Jump to content

Warspite

Whiston and Cogenhoe Quarries

Recommended Posts

Accepting that rule 1 applies for you my suggestions would be as follows.

1/  the run round loop is a great improvement and will add much more interest to the operation.

2/  moving over to the Crushing plant end I would remove that Y point and the small piece of curved track replacing it with a RH curved point to try and keep similar geometry.
Additionally I would move the crushing plant up the slope of the existing siding until the building hits the back scene and chop a slice off for a good fit.  I would also extend the siding by the same amount and curve it slightly away from the back scene.

 

Have fun.

 

Best 

Edited by Barnaby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/02/2019 at 23:53, south_tyne said:

 

Hi Stephen,

 

Personally I much prefer the revised plan. It is less cluttered and has more space to breath (if that makes sense!). Also, although I cannot quite put my finger on the reasons why, it looks more prototypical. I am in agreement that an industrial railway such as this would only lay the amount of track that was absolutely necessary for operation, due to cost factors, therefore the simpler 'less is more' approach would seem fitting. Again just a completely personal opinion and no doubt others will disagree......

 

I really like the use of the Y-points as well. I think it gives the trackplan a really nice, natural flow. 

 

David

 

Thanks David. What you've said makes perfect sense. In the past I’ve told myself ‘less is more’ and obviously got carried away this time! I've also found that some of the ironstone quarries used fairly short turnouts as both space and cost were factors in their own track design so the Y points seem to work on both counts.

 

Stephen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/02/2019 at 08:06, 81A Oldoak said:

Stephen,

I prefer the second, simpler plan. The inclusion of a loop adds greatly to the operational and play value and allows space for scenic interest. . I'm not convinced that you should use Code 124 flat-bottom rail in a 1960s industrial complex, especially a quarry. It needs to look quite decrepit. 

 

Regards,

 

Chris K

 

 

Chris

 

From all the quarry yard photos I’ve looked at, the track is barely visible due to all the ‘gunk’. Where it can be seen, it looks like chaired bullhead, as you would expect, although there is some spiked track and even some with concrete sleepers!

 

The photo below shows a section of track I salvaged from the old layout with the rather run-down look I tried to create which I want to repeat in the new layout. I guess it’s about finding the balance between authentic grungy track and smooth running although ‘Stay-alive’ on my locos (Ixion/Minerva, of course!) certainly helps. However, just think what we could do if the locos were radio-controlled … !

 

1185645802_Track1.jpg.e1dca8d7c53f8d540ceafb9061c9974a.jpg

 

Stephen

 

  • Like 6
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Warspite said:

 

Chris

 

From all the quarry yard photos I’ve looked at, the track is barely visible due to all the ‘gunk’. Where it can be seen, it looks like chaired bullhead, as you would expect, although there is some spiked track and even some with concrete sleepers!

 

The photo below shows a section of track I salvaged from the old layout with the rather run-down look I tried to create which I want to repeat in the new layout. I guess it’s about finding the balance between authentic grungy track and smooth running although ‘Stay-alive’ on my locos (Ixion/Minerva, of course!) certainly helps. However, just think what we could do if the locos were radio-controlled … !

 

1185645802_Track1.jpg.e1dca8d7c53f8d540ceafb9061c9974a.jpg

 

Stephen

 

Very nice.  I have a 57XX fitted with the Protocab system, which means that track is actually optional. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be optional from a “support” point of view, it might also be optional from a “power” point of view, but I’m fairly sure it’s still needed from a “steering” point of view...

 

my trials of battery operation so far have been a bit disappointing (see my Duchess thread) but we live in hope

 

best

Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Warspite said:

 

Chris

 

From all the quarry yard photos I’ve looked at, the track is barely visible due to all the ‘gunk’. Where it can be seen, it looks like chaired bullhead, as you would expect, although there is some spiked track and even some with concrete sleepers!

 

The photo below shows a section of track I salvaged from the old layout with the rather run-down look I tried to create which I want to repeat in the new layout. I guess it’s about finding the balance between authentic grungy track and smooth running although ‘Stay-alive’ on my locos (Ixion/Minerva, of course!) certainly helps. However, just think what we could do if the locos were radio-controlled … !

 

1185645802_Track1.jpg.e1dca8d7c53f8d540ceafb9061c9974a.jpg

 

Stephen

 

 

7 hours ago, 81A Oldoak said:

Very nice.  I have a 57XX fitted with the Protocab system, which means that track is actually optional. 

