West Riding Lines - Dewsbury Midland 00

[Joseph_Pestell]

Been doing a lot of thinking about the viaduct over the weekend, with some help from the guys on the laser cutting thread.

 

My original idea was to use the Ratio kit. It is about the right height. I could live with the idea of adjusting the arches on the non-viewing side to create the curve.

 

But having looked at numerous photos of bridges and viaducts, I now realise that the Ratio viaduct is hopelessly wrong. Ratio (and others) have tried to produce several models with one set of tooling and it does not work. That shape of arch (flat) only works for a bridge where the downward forces from the weight/mass of  the loco are being absorbed by the abutments and short, thick piers. As soon as the piers become taller and relatively thin, the arch has to be much less flat, almost a complete 180 degree, arch.

 

So this is going to have to be a scratchbuild albeit with a kit of parts as many are repeated over the 30 arches.

[meil]

 

 

But having looked at numerous photos of bridges and viaducts, I now realise that the Ratio viaduct is hopelessly wrong. Ratio (and others) have tried to produce several models with one set of tooling and it does not work. That shape of arch (flat) only works for a bridge where the downward forces from the weight/mass of  the loco are being absorbed by the abutments and short, thick piers. As soon as the piers become taller and relatively thin, the arch has to be much less flat, almost a complete 180 degree, arch.

 

 

It's not "hopelessly wrong" at all. The span to depth ratio of the Ratio viaduct is about 1:2.5. If you look at Ribblehead viaduct it is about 1:2.8. Near enough for me and far from Hopelessly Wrong.

[Joseph_Pestell]

It's not "hopelessly wrong" at all. The span to depth ratio of the Ratio viaduct is about 1:2.5. If you look at Ribblehead viaduct it is about 1:2.8. Near enough for me and far from Hopelessly Wrong.

As it happens, Ribblehead is one of those that I have been looking at, having found a cheap copy (remaindered) of Anderson & Fox last week.

 

45' seems to be very much the dimension of choice for arches at that time. But for bridges the arch is much flatter than for a high viaduct. I take your point about the span to depth proportion but that  is because the bridge is proportionally rather taller/thicker above the centre of the arch than the viaduct is. As I said in my post, it is all about the direction of the forces generated as the loco moves across the viaduct.

 

The Ratio one works fine in the context as it is photographed on the box, a three-arch bridge across a deep cutting. That would be fine because the sides of the cutting/abutments would be taking most of the force. But it does not work for a 30-arch viaduct.

[jamie92208]

One thing to remember is that every 6th pier is thicker than the rest. The Midland got bitten by a progressive collapse of a viaduct somewhere in the Aire Valley. the L & Y at Penistone. They therefore put in a much thicker pier every 6th. Ribblehead has this feature.

 

I did a curved viaduct for Green Ayre

This is part of it. The other part is removable for various reasons.

Obviously it is in 7mm so the carcase is 3mm ply. I drew the arch form from measurements of the prototype then worked out how much narrower the inside arch was than the outer arch. Printed those out from the CAD file and glued them to the ply then cut them out with a jig saw. The arch has mounting board inside it and the stonework is DAS. I roll this out to about 1.5 to 2mm thick then glue an area about 3" square onto the ply and scribe it wet. First mark out the stonework with a cocktail stick then roll the end of a paintbrush round the stones. This raises tem and gives the required affect. If you want copes of the artwork I would be happy to resize them to 2mm for you.

 

Jamie

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Jamie,

Thanks for the offer of artwork. May take you up on it but the laser cut guys have come up with another dodge for that.

Even your viaduct has slightly flatter arches because of short piers.

I had noted, from Ribblehead and others, the thicker piers, and have built that into the design. It's actually very helpful because I can put some of those on the baseboard joins and have the front dressing held with double-sided tape or velcro to hide the join (as Eric used to say to Ernie).

[Joseph_Pestell]

As it happens, Ribblehead is one of those that I have been looking at, having found a cheap copy (remaindered) of Anderson & Fox last week.

 

45' seems to be very much the dimension of choice for arches at that time. But for bridges the arch is much flatter than for a high viaduct. I take your point about the span to depth proportion but that  is because the bridge is proportionally rather taller/thicker above the centre of the arch than the viaduct is. As I said in my post, it is all about the direction of the forces generated as the loco moves across the viaduct.

