Nether Madder and Green Soudley Rly

[Corbs]

I'm incredibly lazy, so yes in my case when a motorised point broke I found it easier to just replace from underneath rather than move the layout in any way. Even just jigsawed a slot out of the bottom of the layout rather than have to dismantle any of the boards.

In the above case I was thinking of breakage/accessing the wall for whatever reason/dropping something down the back etc.

[Martin S-C]

Having scribbled on the backs of a few envelopes I don't think hinges will work:

1) All the baseboards at the rear will be flush against a wall, or another baseboard. Several will have different height scenery on and some will have significantly high scenery at the back. I can't see how hinges will help in these situations without them being very obvious.

 

2) The two main termini are back to back with a scenic break of an Ahern style town in the middle. Hinging these will be so difficult it would be easier to lift them off.

 

3) Several baseboards will be of very odd shape.

I think drawer units on castors will have to be the answer. It also means I can fill the spaces under the tunnels with (temporary) storage as well.

[chuffinghell]

I think drawer units on castors will have to be the answer. It also means I can fill the spaces under the tunnels with (temporary) storage as well.

Sounds like a plan

[St Enodoc]

Good idea, but you might need to add strengthening members to ‘cheap’ kichen cupboards to permit this; they aren’t really very strong structures, relying on the wall, the worktop, and one another for stability. You can buy cupboards designed to go on wheels, but I think they cost a bit more.

Put them on a sheet of thick ply first.

[Dave John]

Well, baseboards on castors which hinge up. Just an idea. 

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/2091/entry-19250-the-baseboard-waltz/

 

I think you could use kitchen cupboards as the trolley part, but I'd agree they would need strengthening.

[Martin S-C]

I keep my rolling stock in the cardboard carry boxes from the Bachmann Club.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bachmann-SBOO-2-Tier-Storage-Box-Holds-30-Small-Wagons-or-10-Coaches/123311319641?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2648

Stock travels to other layouts so these boxes are the bees knees for that.

These are 40cm wide, 30cm deep (front to back) and 10cm tall (high). I would like to get a pair side-by-side on a shelf so that means wheeled shelf units 81cm wide, plus the width of the timber. The planned layout datum is at 117cm. Given a baseboard of perhaps 15mm and framing of about 75mm that means my shelf units can stand 107cm high, less the height of the castors (about 75mm), so about a metre tall, 84cm wide and 33-ish cm deep.

Pretty chunky units.

 

EDIT, after more scribbling: With each storage box 10cm deep, plus 15mm for a shelf and 10mm clearance between shelves, that's 12.5cm per shelf of boxes - so rather neatly 8 shelves of boxes per unit, or 16 storage boxes.

 

Plenty of storage!

I just need a side area to slide the box out onto and let me rummage around.

Other storage shelves/cupboards are not critical and I can stuff toolboxes, unmade stacks of kits etc in where needed.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Martin S-C

[runs as required]

I couldn't get the lab benches I mentioned in a previous post out of my head and drew a sketch of how I visualise the waist rail, leg and bench top might be adapted for a railway room

I wasn't the inventor, I just adapted it for a whole series of agricultural secondary schools in remote parts of Tanzania back in the heady days of Julius Nyerere. It was difficult for a townie like me helping a middle aged carpenter to choose the right tree in the bush to cut and haul to the site to convert to lab benching!

Credit has to go to the late brother of actor Maggie Smith for devising its self locating principles (up in Blue Star house overlooking Brixton station).

dh

[Martin S-C]

Great drawing, thanks.

 

The tall scenery issue at the rear of the baseboard remains however. But if the whole thing can be slid forwards first, before it's lifted, that would work. Just delete the small metal securing dowels, or make these a sprung fit from each end of the baseboard (push to disengage).

The framing supports can remain in situ while the baseboard top travels in a van with temporary (exhibition) legs for going on the road.

 

I like it.

[Nearholmer]

Just mount the hinge above the top of the scenery. Easier to hide if there is a back scene, but not impossible to distract the eye from if there isn’t.

[runs as required]

I don't see why the scenic backwall need be an issue - if possibly you treat the backscene as an artist's canvas stretcher. They are easily and quickly knocked up. I made these three one morning at home while doing a Sunderland Fine Art course after I retired.