 

6 hours ago, Simond said:

Might be optional from a “support” point of view, it might also be optional from a “power” point of view, but I’m fairly sure it’s still needed from a “steering” point of view...

 

my trials of battery operation so far have been a bit disappointing (see my Duchess thread) but we live in hope

 

best

Simon

 

I think radio control has got to be the future, particularly in the larger scales. Imagine a world where we don't have to worry about electrical trickery, polarity switching etc. and we can run our locos on rusty, weed-infested track!

 

I know the technology already exists but it is obviously going to take an awful long time for it to become the norm and enter the mainstream. I don't know whether it's a question of cost, technological limitations or simply reluctance to change which hasn't seen it more widely adopted to date but I for one would love to see it come to the fore. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without, hopefully, wandering too far off topic, it’s entirely possible to have reliable r/c and battery operation in 7mm.  It’s also possible to have a huge variety of sound files, synchronised to the loco valve gear.  I had hoped to achieve both, but at the moment, to achieve the performance I expect, the price is more than I’m willing to pay.  

 

I’d like Zimo or ESU to come up with an r/c system compatible with their decoders, and ideally compatible with standard DCC control (so anybody’s control system works with it) - the Tam Valley DRS is close but simply does not have the current capacity needed for a big loco and a long train, which I guess is typical of garden railways.  They do a bigger receiver, but another £75, on top of the decoder cost, was too expensive imo.

 

(and I ENJOY wiring layouts :) )

 

best

Simon

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Simond said:

Without, hopefully, wandering too far off topic, it’s entirely possible to have reliable r/c and battery operation in 7mm.  It’s also possible to have a huge variety of sound files, synchronised to the loco valve gear.  I had hoped to achieve both, but at the moment, to achieve the performance I expect, the price is more than I’m willing to pay.  

 

I’d like Zimo or ESU to come up with an r/c system compatible with their decoders, and ideally compatible with standard DCC control (so anybody’s control system works with it) - the Tam Valley DRS is close but simply does not have the current capacity needed for a big loco and a long train, which I guess is typical of garden railways.  They do a bigger receiver, but another £75, on top of the decoder cost, was too expensive imo.

 

(and I ENJOY wiring layouts :) )

 

best

Simon

 

 

 

That's interesting and very true. There have been a 've articles in the Guild Gazette recently explaining the technology - it remains niche though. I for one would like to see it more prominent. 

 

Anyway......

 

Steve, sorry for wandering off-topic and hijacking your thread. I'm really looking forward to seeing what you do with the new layout :good_mini:

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/02/2019 at 10:25, Barnaby said:

Accepting that rule 1 applies for you my suggestions would be as follows.

1/  the run round loop is a great improvement and will add much more interest to the operation.

2/  moving over to the Crushing plant end I would remove that Y point and the small piece of curved track replacing it with a RH curved point to try and keep similar geometry.
Additionally I would move the crushing plant up the slope of the existing siding until the building hits the back scene and chop a slice off for a good fit.  I would also extend the siding by the same amount and curve it slightly away from the back scene.

 

Have fun.

 

Best 

 

Hi Barnaby

 

Thanks for your suggestion. I do like the geometry of the curved turnouts but they're rather big, 513mm long compared with 382mm for a Y turnout, a difference of 131mm or over 5”. I did try putting one into the plan but to keep the length of the shed and coal stage sidings, I needed to skew the layout slightly and also shorten the top hidden siding. I’m not sure many ironstone quarries had curved turnouts in their yards although there looks like a gentle curved one at Cranford. I’ve seen Y points in some of the photos, for instance there was a very short one in the yard at Blisworth. On a more practical note, I already have a number of Y turnouts from the old layout and the Setrack RH turnout I acquired some months ago so I’ll probably run with my revised plan and see how it looks ‘on the ground’.

 

Stephen

Edited by Warspite
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/02/2019 at 18:45, 81A Oldoak said:

Very nice.  I have a 57XX fitted with the Protocab system, which means that track is actually optional. 

 

Chris

 

I thought I'd read on here about your Photocab fiited Minerva Pannier. My doubt would be trying to fit receiver, battery, decoder, speaker etc. in something like my Manning Wardle H class which, as you well know, is somewhat smaller than a 57XX.