 

The Ratio one works fine in the context as it is photographed on the box, a three-arch bridge across a deep cutting. That would be fine because the sides of the cutting/abutments would be taking most of the force. But it does not work for a 30-arch viaduct.

 

Taking another look at Anderson & Fox yesterday evening, I noticed that Arten Gill viaduct, for which they have reproduced an engineers' drawing, is curved to the same 60-furlong radius as was proposed for the viaduct at Dewsbury. So, with a bit of luck, I can recreate that drawing to scale and not need to do quite so much maths.

[Joseph_Pestell]

York Modelmaking just e-mailed. Price for cutting parts for viaduct very reasonable - way cheaper than using a lot of Ratio kits. Just need to see whether we can get enough relief into the stonework to look right. As I will need some spare material anyway for retaining walls etc., I am going to do a test piece first.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Been spending more time on viaduct research.

 

I was perhaps unfair on the Ratio kit. Looking at more websites, the angle on the arches does seem to be OK. I think that I must have found a website where the image was distorted. Still seems as though laser-cut may be a better option to take account of the curve and the reinforced piers.

 

The other "discovery", having looked at a lot of viaduct photos, is that the stonework on the piers is quite different from the stonework on the arches. So I need to draw up two lots of artwork (hatches) to create a suitable drawing for the lasercut folk to work with.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Well, here we are. A month has passed since last posting and not really any progress as I have been away in France on a building project.

 

But plenty more thinking has been done about how best to progress and more research done on available kit. Supposed to have a few days off between Xmas and New Year so may get to make a bit of a start on baseboards. Thinking now that I may separate scenic baseboards from fiddleyard baseboards for maximum flexibility as layout develops.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Well, here we are, nearly a year on and no visible progress.

 

But design work has restarted and I am thinking now that I will build the main station area first for operational interest when at home. The need to make it easy to extend at both ends has led me to do something which I would normally avoid, tracks parallel to the edge of the baseboard.

 

Only one major hesitation. I am thinking of reverting to 4mm. Indeed, I have even looked at the feasibility of 7mm but I don't think that would be affordable.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Well, here we are, nearly a year on and no visible progress.

 

But design work has restarted and I am thinking now that I will build the main station area first for operational interest when at home. The need to make it easy to extend at both ends has led me to do something which I would normally avoid, tracks parallel to the edge of the baseboard.

 

Only one major hesitation. I am thinking of reverting to 4mm. Indeed, I have even looked at the feasibility of 7mm but I don't think that would be affordable.

 

And yet another year passes. And this Autumn looks very busy with a big harvest expected as well as another trip to France to finish the house there. This is supposed to be the "layout of a lifetime" but I might not last long enough.

 

Was at Wells today. Always a good show with plenty to see, even if Warleggan's Bank is just about the worst venue possible. Main reason was to see the amazing North Cornwall empire by John Greenwood.It's just stunning but reinforces my feeling that N/2mm is just going to be too small for me.

 

It was Andy Peters that first sowed the seeds of doubt as to whether I should opt for 4mm scale and I think that is where I am now headed, and perhaps in EM. The scary thing is that this is a layout where volume counts as well as area. So on much of the scenic parts, we are looking at baseboards 8 times as big! What can I do about this? I think the answer is to accept some compromises about length. Does the viaduct really need to be nearly 12m long? No, it doesn't. Most people won't know if I model it to half that length. It will still be pretty impressive and give a decent run between the stations at each end. And I won't model so much of the line to the south of Dewsbury Thornhill station whereas in N I could have continued as far as the canal and the junction for Huddersfield.

 

I think that if I have so many baseboards to store, it will help if they are all a nice standard shape for stacking. That may mean some level of compromise about the curve radius of the viaduct (15.84m) but I can live with that - and the viaduct being half length will also help.

 

So, back to the drawing board, in reality the old laptop with Trax2 loaded on it, to see if I can make it work. Wish me luck! The main issue will be designing the viaduct in such a way that it can handle the baseboard joints. I wonder if anyone has ever modelled a viaduct that slots into place on the layout after the baseboards are joined up. Could be a solution. Ground cover materials could hide the joint, as Eric would have said to Ernie.

[jamie92208]

And yet another year passes. And this Autumn looks very busy with a big harvest expected as well as another trip to France to finish the house there. This is supposed to be the "layout of a lifetime" but I might not last long enough.

