Nether Madder and Green Soudley Rly

[lezz01]

No but just try pushing stock through an A5 turnout with scale buffer heads and 3 link couplings and see how far you get! Even a B6 can give you problems if it's a long wheelbase vehicle. EM gauge uses track templates scaled down from the protopype so yes it advocates the use of prototype geometry.

The largest off the shelf turnout is about an A5 in real terms. That's smallest in EM that you would consider and you can't push very much through it with scale couplings. Yes you can pull stock through it but you really can't push through it. Yes I know you can get Templates smaller than that from the likes of C&L and you can draw them in Templot but you can't use them unless you're happy with Hornby type couplings or drawing pins for buffers and really short wheelbase stock. Don't take my word for it build one and try it yourself.

Regards Lez.    

[St Enodoc]

3 minutes ago, lezz01 said:

No but just try pushing stock through an A5 turnout with scale buffer heads and 3 link couplings and see how far you get! Even a B6 can give you problems if it's a long wheelbase vehicle. EM gauge uses track templates scaled down from the protopype so yes it advocates the use of prototype geometry.

The largest off the shelf turnout is about an A5 in real terms. That's smallest in EM that you would consider and you can't push very much through it with scale couplings. Yes you can pull stock through it but you really can't push through it. Yes I know you can get Templates smaller than that from the likes of C&L and you can draw them in Templot but you can't use them unless you're happy with Hornby type couplings or drawing pins for buffers and really short wheelbase stock. Don't take my word for it build one and try it yourself.

Regards Lez.    

True enough - but equally so in 00.

[Nearholmer]

You should see the things I have on my railway Lez, they'd have you foaming at the mouth.

 

 

[lezz01]

Your railway your rules mate. I used to be a toolmaker and I tend towards proper engineering. I can't help it I'm just built that way. If I don't have the right tool for a job I just make one that will do the job safely but I have both the skills and the equipment to do so, most people don't. There is no right or wrong way to do something just the right way for you. The only caveat I will add to that is "safely"!

Regards Lez. 

[Nearholmer]

6 minutes ago, lezz01 said:

There is no right or wrong way to do something just the right way for you

True enough.

[Martin S-C]

Interesting discussion. I have some RTR 6-wheel milk tankers from Hornby, Bachmann and Dapol as well as some 9-plank or steel sided 21 ton mineral opens (the long wheebase ones) and b****r me do these not like any basic PECO code 75 points other than the longest ones when being propelled. I'm sure its the longer wheelbase vs the springy plastic of the NEM coupler that's the problem.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Martin S-C

[Regularity]

CJF was the only person I know who actually defined finescale properly, by first defining scale (RM, Jan 1975.).

He also realised it maybe wasn’t for everyone, but unfortunately tended to try to put people off having a go.

 

Scale = “a model, not a toy”;

Finescale = “even less like a toy”.

Personally, I think Charles Wynn nailed it in 1919, when he decided everything on his models would be within a scale inch of the prototype.

It’s not the scale inch which is key here, but that he defined his level of fidelity.

Other than that, it’s all in the mind.

 

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

Interesting discussion. I have some RTR 6-wheel milk tankers from Hornby, Bachmann and Dapol as well as some 9-plank or steel sided 21 ton mineral opens (the long wheebase ones) and b****r me do these not like any basic PECO code 75 points other than the longest ones when being propelled. I'm sure its the longer wheelbase vs the springy plastic of the NEM coupler that's the problem.

Dapol 6-wheeled tanks are notorious for falling off, even on plain track. Change the wheels for Hornby and they should be OK. More generally, I've taken the middle axle out of some of my 6-wheelers to improve their surefootedness. Nobody knows (except you and me).

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, Regularity said:

CJF was the only person I know who actually defined finescale properly, by first defining scale (RM, Jan 1975.).

He also realised it maybe wasn’t for everyone, but unfortunately tended to try to put people off having a go.

 

Scale = “a model, not a toy”;

Finescale = “even less like a toy”.

Personally, I think Charles Wynn nailed it in 1919, when he decided everything on his models would be within a scale inch of the prototype.

It’s not the scale inch which is key here, but that he defined his level of fidelity.

Other than that, it’s all in the mind.

 

I think it's a combination of overall accuracy and a state of mind - or ethos, if you like. In the early days of 18.83mm gauge there used to be adverts showing something like a Hornby-Dublo 2-6-4T with Studiolith wheels but nothing else had been changed. Personally, I couldn't see the point of that.

Edited December 11, 2020 by St Enodoc
Error kindly and subtly (not) pointed out by @Regularity

[Annie]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

I think it's a combination of overall accuracy and a state of mind - or ethos, if you like. In the early days of 18.83mm gauge there used to be adverts showing something like a Hornby-Dublo 2-4-6T with Studiolith wheels but nothing else had been changed. Personally, I couldn't see the point of that.

