Jump to content
 

Nm9 RhB modules and standards


PaulRhB
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
26 minutes ago, jonhall said:

 

I think there is a risk that if Grainge and Hodder put on a random curve, then at some point we can't replicate that with a different supplier, (or even G&H if something went wrong and the file was lost). I think it would be better to specify 'something known'  so that we can replicate it if required - or send it to another cutter (perhaps in Europe? ) 

 

Jon

Ah that’s why I asked what files you could create to see if there’s mileage in creating it ourselves to send to them ;)

Allen just rounded off the corners of the angular original drawing rather than it being a random curve on mine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, jonhall said:

or send it to another cutter (perhaps in Europe? 

 Won't that make it way more expensive due for shipping? Think a feely available template file for non UK or people wanting to use local to them companies would be a good option?

 

I think as long as H&S are working off a CAD file there shouldn't be any variance and once artwork agreed then it would be supply issue that they would need to correct. I think that a general curve shouldn't be a problem, even for people cutting their own.

 

* Just seen added comments after scrolling so this maybe irrelevant.

Edited by backofanenvelope
addition comment
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Ok a fast response from Allen,

 

dxf is the best format to use. As a ballpark they will be about the same price as the existing profiles. minimum quantity of 12 as before. I will be able to give a more accurate quote once I have the dxfs. 

--  Allen Law

Grainge and Hodder Ltd.

 

So if you’d be happy to draw them up in dxf Jon we’d have a file that could be used by anyone to source them however they wanted or through G&H in the minimum 12 batches?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, backofanenvelope said:

 Won't that make it way more expensive due for shipping? Think a feely available template file for non UK or people wanting to use local to them companies would be a good option?

 

 

Sorry yes thats what I'm trying to communicate - we should aim to have an in effect open source file that I can draw, then Paul or you can send to Grainge and Hodder, I can cut on my own, and we put online so someone in (for the sake of argument) Switzerland, can send to a Swiss cutter. I think if we ask G&H to do that file it risks becoming proprietary.

 

I'm happy to draw it but I have an IT problem to resolve first, the USB controller on my laptop that runs AutoCAD has gone U/S (taking the bluetooth with it) which means I can't plug a mouse in - I think I have a solution involving a raspberry Pi, a self contained network and software to share a mouse between the two, but that as you might imagine needs a bit of time to sort.

 

Give me a couple of weeks.

 

Jon

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 minutes ago, jonhall said:

 

Sorry yes thats what I'm trying to communicate - we should aim to have an in effect open source file that I can draw, then Paul or you can send to Grainge and Hodder, I can cut on my own, and we put online so someone in (for the sake of argument) Switzerland, can send to a Swiss cutter. I think if we ask G&H to do that file it risks becoming proprietary.

. . . . .

 

Give me a couple of weeks.

 

Jon

Thanks Jon there’s no hurry ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jonhall said:

 

Sorry yes thats what I'm trying to communicate - we should aim to have an in effect open source file that I can draw, then Paul or you can send to Grainge and Hodder, I can cut on my own, and we put online so someone in (for the sake of argument) Switzerland, can send to a Swiss cutter. I think if we ask G&H to do that file it risks becoming proprietary.

 

I totally agree with this.. In practice we'll all use G&H but for whatever reason we need access.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Beard said:

 I've been looking at the distance between passing tracks at stations and it appears to be 4 metres which seems to equate to the Peco "standard" 26.5mm between tracks or have I got that wrong?

 

Is that centre to centre or between the rails? Maybe the width is to suit a island platform width?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Mike Beard said:

On a different subject entirely I've been looking at the distance between passing tracks at stations and it appears to be 4 metres which seems to equate to the Peco "standard" 26.5mm between tracks or have I got that wrong?

 

 It varies is the simplest answer. I measured between the outer rails so you could add a metre on to find the centres and found between just over 3m at some of the old stations to 4m centres on most used today as passing places regularly. It’s quite tight if two trains are in stations like Wiesen. On the rebuilt stations Davos seems wider than Filisur so I guess they have an ideal but compromises to fit in all the tracks without major engineering to widen the site. I know there are directives on platform widths so where possible I guess they squeeze the tracks together to maintain those standards. It’s one of those things you can find out by asking the RhB for the plans but it’s pretty expensive as they now charge for the service. 
https://www.rhb.ch/en/company/treasure-trove-for-railway-fans/plans

I tend to go with basing it on views from the google railview camera on the RhB. 

 

Edited by PaulRhB
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

 

I've drawn this and have a few questions.

 

On the left drawing: the profiles all pass through the 100mm datum at the left hand edge of the trackbed, on the right hand drawing they intersect the symmetry line. I feel that the right hand version might be better, but only if the depth of the board below the datum was greater.