 

Was at Wells today. Always a good show with plenty to see, even if Warleggan's Bank is just about the worst venue possible. Main reason was to see the amazing North Cornwall empire by John Greenwood.It's just stunning but reinforces my feeling that N/2mm is just going to be too small for me.

 

It was Andy Peters that first sowed the seeds of doubt as to whether I should opt for 4mm scale and I think that is where I am now headed, and perhaps in EM. The scary thing is that this is a layout where volume counts as well as area. So on much of the scenic parts, we are looking at baseboards 8 times as big! What can I do about this? I think the answer is to accept some compromises about length. Does the viaduct really need to be nearly 12m long? No, it doesn't. Most people won't know if I model it to half that length. It will still be pretty impressive and give a decent run between the stations at each end. And I won't model so much of the line to the south of Dewsbury Thornhill station whereas in N I could have continued as far as the canal and the junction for Huddersfield.

 

I think that if I have so many baseboards to store, it will help if they are all a nice standard shape for stacking. That may mean some level of compromise about the curve radius of the viaduct (15.84m) but I can live with that - and the viaduct being half length will also help.

 

So, back to the drawing board, in reality the old laptop with Trax2 loaded on it, to see if I can make it work. Wish me luck! The main issue will be designing the viaduct in such a way that it can handle the baseboard joints. I wonder if anyone has ever modelled a viaduct that slots into place on the layout after the baseboards are joined up. Could be a solution. Ground cover materials could hide the joint, as Eric would have said to Ernie.

 

I had to have a removable viaduct on Green Ayre to avoid making two oblique baseboard joints on a curved viaduct.  The Castle branch has to rise at 1 in 70 and turn through 90 degrees to get to it's fiddle yard. Here is the best photo I've got of it at the moment.

The left hand end is of shot to the left.  Both joints are perpendicular to the track,  One is on the end of a low embankment and is secured by and M6 bolt hidden under the ballast and the other end is secured by a loose pin hinge under part of an arch.

 

The viaduct lifts off and goes into it's own travelling case using the aforementioned M6 bolt and another one at the other end.   

 

To make it I made each side out of 3mm ply but the outer arches were 10mm wider than the inner ones. All drawn on m CAD program.  The walls were then covered with DAS which was scribed wet.

 

If you want any more details or photos please ask.

 

Jamie

[Joseph_Pestell]

Thanks, Jamie.

 

Had a bit of a sleepless night and lay there thinking about how to resolve the viaduct issue. Came up with a solution similar to yours. I will try to draw so that all the piers can be fixed on the layout and the arches a single unit to be posed on top. (Well, not a single unit, but groups of 6 arches to fit between the reinforced piers).

Edited August 13, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell

[jamie92208]

Thanks, Jamie.

 

Had a bit of a sleepless night and lay there thinking about how to resolve the viaduct issue. Came up with a solution similar to yours. I will try to draw so that all the piers can be fixed on the layout and the arches a single unit to be posed on top. (Well, not a single unit, but groups of 6 arches to fit between the reinforced piers).

 

That sound like a good solution Joseph.   You could even make the viaduct plug into the piers to disguise the joint.   If you need any help with the drawing send me a PM.   That method of fixing the ends with the loose pin hinge has worked well with a very positive and well disguised joint. It was not the first solution we tried but now works well.

 

Good luck.

 

Jamie

[Joseph_Pestell]

That sound like a good solution Joseph.   You could even make the viaduct plug into the piers to disguise the joint.   If you need any help with the drawing send me a PM.   That method of fixing the ends with the loose pin hinge has worked well with a very positive and well disguised joint. It was not the first solution we tried but now works well.

 

Good luck.

 

Jamie

 

I think that I will do something similar but with small bore copper tube hidden behind the nearside parapet (basically the same system as many people use for traverser fiddleyards). It will enable traction current to be taken on to the viaduct as well rather than feeding it up through the piers which will probably be a solid plaster casting. The arches will also be a plaster casting but with enough of a recess to take some sort of trackbase + cork.

[Joseph_Pestell]

So, back to the drawing board, in reality the old laptop with Trax2 loaded on it, to see if I can make it work. Wish me luck! The main issue will be designing the viaduct in such a way that it can handle the baseboard joints. I wonder if anyone has ever modelled a viaduct that slots into place on the layout after the baseboards are joined up. Could be a solution. Ground cover materials could hide the joint, as Eric would have said to Ernie.

