Tinories, a gauge 1 terminus

[rockershovel]

Shame about the lack of tinplate, it would really suit the locos and stock.

[Nearholmer]

I beg to differ, Rocker.

 

Tinplate buildings were largely the province of the "toy" end of things. Wooden-sleepered track, with solid-drawn rail, and semi-scale rolling stock implies "model railway", and way back to the dawn, that tended to imply wooden buildings, with a few notable exceptions. Many of the early plans for wooden buildings and structures were drawn by Henry Greenly. If you google "bassett lowke station", and select images, there is barely any tinplate in sight.

 

Kevin

[unravelled]

The other classic building material of the 50s is hardboard. I will probably be using mdf, as I've not been too impressed by ply. It may be my cellar conditions, but ply warps horribly, and so is impossibe to lasercut well because it's not flat. While overscale bricks have a certain charm, I think I'll be going for scale.

 

I did consider Bilteezi sheets to give a suitable large brick period character, but I feel that enlarging any printed material won't produce good results.

 

Dave

[unravelled]

Not a lot of progress recently, mainly thinking and planning. Part of the problem is that there will be 00 storage sidings above, and I wanted to disguise them in some way.

 

 

My solution is to set a row of columns adjacent to the third track, which will seem to support a series of girders hiding a yard above. This is the trial assembly.

 

 

The idea is that the bottom section is the support girder, with what are effectively screening/fence panels above. The top panels really should be shallower, so I might just cut filler pieces to give this effect. The columns, which aren't clear in the photos, are adapted from kitchen unit legs and are actively keeping the 00 yard level. The girders are made from scavenged venetian blind slats. I'm trying to capture the spirit of tinplate, and think it works OK as a first run.

 

My next step is to get the 00 sidings wired up and point motors working, then the girders can be finished and platforms built.

 

Thanks

 

Dave

 

 

[Nearholmer]

Definitely has potential.

 

It is good to be reminded of how small 00 is, too.

 

K

[Robert Shrives]

Hi ,

Picked up on this lovely layout in progress due to the entry about G1. A lovely story of adversity about to be overcome and the long girder supporting above is an inspired solution.

 

Robert  

[unravelled]

After a long break for some real world building work, I've restarted work on Tinories. Actually it's all been taken up and relaid. There were two reasons for this. First I had to knock a double track hole through the wall for the tracks to reach the garden. Poor planning meant dust everywhere, and a lot of cleaning up, so I took the opportunity to clear and repaint the baseboard. I had seen photos on another thread of a layout under construction on a black painted baseboard, which produced a neat look, so I went for this approach. Actually the paint I've used is a very dark grey, but I think it looks better at the construction phase than the lighter colour I had originally used. The track plan has been modified, and should give access to more siding space than before. All the track is wired and working for stud contact pickup. I've put a simple push switch at the point end of any siding so that locos can be isolated. Everything is too cluttered at this stage to photograph the rest, but here are the platforms under construction.

 

 

I know the platforms are narrow, but  I feel that's in the spirit of tinplate. They are constructed of my favourite free modelling material, venetian blind slats, and will have hardboard tops. There will be a small concourse with stairs to road level above. The blocks are only to locate the platforms, and are not attached to the sides. This means that the tops can be put on with the platforms inverted, (I hope).

 

More soon ( I've said that before, haven't I...)

 

Dave

[Nearholmer]

Good to see Tinories breaking surface again.

 

Can we expect trains to be running out among the daffodils soon?

[unravelled]

Good to see Tinories breaking surface again.

 

Can we expect trains to be running out among the daffodils soon?

My ambition to run the track round the garden has been abandoned. The posts were errected over 30 years ago, but other things got in the way. Recently I had the idea of another terminus on the patio, but running in and out of the cellar to control things would have been a problem. So my latest plan is a simple return loop on the patio. This will allow sensible out and back running, hopefully within the capabilities of the clockwork locos. This will require a radius on the loop of under 6 feet, so some track rebuilding will be needed, possbly with some gauge widening.

There will be daffodils, but not this year's...

 

Thanks

 

Dave

[sem34090]

Just come across this, and can't wait to see more!
 

Especially of those LSWR coaches and intriguing locos...

[roythebus]

Going back to post no,1, the Peco bullhead track is now in production. how's the 00 layout going?