The project I was doing was hardly subtle - 'What is the largest picture I can get in my Type 3 VW van?':

The answer is the tryptic on the left measures 3M x 1.6M (to fit in the available wall space) - though I could have squeezed a canvas 2.4 M x 1.6 M in the van as shewn on the right exhibiting its ex 2x1 framing behind an 8ft x 4ft baseboard made for a grandson's DCC train set some years back for comparison.

 

So imagine these as poshly painted backdrops around the railway room - possibly with shallow 3D buildings and vegetation collaged (or velcoed) onto them. They can be slid up from their secret fixings off the wall and carried out to a van together with the corresponding baseboard that was butted up against it and transported off.

 

A problem might be how to deal with double wall lekky sockets breaking up Nether Madder's picturesque townscape. An alternative might be a wall socket below the waist rail with a mult socket extension led up onto the baseboard to be concealed under or behind some scenic feature. For exhibitionpurposes I've seen folks with very simple fold trestles.

(You should also be devising some adaptable lighting to effectively display the potentials of your layout.)

 

Those dowels you commented on were a last minute afterthought as I looked at it again this morning before posting - much better to have some nibs at the back just to drop in a chiselled out pocket out in the lower waist rail. The beauty of the underbench stuff is that you can continually adapt it with basic wood-working tools.

HTH

dh

 

Ed you didn't spot the mistake - that was a type 4 ex Durham milk van (always smelt of bad milk) - I've had every sort except the original split screen.

Edited August 21, 2018 by runs as required

[Martin S-C]

Because I'm taking inspiration from such greats as the Madder Valley, the Craig and Mertonford and the Aire Valley lines I wanted to include a few wagons "from" these famous layouts both as fun and as a small tribute. I had some rather crude 1980s Grahman Farish LNER opens available and a battered Hornby 'troublesome truck' (a car boot buy for 50p!) so replaced the couplings and fitted steel wheels then hacked most of the brake gear off replacing with parts from my stock of Ratio and POWsides kits. Given that the originals were definitely children of their era (1930s to 1960s) the non-accurate appearance was an asset rather than a problem - I like the crude appearance, I feel like its in the spirit of these pioneering model railways.

I realised after I took the pics that the interiors need weathering and realised after I uploaded them to Facebook that the C&M ones need the ironwork blackening. Argh.

 

And yep, I know the C&M and AVR were narrow gauge. In my alternate universe that pins off from three other alternate universes these companies owned a few standard gauge wagons. (TL;DR Rule 1 applies).

 

Results plus the originals:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dunwurken]

Martin

You are correct the C&M wagons should have black ironwork.

You can vary the lettering if you want as CMR was also used. Photo of narrow gauge wagon No7 attached.

Malcolm

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by dunwurken

[Edwardian]

Because I'm taking inspiration from such greats as the Madder Valley, the Craig and Mertonford and the Aire Valley lines I wanted to include a few wagons "from" these famous layouts both as fun and as a small tribute. I had some rather crude 1980s Grahman Farish LNER opens available and a battered Hornby 'troublesome truck' (a car boot buy for 50p!) so replaced the couplings and fitted steel wheels then hacked most of the brake gear off replacing with parts from my stock of Ratio and POWsides kits. Given that the originals were definitely children of their era (1930s to 1960s) the non-accurate appearance was an asset rather than a problem - I like the crude appearance, I feel like its in the spirit of these pioneering model railways.

 

I realised after I took the pics that the interiors need weathering and realised after I uploaded them to Facebook that the C&M ones need the ironwork blackening. Argh.

 

And yep, I know the C&M and AVR were narrow gauge. In my alternate universe that pins off from three other alternate universes these companies owned a few standard gauge wagons. (TL;DR Rule 1 applies).

 

Results plus the originals:

 

Dsc01022.jpg

 

Dsc00267.jpg

 

Dsc01023.jpg

 

Craig and Mertonford Open.jpg

 

Dsc01024.jpg

 

AVR_open_wagon.jpg

 

AVR_open_wagon_02.jpg

 

I love the idea of this, and, as ever, you have executed it beautifully.