 

1288310726_IxionManningWardle1cropped1080px.jpg.650ce553d23371b3bf5643671a6cc8e3.jpg

 

Not much space in there! I know Paul Chetter had lots of 'fun' fitting Zimo decoder, speaker, smoke unit and Stay-Alive in such a small loco although the last item wouldn't be needed with the Photocab.

 

Stephen

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/02/2019 at 07:22, Simond said:

Without, hopefully, wandering too far off topic, it’s entirely possible to have reliable r/c and battery operation in 7mm.  It’s also possible to have a huge variety of sound files, synchronised to the loco valve gear.  I had hoped to achieve both, but at the moment, to achieve the performance I expect, the price is more than I’m willing to pay.  

 

I’d like Zimo or ESU to come up with an r/c system compatible with their decoders, and ideally compatible with standard DCC control (so anybody’s control system works with it) - the Tam Valley DRS is close but simply does not have the current capacity needed for a big loco and a long train, which I guess is typical of garden railways.  They do a bigger receiver, but another £75, on top of the decoder cost, was too expensive imo.

 

(and I ENJOY wiring layouts :) )

 

best

Simon

 

 

 

On 25/02/2019 at 10:47, south_tyne said:

 

That's interesting and very true. There have been a 've articles in the Guild Gazette recently explaining the technology - it remains niche though. I for one would like to see it more prominent. 

 

Anyway......

 

Steve, sorry for wandering off-topic and hijacking your thread. I'm really looking forward to seeing what you do with the new layout :good_mini:

 

David

 

Thanks guys. Don't worry about wandering off topic, after all, I raised the issue of R/C. I'll look back at the articles in the Gazette but, as I said to Chris K, my main concern would be the size of the components in very small locomotives, albeit 7mm scale.

 

Stephen

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stephen,

Just found this thread and will follow with interest. The back-story is very inviting...

Sorry to hi-jack but on the question of RC, I have successfully built a Midland 0-6-0 with a battery in the tender and all the receiver and other gubbins in the loco. Obviously a bit big for you (and me actually!) but I'm just re-building an 0-6-0 tank with the same RC gubbins but I got the supplier (Red Arrow - no connection just a happy customer) to split the gubbins into two portions, one to fit in either tank with the battery stuffed in the boiler.

RC is definitely the way to go - no wires, no polarity probs, no dirty wheel probs. Charging is no probs either - I just rig up some form of current collection on the loco, wire up the traverser so it's permanently live two-rail and so every time the loco is left standing on it, it's charging. 

I also prefer the revised plan - less is more for sure.

Richard

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tricky said:

Hi Stephen,

Just found this thread and will follow with interest. The back-story is very inviting...

Sorry to hi-jack but on the question of RC, I have successfully built a Midland 0-6-0 with a battery in the tender and all the receiver and other gubbins in the loco. Obviously a bit big for you (and me actually!) but I'm just re-building an 0-6-0 tank with the same RC gubbins but I got the supplier (Red Arrow - no connection just a happy customer) to split the gubbins into two portions, one to fit in either tank with the battery stuffed in the boiler.

RC is definitely the way to go - no wires, no polarity probs, no dirty wheel probs. Charging is no probs either - I just rig up some form of current collection on the loco, wire up the traverser so it's permanently live two-rail and so every time the loco is left standing on it, it's charging. 

I also prefer the revised plan - less is more for sure.

Richard

 

Hi Richard

 

Thanks for the information about the R/C work on your 0-6-0T. I do like the idea of constant charging when the loco is left standing. If charging is done in this way, presumably there is no requirement for a charging socket or have I missed something obvious?

 

Stephen

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Warspite said:

 

Hi Richard

 

Thanks for the information about the R/C work on your 0-6-0T. I do like the idea of constant charging when the loco is left standing. If charging is done in this way, presumably there is no requirement for a charging socket or have I missed something obvious?

 

Stephen

You are correct.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t provided an update for a little while but have made some limited progress on the layout recently.

 

I had a few concerns with my ‘final’ track plan after mocking up movements of loaded and empty tipplers on paper. Although I liked the idea of separate tracks to the quarries and the exchange sidings, I discovered that at some point a rake of loads would block the arrival of a rake of empties. This would mean removing the stock from the hidden sidings by hand before the loads could be dispatched!

