height problem 

 

small steps and keep going your only regret it if you don't

 

Nick B

Edited January 2, 2021 by nick_bastable
more info added

[CKPR]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

I have been seriously considering sacking it all to paint hobbits instead.

 

I say, steady on. If I was switching over to painting miniatures, it would be  strictly 54mm Regular and Yeomanry infantry  1890-1914  as per the articles by Roy Dilley & Bryan Fosten in 'Military Modelling' in the late 1970s. Hobbits, honestly...

Edited January 2, 2021 by CKPR

[Annie]

Hobbits tend to wriggle a lot and protest loudly if you try and paint them, - or at least around here they do.

[Edwardian]

But I like Hobbits, and I can paint them without stress to a reasonable enough standard to avoid frustration and disappointment.

 

Once upon a time, in a faraway British Overseas Territory, I was inspired by the descriptions in Concerning Hobbits... and elsewhere ...

 

Here are a couple as haymakers ...

 

 

 

Law and order was in the hands of a handful of Sheriffs, who were mainly engaged in duties such as haywards ...

 

 

 

Busier, as the Shadow lengthened, were the Bounders, keeping strange folk from the borders of the Shire ...

 

 

 

Shire aristocracy: Old Took

 

 

The Mayor, Will Whitfoot ...

 

 

 Gaffer Gamgee is unimpressed when a Black Rider comes calling ...

 

 

 Meanwhile, three Hobbits make a discrete departure from Bag End across the fields ...

 

 

Farmer Maggot was equally unimpressed by a Black Rider ...

 

 

 

Fatty Bolger contemplates the washing up pile at Crickhollow ....

 

[Nearholmer]

OK, you’ve created an absolutely wonderful population, to live in your wonderful houses, but they need a railway - I can see it in their little eyes.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Annie]

I still have a Hobbit army packed away somewhere in my storage boxes.  They are all pre-Peter Jackson metal figures from various makers and I was very keen on them at one time.  Their greatest victory was defeating my son's Dark Elf army, - an event which he couldn't quite believe had just happened.  Though I will say that my son's big mistake was thinking they were an easy beat and not really putting any effort into his initial attack.

 

Your Hobbits are really lovely James and I can see why you like them.

[simonmcp]

7 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

OK, you’ve created an absolutely wonderful population, to live in your wonderful houses, but they need a railway - I can see it in their eyes.

Unfortunately I think Hobbit's are Luddites, so no large mechanical engineering of any kind. But I am not advocating abandonment of railways quite the opposite. I think the general situation is getting to us all. Press on with what you enjoy Edwardian and maybe a solution will appear. 

[Edwardian]

I actually do have a plan - Three Farthings Junction - where the various pre-Grouping Shire companies meet.  Rather than Hobbiton, I chose Three Farthing Stone, where three of the four Farthings meet, respective territories of the Great West Farthing Railway, the Great East Farthing Railway and the Longbottom Sackville & South Farthing Railway.

[Caley Jim]

1 hour ago, CKPR said:

Did a 20th century descendant of that chap second from the left have a little black moustache and encourage the wearing of black uniforms?

 

Jim

[simonmcp]

2 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

I actually do have a plan - Three Farthings Junction - where the various pre-Grouping Shire companies meet.  Rather than Hobbiton, I chose Three Farthing Stone, where three of the four Farthings meet, respective territories of the Great West Farthing Railway, the Great East Farthing Railway and the Longbottom Sackville & South Farthing Railway.

I see you've taken Mr Macawber's advice and kept a spare Farthing.