[unravelled]

The 00 has got as far as a simple circuit, in code 100, some details in the Wylde thread (in sig). But at the moment the track is covered with tools, wood, etc. from the G1 work. When the bullhead single slip comes out, I'll be buying the necessary bits for the main lines.

On Tinories, a start has been made on platform tops.

 

Thanks

 

Dave

[unravelled]

I've been having fun working on Tinories, and made a bit of progress. The platforms are done, and supports for the 00 gauge above fitted. These will be clad to make them more like rivetted steel.

 

 

I'm working on the concourse area at the moment. Simple buffer stops have been guestimated from a photo, and a first attempt at the stairs (to the entrance above) have been made.

 

 

I've even got some stock on the track, though it still needs a good clean...

 

 

I hope  to get  the concourse finished soon, then there's a barrow crossing to make...

 

Thanks

 

Dave

[unravelled]

Another couple of years on, and the station throat has been remodelled allowing longer platforms. A revised "girder" facade has been constructed to disguise the 00, (still waiting for the bullhead double slip...). Some of the  white "lamp globes", (OK cupboard door knobs) operate the points on the 00 sidings above.

 

The platform extension was made possible by moving the facing crossover out past the trailing one. In some ways I liked the old version better because the facing crossover was inside the pair of points leading to the platforms on the left of the picture. In the new setup there are more moves involving traversing a facing point.

 

 

Incidentally  is there a real world preference  for which order the facing and trailing crossovers occur? I now have it with the facing crossover coming first when entering the station.

 

Other work has seen my 1:32 radio controlled pannier tank put back together. I also bought a layout of plastic track for my grandson to play trains on. I almost ended up with 16mm ish models, but decided to use cheap 16mm chassis with small G1 loco bodies. I recently acquired some characterful G1 sentinel bodies, which I am fitting with (16mm) r/c chassis for a cheap  and cheerful , and child friendly, locos.

Outdoors, I have abandoned the round the garden plans and demolished most of the 30+ year old infrastructure. My current plan is for  a balloon loop on the patio for simple out and back operation, hopefully short enough for the clockwork locos. The diameter will be tight at about 11 feet, but should be ok for most of my stock.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

 

[Pacific231G]

9 hours ago, unravelled said:

Another couple of years on, and the station throat has been remodelled allowing longer platforms. A revised "girder" facade has been constructed to disguise the 00, (still waiting for the bullhead double slip...). Some of the  white "lamp globes", (OK cupboard door knobs) operate the points on the 00 sidings above.

 

The platform extension was made possible by moving the facing crossover out past the trailing one. In some ways I liked the old version better because the facing crossover was inside the pair of points leading to the platforms on the left of the picture. In the new setup there are more moves involving traversing a facing point.

 

Incidentally  is there a real world preference  for which order the facing and trailing crossovers occur? I now have it with the facing crossover coming first when entering the station.

 

 

 

 

It looks fabulous. The girder facade gives it a lovely urban "Widened Lines" atmosphere with a wonderful period "serious model railway of the 1930s" feel about it.

At a terminus you'll always have facing points, usually rather more going in than coming out.

I've always assumed that the trailing crossover normally comes at the country end of the throat simple because you always want departing trains to end up on the left hand main line track *.

 

For three platforms this is  the most efficient throat using simple turnouts in terms of shortest length and hence longest platforms.

 

 

Minories (with the addition of the loco layover siding ) is just this with the direction of the centre two points reverseds to lose all but one of the immediate S curves you get with crossovers on straight track. 

 

*This handedness does make a difference which was why, after France recovered Alsace-Lorraine in 1919, the trains there continued to run on the right hand track in the German way rather than on the Anglo French left. It was cheaper to build flying junctions to swap sides at he former borders than to relay most of the trackwork in Alsace. Simillrly, soon after D-Day, one of the senior USArmy Transportation Corps officers (who were all railroaders) created absolute chaos by insisting on running his supply trains on the newly captured railways on the right. The track layouts just weren't laid out that way!

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Pacific231G
spelling and clarification

[Nearholmer]

It does immediately evoke widened lines or ELL. Looking very suitable.

[unravelled]

OK, here are four diagrams to explain my constraints and questions.

These are in the usual Minories orientation, with platforms to the left, and the world to the right.