 

The best solution to this conundrum was a two track traverser to accommodate 6 tipplers (with a small 0-4-0ST) or 5 tipplers and anything up to a Victory 0-6-0T, or even (dare I say), an S&L ex-BR class 14. Although the traverser could be designed to feed the two separate tracks, I didn’t have enough space to align these tracks to the parallel tracks of the traverser without compromising the length of the run-round or the engine shed tracks. Having the traverser feed into a single track also keeps everything simple and less cluttered.

 

1977788631_WhistonCogenhoeTrackplanRevisedJune2019.jpg.4cfeb4df122222512a58e9182c452067.jpg

 

I've constructed the traverser from layers of 5mm foamboard (suitably braced). One advantage of foamboard is that the shiny surface slides easily, even with a loaded train plus locomotive. In testing, the traverser has worked fine, even with a heavy Heljan class 47. On the non-shiny facing edges, I added thin strips of plasticard.

 

Traverser.jpg.7102f8c13719865cc15cd23bbaa3ebf7.jpg

 

Further update soon ...

 

Stephen

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen, 

 

Please to see you making progress. If you don't mind me asking, how many layers od foamboard have you used for the traversed? Sorry, I can't quite tell from the photograph. Mind it must be robust enough if it supports the weight of a class 47!!

 

Cheers,

David

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, south_tyne said:

Stephen, 

 

Please to see you making progress. If you don't mind me asking, how many layers od foamboard have you used for the traversed? Sorry, I can't quite tell from the photograph. Mind it must be robust enough if it supports the weight of a class 47!!

 

Cheers,

David

 

 

David

 

The ‘fixed’ part of the traverser is made up of two layers of 5mm foamboard on top of the 5mm foamboard base. The ‘sliding’ part is a single layer of 5mm foamboard, sliding on a 5mm layer. On top of each side of the ‘sliding’ part is a narrow strip of foamboard which act as handles. One of these strips can be seen alongside the track with the tippler.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Stephen

 

2116591809_Traverserclose-up.jpg.0a674b2e85f84aaced16dcca553395f9.jpg

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Warspite said:

 

David

 

The ‘fixed’ part of the traverser is made up of two layers of 5mm foamboard on top of the 5mm foamboard base. The ‘sliding’ part is a single layer of 5mm foamboard, sliding on a 5mm layer. On top of each side of the ‘sliding’ part is a narrow strip of foamboard which act as handles. One of these strips can be seen alongside the track with the tippler.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Stephen

 

2116591809_Traverserclose-up.jpg.0a674b2e85f84aaced16dcca553395f9.jpg

 

 

Thank you for getting back to me so quickly Stephen. That description is great and the photo is smashing in showing the method you have used. I am currently debating on what to utilise for the traverser on the micro layout I have just commenced; I do have a sheet of foamboard kicking around, so I think I'll give it a go. 

 

Thanks again for your help.

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After looking at options for slow action point control, I have opted for the Peco SmartSwitch system including Peco SmartFrogs and a DCC Stationary Decoder. I know other point control systems are available but SmartSwitch is very easy to set up, even for a technically inept individual like me.

 

I'm trying surface mounting the servos using brass rod to connect the servo to the turnout. Because my ‘baseboard’ consists of foamboard ‘boxes’ (sitting on a metal frame), I don’t want to damage the structural integrity of the foamboard. Surface mounting on an additional layer of 5mm foamboard provides extra strength and ease of access to the servos and SmartFrogs. It also means the turnouts can be self-contained on individual ‘modules’ which gives me more flexibility in layout design.

 

Overhead view of the ‘module’ with the wiring layout and servo connection. The wiring is in troughs in the foamboard.

5290339_Overheadview-wiring.jpg.f022dee427e791776b41dbf1058e4213.jpg

 

Overhead view with the top layer of foamboard added. This will be the base for scenery. The top layer is not pinned down yet.

1365750393_Overheadview-scenerybase.jpg.8f97e70d8f24aa5361ebc7afc7dc5623.jpg

 

Side view.

671641659_Sideview.jpg.55dfbb5fc7c4e7a9f3508b5ea81139aa.jpg

 

When the track is 'ballasted' (if I can call it ballast - more like 'gunk'), the wires will be covered and I have given some thoughts to hiding the servo and SmartFrog.

 

Stephen

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one downside of surface mounting the servos and SmartFrogs is that they have to be hidden.