[Martin S-C]

Thank you James, coming from you, that's a highly valued comment.

Might I have permission to add a WNR wagon or two when you have thrashed out the details of type and livery?

[BWsTrains]

As others have said, this is also definitely my sort of layout.  Freight trains / wagons go from somewhere to somewhere, for a purpose. In between, passenger trains flit between platforms. Wagons get shunted, locos get serviced.  Brilliant stuff - hope your layout matches your dreams.

 

Some of the inclines do sound a little steep, but maybe with short trains they won't be a problem.

Martin,

 

looks like a lifetime retirement project and one I'll follow with great interest.

 

I've limited experience operating with inclines from long ago and wonder that as your plans depend so heavily on some steep rises if a mock up test area should be tried first to see how a typical train will cope with 1 in 30 on a curve?

There have been plenty of recent reports here of current smaller wheel base locos having difficulties of one sort or another going up or down hill even at 1 in 50.

 

Colin

[Martin S-C]

Hi Colin, great to see you. Thank you for your comments.

Well... I have a friend whose railway has a 1 in 45ish that rounds a 4ft radius curve so that's at least one test bed I can borrow. Adding weight to locos above their driving wheels is one thing to try.

My passenger trains will be tiny - usually 2 x 4-wheelers and a CCT/OCT, luggage van or horsebox or two. I have some Hornby clerestories to kitbash but even so, no more than 2 bogie coaches to a train. I use metal wheels throughout in brass bearings. If anything doesn't have these, I convert.

Freight will be limited to 8 wagons plus brake and along the branch, six plus brake. The traffic to the colliery is all downhill-loaded / uphill-empty (I add weight under the plastic coal loads to make loaded trains heavier) so I should be okay. The quarry traffic though is uphill-loaded, but I envisage no more than 3 to 5 wagon loads egressing from there at a time. The quarry/stone loads are also lighter - being mainly 1 to 3 plank wagons it is harder to add weight to their loads. Control is by DCC so there is some extra subtlety in control available and today's wonderful mechanisms do allow incredibly slow crawl speeds if you need them. With DCC I can also bank or double head easily if needed, so a stalled train might even be an excuse for some extra shenanigans to add to the fun rather than an exercise in annoyed finger-poking.

The latest news is the builder's lads will commence the groundwork of the garage conversion in the last week of September. I have also arranged for the garage to be extended by 4 feet so I now have 28 feet length. I have edited the track plan so that all the stations are spaced a little further apart and all inclines have been eased slightly. This gives me a less crowded look. I have decided to make the branch line partly tramway and around the far left end curve (see plan page 1) it will run alongside a road, Wantage or Wisbech style. I wanted to have an area with not much happening in it but tracks running beside hedged fields or woods seemed a little uninteresting... then one often gets tempted to put cameos of farm workers doing things, or gypsy caravans and such and you end up getting things crowded again, but if the tracks run beside a dirt road I feel this will lift that end of the layout but without adding clutter; the track on its own becomes interesting without need to embellish it with dogs peeing up lampposts or people under broken down cars and that kind if thing. All these cameos have been done to death and I want to avoid the cliches.

As some of you will know I managed to replace my lost collection of Railway Modeller magazines recently and have been flipping through them enjoying making my re-acquaintance with some of the great layouts that inspired me in the past. I read some comments of Edwardian's Castle Aching thread about adding too much clutter and too many cameos and when I found the last Craigshire article in the late 1960s which was the third version of the layout I realised it was true that even the great P D Hancock suffered from the temptation to over-fill his landscape with "things going on" so that is something I will take on board. I plan to have areas of the layout busy and industrialised (and grimy) around the colliery and the towns but sleepy and bucolic (and sunlit) in the rural areas.

[south_tyne]

Hi Martin.

Pleased to read that things are continuing to progress and that the building work is due to commence shortly. The extra length will be a real boon and will allow the whole plan a little more space to breath. It is a lovely position to be in, he opposite of what most of us contend with whereby we are trying to squeeze plans down and fit a quart in a pint pot!