The worst was the advert with the Triang wagon with the plastic underframe.  Seriously overheight buffers anyone?

[Regularity]

6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I think it's a combination of overall accuracy and a state of mind - or ethos, if you like. In the early days of 18.83mm gauge there used to be adverts showing something like a Hornby-Dublo 2-4-6T with Studiolith wheels but nothing else had been changed. Personally, I couldn't see the point of that.

I agree, but I’d like to see the 2-4-6T...

[St Enodoc]

1 minute ago, Regularity said:

I agree, but I’d like to see the 2-4-6T...

Give that man a coconut.

 

Original post edited.

[Joseph_Pestell]

12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

I thought EM was a set of wheel/track interface standards, rather than a set of rules of geometry.

 

EM standards don't say anything about, for instance, point geometry, do they?

 

If you have a set of standards where the back-to-back of the wheels is closer to the track gauge. geometry has to change unless you are just running four-coupled or Bo-Bo locomotives. The tight radius curves of commercial 00 are only possible because of the huge tolerances ("slop") built into the standards.

[lezz01]

50 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

If you have a set of standards where the back-to-back of the wheels is closer to the track gauge. geometry has to change unless you are just running four-coupled or Bo-Bo locomotives. The tight radius curves of commercial 00 are only possible because of the huge tolerances ("slop") built into the standards.

Yeh I didn't want to get technical. Railway track be it rtr, finescale or the real thing, is all about geometry. I also have to say that there is not very much finescale about peco code 75 track. The new bullhead stuff is better and the stuff they do for the EM gauge soc. is very nice but what they call finescale isn't very.

Regards Lez.  

[CKPR]

Here's my tuppenceworth on pragmatic EM gauge, track, couplings,etc  -  'Mealsgate' is built using tweaked commercial (Marcway) 3' radius EM pointwork, SMP track and most of the locomotives and all of the rolling stock, including 6 wheel coaches, are three-point compensated, the latter using a home-brewed '2+4'  system of compensate [i.e. one fixed axle and the other two axles are pivoted together system as per an 0-6-0 locomotive]. I also use 3 link and screw couplings and it was the use of scale size PC Models hooks, rather than the 3' curves,  that have caused the most coupling problems to date  Aside from the use of analogue control, another rather old-fashioned aspect of my models is that they are very heavy - M&CR 0-6-0 No.29 is built from a Millholme Models  cast kit, the engine is uncompensated with a 'free bogie' tender,  she weighs a ton and runs like a sewing machine on.  Overall , the running is generally very good and I had no serious problems during it's one and only exhibition outing to date. I've generally followed EMGS standards and just been ruthless about adjusting, rebuilding and discarding until I get good running, which I place before prototype fidelity. All of which is a long-winded way of saying that 3 link couplings can work with 3' radius tracks !

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by CKPR

[Martin S-C]

For the moment I will just leave this here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bp8hdiou1c7w9gg/NewPlan_Three.jpg

[Caley Jim]

A very interesting plan, Martin.  Not too complex, but full of operational interest on many levels - main and branch line running, freight shunting, colliery traffic - hope you manage to bring it to fruition.  Don't see any reason why it can't still be the NM&GSR! 

 

Jim

[RedGemAlchemist]

I can still never get over how big your layout board is, Martin.

[Nearholmer]

17 hours ago, Regularity said:

Other than that, it’s all in the mind.

 

I liked that.

[Nearholmer]

Martin

 

Crikey, very different indeed.

 

Again, very operable, but in a different way, and I would think a good deal less intensive effort needed to get to the basic ability to circulate a train or two.

 

One danger, if it is a danger, in this one is that it might end-up lacking the unique character that oozed from Mark 1, but a lot depends upon how you landscape it and what you run on it.

 

Kevin

[Regularity]

2 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

For the moment I will just leave this here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bp8hdiou1c7w9gg/NewPlan_Three.jpg

Very CJF, in all the nicest ways. Also, not CJF, avoiding his worst foibles.

[Corbs]

This is all very exciting Martin.

 

I am very eager to see your new 'main line' motive power too. Maybe some 2-4-0s as well? 0-6-0 tender locos for goods?

I thought that perhaps something like the Oxford Rail Adams Radial might make a nice donor loco for a pre-grouping 4-4-0...?

[lezz01]

It is very Cyril Martin in a good way. I really like the colliery, it's very realistic unlike most that you see modeled. Can't wait to see it evolve into something substantial.

Regards Lez.  