 

However, with the multitude of ancillary buildings at most ironstone quarry yards, I didn’t think this would be too difficult. To cover the first servo and SmartFrog, I’ve built a small maintenance hut broadly based on one at Irchester. I drew up a design in SketchUp and built the hut using my preferred method of a 3mm foamboard shell with covering from Slaters and Wills styrene sheet. On this one, I used Port Wynnstay windows and home-made doors. The original at Irchester was decidedly dilapidated so I wanted to create that look, but probably need to do a bit more distressing, particularly to the roof!

 

My design in SketchUp

Hut1b.jpg.a10ff255b00a589d3758a4aa8a961922.jpg

 

The foamboard shell with styrene walls.

1404834454_HutShell1.jpg.ca09d5ab21d491db986560c8b263c723.jpg

 

Now with roof - the SmartFrog can be seen just inside the door.

2002203317_Hutwithroof.jpg.fa24b331ccfa4eeb7e0be19fdaa00935.jpg

 

The final building. I need to fit door handles. It was my wife’s idea to have one door open but arranged so that the viewer cannot see inside. It was a bit of a hassle but it probably looks better for it!

1779973506_MaintenanceHut.jpg.85b5aa1e24ff613d5f2f256bf7209766.jpg

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I haven’t posted on this thread for eight months, I feel some sort of explanation is called for. In case anybody wondered, my planned quarry layout will still happen although, for a variety of reasons, progress has been non-existent in that eight months.

 

Just to recap, after our house extension project was finished, SWMBO allocated me a space in our new shared study for a layout board measuring 3650mm x 900mm. However, as everybody knows, model railways and their associated paraphernalia create a lot of storage demands. Stock, track, scenic stuff, tools and bits and pieces not to mention many years of magazines all need space. Luckily, my wife had for some time been thinking of putting our garage to better use. We are fortunate to have a double garage but this was full of ‘things we might need in the future.’ SWMBO says it was at least half full of miscellaneous railway ‘stuff’ (the current car has never had a home there). The garage was built as double length rather than double width so we decided to divide it equally so there was still space to park a medium sized car in the front half if needed. After we had cleared everything out except for the ‘essentials’ left in the front half, we had a fire-proof dividing wall built between the two halves, a new insulated ceiling, window installed, all walls and floor insulated and valences fitted complete with hidden lighting . It already had some nice glazed double doors recycled from our old conservatory. When everything was dry and the walls, woodwork and valences painted, we put down carpet tiles. To be truthful, my wife shamed me by taking on that task with great enthusiasm and made a fantastic job of it!  

 

1631052607_GarageRoom.jpg.9e6627aaf6938d6c526c314b3bdaa62a.jpg

 

The dimensions of the new room are 4700mm x 2380mm (approx. 15’ 5” x 7’ 10”) with a width of 700mm for the main board and 600mm for the other.

 

With hindsight, I had realised that the 900mm width of the layout in the study was too much, especially with a rail height of 1420mm. I’ve therefore cut the study boards back to 700mm as well and this has made more space for moving around, important when sharing a space, and also reduced the risk of banging heads when opening the cupboards underneath!  

 

The work on the garage was completed by the end of September last year. However, my part of the deal for taking over the new railway room was that I needed to sort out (in some sort of order) years of accumulating model railway stock of various scales and origins. There was also the not so small matter of many years of railway and model railway magazines to deal with. All this is taking a long time. Non-railway interests, holidays and life in general have also meant that there has been no time for the layout or anything much else railway related, including posting on here.

 

At the end of January, I was determined to make a fresh start on the quarry layout regardless of life’s other interruptions. Unfortunately, this ‘new start’ coincided with me going down with Type A ‘flu and pneumonia. I ended up in hospital for two weeks with the first week in Intensive Care. I was on oxygen to assist my breathing and on IV antibiotics and ended up losing a stone in weight. I’ve been home now for nearly three weeks and have just finished another course of antibiotics as there is still some residual chest infection. So much for the ‘fresh start’! At least I now feel well enough to sit at the computer and start thinking about layout designs again, particularly with the new railway room giving me an opportunity to expand the quarry layout or indeed consider other options.

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very sorry to hear about your health ' but glad you're on the mend!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Giles and to everybody who has shown their support since I posted my update. Things are improving slowly and I’m trying to restore muscle wastage with leg exercises etc. I would like to get on with some modelling, perhaps kit building but need to be careful about using adhesives which may affect my respiratory issues. At least layout planning only involves sitting at the PC!

 

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(  3D printing...... laser cutting.... cnc milling.....)  :-)

  • Funny 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.