 

You are definitely spot in in that you need to avoid the temptation to clutter and fill the extra space with 'stuff'...... open countryside and empty spaces are what I would try to achieve. It will aid the concept of running from A to B as a system layout. I also find re-reading articles on our favourite layouts inspirational. PD Hancock, Ahern et al are obviously your benchmark and offer the type of approach to modelling that you aspire to. There are no better role models, even in the 21st Century we can still learn so much from them

 

Roadside tramway have always fascinated me (all originates from Toby!!), so from a purely personam perspective I think that's a craking idea. Will offer something different. I love the idea of a roadside traway winding through the countryside and you definitely have the space available to do that kind of thing justice.

 

Anyway, as I previously said I absolutely love the plan, the design and the whole concept of the layout so look forward to seeing you progress and move things forward over the coming months.

 

David

[Martin S-C]

Thanks again, it is commentary such as yours that is so heart-warming and inspiring - it keeps me going when builders estimates jump up alarmingly and scare my bank manager! I have only been active on RMWeb a few months, after lurking for a year or so - and I have found the people here a total inspiration; great ideas, helpful suggestions, links to other people's efforts and generally everything a community should be. I would like, once the Nether Madder is in a running configuration, to offer an open invite to a running session to the fine people of this parish.

Here is the extended plan. Compare to that on page 1. I have tried to open things up as much as possible. The steepest gradient on the approach to Nether Madder (SE corner) is now 1 in 34 and the branch's steepest gradient has been eased to 1 in 40 which should assist the loaded quarry trains. I have begun to sketch in some scenic treatment as well - I especially wanted to shift the Wit's End terminus away from the goods yard at Great Shafting and have sketched in a small village backed by woodland here as a scenic break. The bridge that carries the line from Snarling to Borrocks and crosses the stream above Wit's End will be a timber structure in the spirit of the Weston, Cleveland and Portishead's Wick St Lawrence pier. The "Wisbech Tramway" section is sketched in as a first draft.



I saw a delightful small wooden railway bridge crossing of a stream posted on a Facebook group a few weeks ago - it was in the light railways and byways group and it was perfect, but now I cannot find it. Why I didn't save a copy I cannot fathom. I hate it when that happens.

[Corbs]

Weston, Cleveland and Portishead's 

Clevedon

I've got to defend my home town's honour

[Nearholmer]

This is looking even better, and it was good to start with.

 

The roadside steam tramway is a perfect addition. We have a thread devoted to them here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/113785-steam-tramways-rural-great-britain-ireland/

Edited September 9, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Northroader]

This kind of thing:

[Martin S-C]

Indeed gentlemen, exactly that. Sorry Corbs, I must have been off dreaming of a Cleveland Railroad in Ohio or some other mental hiccup. Possibly involving G&Ts but who knows? Once my mind wanders, wither where it will, who can say what may happen.

I found the inspiration for the wooden bridge that I plan to place here:



It was photos of one of the Blackwater bridges on the Maldon line in Essex:

 

And happily the bridge has a path at the side which I can enlarge into the country lane that I need:

 

As to trams...



And this sums up the quiet bucolic sunshiney nothingness I'd like to try and convey on this section:

 

Plus...!

https://www.shapeways.com/product/8JMA6E5NX/hughes-steam-tram-no4-wantage-tramway

[south_tyne]

Some fantastic tramway images there Martin! Wantage is a great source of such and is so modeleginic (I've made up a word there but hopefully you know what I mean!). I love some of the Irish lines too - plenty to inspire your model despite the fact that they are 3' gauge.

 

Just been perusing the revised plan again and I like it. More room to breath and to ease curves/gradients and allow more 'plain' running can only be a good thing.

 

Keep us up to date of progress. It is a two way thing by the way; whilst other people showing interest and giving input spurs you on, I for one love reading your postings about progress and ideas and then being able to share This kind of community resource is what RM Web should be at its best.

 

David

 

PS - that bottom image is a cracker which I hadn't seen before. So much atmosphere despite there not being a train in sight!