[Martin S-C]

Hi Jim - yes, it will still be the NM&GSR. Having collected and painted most of the stock for the original layout I am definitely going to get to use it! The branch will be the Witts End Light Railway as well. The NM&GSR is however now more of a regional concern and to me feels a lot like the Midland & South Western Junction. Or as I think I said earlier, the Midland & Great Northern. Using Hunstanton as the catalyst for the terminus also makes me think holidaymakers and intense summer Saturday workings. This version will be about 50/50 passenger and freight while v1.0 was very much favouring freight. I am having a hard think though as to where it is set in the country. I can't really use the Forest of Dean any more as there were no double track lines there. I am not sure if the Monmouth-Ross-Hereford area was double tracked but will investigate. A holiday destination between the wars though definitely ought to be the coast and that's a problem. I don't think the Wye Valley was ever a mass train-loads of tourists destination. Its popularity arose with private car ownership and largely post WWII. However perhaps in my fiction the region became sufficiently popular with weekenders and fortnighters 30 years earlier than in our world with summer seaside levels of traffic, though the idea of candy floss and ice cream stands at Symonds Yat makes me shudder.
 

The biggest hurdle is that all my coal wagons are Forest of Dean or South Wales, so some kind of fiction involving a double track line down/near the Wye Valley might have to be the case. The Wye Valley also gives some opportunity for cattle and dairy traffic which the Forest does not. The other double track line in the area is of course the GW Gloucester-Chepstow run but to give that critical trunk route to a small concern which has not been bought out by a national player is probably bending fiction a bit too much.

 

Red Gem Alchemist - Thanks. The length is wonderful to have but its the narrowness of the room that causes the head scratching. I'm looking at an absolute maximum of a 42" radius curve for a continuous run and in practical terms really only about 30". In the storage loops and other concealed areas its a 24" minimum though I am trying everywhere to transition these and ease things as much as possible.

 

Hi Kevin - yes "ease of almost everything" was my principle with this design having tried an "awkward and fiddley almost everywhere" plan And you're right it does lack character. I think I can do a good bit with the branch terminus and the colliery but a double track terminus to a provincial mid-sized town tends to look like every other double track terminus once you take away company colours and styles. I need to do something distinctive with the countryside around the tracks and you'll notice that v1.0 was packed with buildings while this one has very few. A more open feel was another item on my list of nice to have features. The part of the old design I am most sorry to lose was the tramway sections of the branch line. I had great things in mind for that. Perhaps I might be able to work that concept in somewhere?

 

Regularity - thanks. I have fears it'll end up looking like a giant Hornby track mat affair but I'll try my best to conceal that.

 

Corbs - 2-4-0s and 4-4-0s as well as 0-6-0s on freight were already in the v1.0 design so those will certainly come out to play. There's an Adams Radial tank (or maybe two?) in the box as well. I have quite a few coach kis to get built most of them 4-wheelers but the idea of reselling those on e-Bay and buying a couple of rakes of the Hattons generic ones with the proceeds has appeal. Like most of us I own far too many locos so will be selling a few, some RTR and some unbuilt kits.

 

Lezz - thanks. The colliery is a 100% steal of Ackthorpe! That's why it looks right, because it was designed by people who knew what they were doing. Having stood and watched Ackthorpe being operated I really liked what I saw and how all the moves flowed. There will of course be a goodly number of light engine moves to get locos there to take trains out and after they drop them off. I do love colliery models they look great and give so many train playing opportunities.

 

I had a nice long chat with Neil of the Little Layout Company today by phone and he is doing well, both personally and business-wise, managing to survive and he (thank God!) said yes, he'd very much like to be involved again with dismantling of what is there now and a rebuild. We can reuse all the electrics, most of the timber and some of the track. The new plan uses the long turnouts on the main lines in the scenic areas and medium ones in the storage loops and parts of the station (release crossovers, goods yard, carriage sidings). The only short turnouts are in the colliery and branch terminus so there isn't much overlap of turnouts (v1.0 was all short turnouts which was another negative issue I had with it). I shall sell the ones I don't need and so the overall cost of hardware should be negligible. I have a lot of buildings and building kits I now won't need so more income there and thus I hope most of the cost will just be labour.

[Harlequin]

Hi Martin,

I can see the reason for all the talk of CJF, now, and to my eyes there are some typical CJF problems. (Sorry!)

• There’s almost no room for non-railway scenery.
• Unrelated tracks passing close to each other.
• Goods yards are cramped.
• Lots of Double junctions out in the open.
• Relatively sharp 90deg turns following each other in the right-hand dumbbell.
• Duckunders making access more difficult.
   

Also, I worry about the storage capacity and how it will work in practice because of the lack of crossovers. Edit: Maybe the reversing loops obviate the need for crossovers? Not sure.

I wonder if it would be possible to engineer a lifting section across the doorway that works reliably rather than abandoning the idea? After all, you know what the problems are now and you know that this is the first thing to get working before spending time on anything else.

 

If you could cross the doorway then the plan could be simpler while still having all the same elements, with more room to breathe and more chance of being able to do some of the things on your wishlist.

 

I hope this message doesn’t put you off. It’s offered constructively and obviously you may not see some of these things as "problems" at all!

Edited December 12, 2020 by Harlequin