 

The top diagram was my old layout, which I recently altered to increase platform lengths. The second is my current arrangement, where  I just moved the crossover to the world end of the layout. After making this change I realised that the first diagram has the advantage of reducing facing movements, as trains to the diverging track don't traverse it.There are a couple of constraints to note. The diverging single pair of points is a fixed factor, it can't move any further right. Also the crossovers are each single units, and at the moment I don't want to chop them up, so the fourth diagram is not achievable at the moment

My question is whether there would be an operational preference for one of the middle two layouts over the other?  Any thoughts?

 

Thanks

 

Dave

 

[Florence Locomotive Works]

I’d venture to say that all of those have great potential for clockwork operation, if that is the intention. Then again my only experience with clockwork was in o gauge.

Douglas

[Nearholmer]

5 hours ago, unravelled said:

My question is whether there would be an operational preference for one of the middle two layouts over the other?  Any thoughts?

I think the third of your options, so the lower of the middle two, is better in model railway terms, because it puts a generous straight section between the changes of motion perpendicular to the direction of travel for trains coming out of the bottom platform, which ought to help avoid derailments and coupling-tangles.

[unravelled]

1 hour ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

I’d venture to say that all of those have great potential for clockwork operation, if that is the intention. Then again my only experience with clockwork was in o gauge.

Douglas

Thanks, I only have two clockwork locos, a 112 tank which will remain within station limits, and a Precursor tank, which should be able to manage an out and back run. There are stud contact electric, r/c electric, and steam, (untested for many years).

 

Dave

[unravelled]

59 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I think the third of your options, so the lower of the middle two, is better in model railway terms, because it puts a generous straight section between the changes of motion perpendicular to the direction of travel for trains coming out of the bottom platform, which ought to help avoid derailments and coupling-tangles.

That's something I had not considered. My take on it had been that in reality, it would make sense for the inbound trains to meet the diverging route later rather than sooner, as speeds were reducing for the station. I will probably exchange the crossovers before long.

 

Thanks

 

Dave

[Florence Locomotive Works]

12 minutes ago, unravelled said:

steam, (untested for many years).

(Assuming you mean live steam)

 

Depending on how old it is, and what condition the motion safety valve etc is in, it may still work, but being gauge 1 it’s more than likely high pressure steam, it will probably need boiler backhead fittings replaced, unless it’s used distilled water the majority of its life. 

[unravelled]

11 minutes ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

(Assuming you mean live steam)

 

Depending on how old it is, and what condition the motion safety valve etc is in, it may still work, but being gauge 1 it’s more than likely high pressure steam, it will probably need boiler backhead fittings replaced, unless it’s used distilled water the majority of its life. 

Several pot boilers, and a couple of higher pressure ones. Having blown up a pot boiler loco may years ago, I will be careful if I ever come to steam them again.

 

Thanks

 

Dave

 

 

[Florence Locomotive Works]

6 minutes ago, unravelled said:

Several pot boilers, and a couple of higher pressure ones. Having blown up a pot boiler loco may years ago, I will be careful if I ever come to steam them again.

 

Thanks

 

Dave

 

 

The pot boilers have a much higher chance of working than the HP ones, however buying a lower pressure safety valve might be advisable. Sorry to hear about one blowing up, I almost imploded one on accident several months ago. (unscrewed a fitting not knowing the water was still boiling) 

[J. S. Bach]

11 hours ago, unravelled said:

OK, here are four diagrams to explain my constraints and questions.

These are in the usual Minories orientation, with platforms to the left, and the world to the right.

 

The top diagram was my old layout, which I recently altered to increase platform lengths. The second is my current arrangement, where  I just moved the crossover to the world end of the layout. After making this change I realised that the first diagram has the advantage of reducing facing movements, as trains to the diverging track don't traverse it.There are a couple of constraints to note. The diverging single pair of points is a fixed factor, it can't move any further right. Also the crossovers are each single units, and at the moment I don't want to chop them up, so the fourth diagram is not achievable at the moment

My question is whether there would be an operational preference for one of the middle two layouts over the other?  Any thoughts?

 

Thanks

 

Dave

 

The bottom three are all operationally the same; any differences would (probably) be due to what equipment is being operated through the interlocking and its limitations.