Edited September 10, 2018 by south_tyne

[south_tyne]

Studying the plan some more, I think the only change I would personally make is to simplify the south east corner and drop the loco coaling area and timber yard, just to prevent it becoming too busy and offer one corner which is simply 'empty' (for want of a better word). I think I would also drop the bigger MPD (just because I am not so much of a fan of them) but I competely understand why it is wanted, and indeed needed im such a system layout

 

I think my favourite spot is the really simple halt/station to the east (Nether Madding?), comprising a look and single siding. Even though it is just a 2d plan, I can visualise what that might look like and it appeals so much.... could ooze light railway atmosphere.

 

Thanks again Martin and sorry for rambling on and cluttering up your thread!

 

David

[Martin S-C]

Hi David

Many thanks for your comments. I suppose a forum like this can work a bit like a model railway club, although the person whose layout being discussed is a dictator in that they can choose to ignore suggestions without comeback, but many of the inputs here remind me of conversations I've had while bent over a corner of a club layout with 2 or 3 friends many (many) moons ago discussing what to do about a piece of trackwork, siting a signal or some scenery.

Yes, I wanted to add more travel time between stations. The first version of the plan had too much 'start from a station - pop through a tunnel - stop at the next one' going on. More plain track is good. If I drive trains at a scale 15 to 20 mph it will give a better sense of things actually going somewhere instead of just calling at a series of cameo stations.

 

I agree with you that the clutter level is in the C J Freezer school of busyness but I was weaned on his Plan of the Month in 1960s and 1970s Railway Modellers and to me I am comfortable there. I do not go for his all out "through terminus, six coach express, return loop, dumbell, hardly any freight workings" style of plan but some of his ideas really appeal. Funnily enough one of the things I look for in his (and others) plans that go around the walls of a room are how many corners have track going into them. Its a kind of modelling litmus test. Zero is a waste, 1 or 2 is okay, 3 is a bit much and 4 is bad. It reminds me of that old saying about buying a horse and how many white socks it has.

Apart from the SW corner where the colliery reception headshunt curves (of necessity) aside my plan hits the all four = bad rating and I do think you are right. I could delete the timber yard and place it where the Wagon Works is but a timber yard there beyond the platform ends has been done by so many other modellers, Ahern among them. I can see the benefits of one empty scenic corner but I do need a coal stage for my engine shed somewhere and space is tight elsewhere. I'm open to input on where to site it. That timber yard approach has also bothered me over the weeks as the turnout accessing it is on a 1 in 34 grade!

The south wall behind the engine shed, works building and the carriage shed and shops will be the most industrial looking with either low relief or flat painted buildings. I'm fairly happy for this to be one of the grimy claustrophobic parts of the model though I do admit that such scenes are not common in the Forest of Dean. I can only think of one - the S&W loco shed and workshop with the tinplate works behind it just north of Lydney Junction. I attach a photo of Lydney in the 1950s and you can see the line of roofs of the engine shed and tinplate works on the skyline. The engine shed is to the right of the plume of loco exhaust.



The little halt you refer to is going to be called Coggles Causeway after a road in the town of Bourne, Lincolnshire. I was driving through there a few weeks back on the way to Lincoln, saw the street name and knew I had to have a halt named after it. The single loop and one siding layout is inspired by Hannington Station on the Highworth Branch in Wiltshire. I modelled the whole branch, plus Swindon in its entirety as it was in about 1922, in digital form for a train simulator around the year 2000. Hannington was my favourite location on the line, a mile or more from the village of that name, set down in a leafy hollow against a stream and no doubt beset by midges in summer. It had a simple wooden shed waiting room designed by Arthur C Pain of Culm Valley fame, a wooden milk dock built of old sleepers, one siding with no facilities at all and no doubt spent its entire existence in peaceful obscurity, slowly being invaded by nettles. Hannington to me epitomised British rural railway branch lines and I love those kinds of places and that kind of atmosphere. I definitely wanted somewhere on my model where that combination of factors occurred. I think its going to be one of my favourite locations as well.



As to the Wantage tramway image, here is another taken at the same location. I think you'll understand why I posted the empty image as the one that caught the mood I am after rather than the one with the train in it.



Looking again at the scenery sketching I have done on the plan, I placed the tramway track on the near side of the road. On reflection I think it would work better if it were on the other side so that the observer was looking across the road to the track on the far side rather than have the track partly hidden on the near side beyond a fence and hedge.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Martin S-C