 

Finally managed to get the old laptop fired up and had a couple of productive hours with Trax 2. Still a bit of fine-tuning to do but I think I have proved the concept can work with standardised 4' x 3' boards (4' x 18" for the fiddleyards).

 

As I suspected, I need to widen out the curve of the viaduct and make the curved part shorter. Having done that, I need to work out where the viaduct piers have to go to avoid baseboard joints. How much easier this would be as a fixed layout, but no prospect of a 54' long home for it unless I buy a couple of shipping containers and fix them end to end (idea!!!).

 

Having mapped out the curve and located the piers, I can make a start on masters for the two types of pier and each arch. I will feel much better about the whole project when the viaduct is under way.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Was in Frome on business this week so popped into Frome Model Centre to see if they might have a Wills viaduct kit for me to play with.

 

They did. I did not need the whole thing so just bought the add-on kit, one pier plus one arch.

 

It's a nice kit in many ways but I was concerned that the cut stones were rather on the small side. Out with the steel rule and, sure enough, they are only about 2/3 the size they should be. Lightbulb moment! Check the more important arch dimension. 120mm i.e. 30ft at 4mm scale. Now I don't know if there are viaducts of this type out there with 30ft arches, but the standard for the Midland was 45ft. So it would seem that apart from the deck (overwidth for 50mm track centres) and the parapet, the whole thing is actually more or less to 1:120 (TT) scale.

 

Back to the drawing board.

[Jub45565]

I guess they think a full scale one would dwarf most 00 layouts, shame though. Keep us posted on your next concept!

[Joseph_Pestell]

No new concept needed, just a different way to construct the viaduct. Indeed, the way that the Wills/Ratio one fits together and would serve admirably. So I may well copy aspects of it.

[Joseph_Pestell]

And another year passed without much real modelling activity. Busy as I predicted with last year's record harvest (by a big margin) and various other projects thought up by Mrs P.

 

The last few weeks has been quite seriously impacted by illness, pleurisy. Even a tripin an ambulance to A&E, not recommended on our local roads.

 

Had to keep working albeit at a reduced rate but also had a lot of time in bed resting and taking this project forward with yet more work on the Trax2 diagram but also some more "fun" bits, such as doing some drawings for the platform buildings and canopies. I don't need them yet but I think it will be important, to keep momentum on such a large project, to have a variety of tasks to do and not get bogged down in a marathon of baseboard building, followed by a marathon of tracklaying/ballasting............

 

The time in bed has ben good for thinking.  And enabled me to fix this, finally, as a 1:148 project. I have been so tempted to go EM, especially since seeing the new turnouts at RailWells. But I just can't justify the extra expense involved as well as finding the space to keep it.

 

I have managed to identify a space in the garage to store all the boards of the N gauge vversion. This will be done by removing two steel shelving units, which I need in the winery anyway, and replacing them with three layout trolleys, so not just storage but layout transport as well. For those that might worry about storing a layout in a garage, I should say that ours is the warmest and driest part of the whole building: it's where the air-source heat pump stuff is all fitted and the manifolds for upstairs underfloor heating are not as well-insulated as they could be. So the garage is "toasty", both for storage and work. Just need to get the little Mitsubishi tractor out to make space when in workshop mode. One of the steel mesh storage units is full of model railway stuff anyway, most of which needs to be disposed of (main reason to take out "Gold" membership here and already sold a few bits (which pleased Mrs P).

 

So, abandon EM? No, I think that I will also start a fairly simple project for that as well. Seems crazy of course. No layout for ages and then two at once. Like buses, cars and women where my life is concerned. But, reading others here on RMweb, having two projects on the go can help when modelling mojo starts lacking on one of them.

 

Enough for one post. I will write later on how I plan to eat this elephant.

[37Oban]

10 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Enough for one post. I will write later on how I plan to eat this elephant.

Hi,  

 

how do you eat an elephant?  One mouthful at a time!

 

Roja

[Joseph_Pestell]

2 minutes ago, 37Oban said:

Hi,  

 

how do you eat an elephant?  One mouthful at a time!

 

Roja

 

Exactly what I was meaning.

 

Some may have noticed a change to the thread title. The elephant is going to be cut up into three pieces and some put in a (large) freezer for the timebeing so that I can focus on eating just a part of it for now.

 

Thinks, looking at the overall plan, it is more like a brontosaurus than an elephant, but I expect that brontosaurus eating tactics are much the same. We will be starting with the tail - if you are looking at the brontosaurus from its leftside.

 

(PS: Before anyone posts, I do know that modern paleontology says that brontosauruses did not exist. I blame that woman on Monty Python! But when I was at school, we learned about them and I remember, aged about 6, doing a rather good drawing of one.)

[Joseph_Pestell]

So, while trying to redraw the station in EM and keeping the boards to a manageable width, I came to the conclusion that I needed to simplify the trackplan a bit. The main "cut" was losing the exchange siding between the Down Main and the Branch. Visually, it's a great feature but not totally needed. It also requires a "joggle" in the Branch lines which, while perfectly normal in the real world, I did not quite like.

 

When I reverted back to N, I kept the simpler layout and the whole thing just looks so much less cluttered. Much better and saving about £70 on trackwork.

 

The downside in this was that if I only modelled the station area, with a York Modelmaking footbridge as a scenic break, viewers would not see/understand how trains leaving from the Up Main Platform 1 were accessing the West Riding Branch to Huddersfield and Halifax. Hence the need to extend the layout southwards about 1/2 mile (16' at 1:148) to Huddersfield Junction North Signal Box where two pairs of double crossovers will allow trains to pass from the Main Line to the Branch and vice versa. It's a good location for the layout end as there was a farm occupation bridge over the main at that point. No bus therefore but the nice Oxford Diecast Landie that I bought earlier this year.

 

The other, station, end of this 16' will have that York Modelmaking footbridge as a scenic break. In between, it's a rather good scene to model with the four-track Midland main line running on an embankment (always good on an exhibition layout), and crossing over the four track L&Y, just west of its junction down th Dewsbury Market Place, Headfield Road and the canal (Calder & Hebble Navigation). I am tempted to cheat a bit and add a lock for interest althouugh it should really be just off-scene to the rear of the layout.

 

So, this is the tail of the brontosaurus. It can be built, and exhibited, as a standalone project in a reasonable timeframe. I intend to use quite a lot of commercially available products (e.g. Peco walling, bridge, etc). I know that can detract from the uniqueness of the layout. But it is just the right pattern of stone. Why make life difficult?

 

First purchase specifically for this part of the layout, a Ratio Midland signalbox purchased at Pecorama yesterday along with an Ivatt 2MT. The signalbox is just the right size for the 30 levers that would be needed (if I have counted right).

 

 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Joseph_Pestell
Typo

[Joseph_Pestell]

So I am focussing for now on Huddersfield Junction North Signal Box (hence the title edit today) and two fiddleyards to operate it with.

 

With any luck the two fiddleyards will be close to being the finished article and won't need much modification to use with final complete layout.

 

The neck of the brontosaurus will run from the south exit of Dewsbury Moor Tunnel, through Dewsbury West  Town station/halt and over the long curving viaduct to the River Calder.

 

The wider part of the brontosaurus, as so admirably theorised by that lady on Monty Python, will be the Dewsbury Thornhill station.

 

My thinking at present is to model the "neck" second (2021 finish???) with Headfield Mill providing the scenic break at the southern end of this section so that it too can be exhibited separately as a standalone layout.

Edited September 3, 2019 by Joseph_Pestell

[Joseph_Pestell]

So, after the two lines pass under the farm occupation bridge, they curve round 180 degrees on an unscenicked 4' x 2' board so that the 8' x 2' fiddleyard/staging  (Fiddleyard 1) is running behind the layout. Saves on length in an exhibition hall (or indeed at home).

 

I have come up with a design that I am rather pleased with: smug even!

 

It enables trains to terminate and be reversed. I want this facility so that the key express passenger trains stay the right way round and I do not need an Up train and a Down train for each of these. Trains that do this will have the loco uncouple, go round the loop to turn and then back on to their train. No handling needed.

 

Or trains go round the reverse loop before reappearing on the layout. With a mirror image Fiddleyard 2, we have a "dogbone" layout enabliing trains to run continuously. This is very useful for most trains on the layout and also means no handling.

 

And finally, I have included two "rat runs" which will allow continuous "roundy-roundy" operation of Huddersfield Junction. This is handy because it gets round the possible problem of coal trains running full in both directions.

 

PS: Once again, I have forgotten how to post this so you can see the plan without clicking on the attachment. If someone can download and repost, I will be most grateful.

Scan0120.pdf