 

Diameter of bolt holes? 6mm? 8mm?

 

 Treatment of trackbed ?- plain on the 100mm? or raised by 3mm with a shoulder (as shown on the Freem009 spec) ?

 

Trackbed width - 50mm? or 60mm?

 

retaining wall? - I've drawn them all with a 10mm front to back depth, with means they get steeper as the basic landform gets taller, would we prefer that the retaining wall keeps a constant angle?

 

Jon

 

 

image.png.7d5157e0fb86da23306dba92b5a473f2.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, jonhall said:

 

I've drawn this and have a few questions.

 

On the left drawing: the profiles all pass through the 100mm datum at the left hand edge of the trackbed, on the right hand drawing they intersect the symmetry line. I feel that the right hand version might be better, but only if the depth of the board below the datum was greater.

How much deeper would we need? A small increase is no problem for me. I’m quite happy with either profile. 

 

 

Quote

 

Diameter of bolt holes? 6mm? 8mm?

I’d prefer 8mm holes as it allows adjustments with a 6mm bolt in it which I already have lots of, as I use them on the two other systems, rather than buying lots of M4. 

 

Quote

 

 Treatment of trackbed ?- plain on the 100mm? or raised by 3mm with a shoulder (as shown on the Freem009 spec) ?

3mm looks good to me. 

 

Quote

 

Trackbed width - 50mm? or 60mm?

Based on the N-train masts spacing of 21mm from the centreline I think 50mm is enough as 60 looks rather wide to me. The blue line represents a catenary post. 

Here are 50 & 60 compared with 50mm the top pic each time. 
8C694047-A787-4B13-A2D4-CA33B2B7E952.jpeg.d64d0749317b65ae6e36521d9f0d9ca9.jpeg

 

81D8D18F-FB61-4672-ACC9-6B8CFA041592.jpeg.953ad7eab9265d5a66731dd8b3f04b8b.jpeg

 

and

7432444A-004F-42F3-96F8-DD4271084609.jpeg.b6bc1642541039dddb8f22e54568d457.jpeg

 

5C7F6E7F-F60F-49EA-930B-EF233CC6740E.jpeg.f8f791af65e9f82b48e31888c28d5371.jpeg

 

Quote

 

retaining wall? - I've drawn them all with a 10mm front to back depth, with means they get steeper as the basic landform gets taller, would we prefer that the retaining wall keeps a constant angle?

The Bayerische Staatsbibliothek pdf I have shows various angles as does the UNESCO document for the Albula. I’ll send you the images by email as I can’t publish on here without infringing the copyright statements. 

Anyone else who would like to see the pdfs please ‘pm’ me their email as they are allowed to be shared but not published here. 

 

Quote

 

Jon

 

 

image.png.7d5157e0fb86da23306dba92b5a473f2.png

 

09D1F5CC-7A55-4499-856A-65374EAFC283.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, jonhall said:

 

I've drawn this and have a few questions.

 

On the left drawing: the profiles all pass through the 100mm datum at the left hand edge of the trackbed, on the right hand drawing they intersect the symmetry line. I feel that the right hand version might be better, but only if the depth of the board below the datum was greater.

 

Diameter of bolt holes? 6mm? 8mm?

 

 Treatment of trackbed ?- plain on the 100mm? or raised by 3mm with a shoulder (as shown on the Freem009 spec) ?

 

Trackbed width - 50mm? or 60mm?

 

retaining wall? - I've drawn them all with a 10mm front to back depth, with means they get steeper as the basic landform gets taller, would we prefer that the retaining wall keeps a constant angle?

 

 

Thanks for the work you have put into this, much appreciated.

 

I would be happy with either profile but think there is a relationship between the profile and the 3mm track bed question. If the left were adopted, I would prefer the 3mm option. If the right were adopted, probably prefer the plain as the combined shoulder and drop might be a bit severe.

 

No issue with the board being deeper if required.

 

8mm holes to take 6mm bolts with repair/penny washers.

 

Track bed width, 50mm  looks better to me as demonstrated by Paul.

 

Retaining walls - steeper as the land gets taller would get my vote.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

50mm trackbed, 8mm dia holes. All contours intersect at the 'front' edge of trackbed, not through centreline

 

The two lowest profiles simply continue on the same gradient to the 'uphill' edge. The steepest profile intersects the top of  a 300x300 box, and the slightly lower one halves the gap at 51mm form the top

 

the retaining wall gradient is constant across all contours and intersects the second contour at 10mm from the edge of the trackbed. 

 

I've added a 3mm shoulder, and its currently drawn with a socket for a trackbed tongue to fit at 100mm, but that would obviously need to differ with different thicknesses of ply used for the trackbed.

 

image.png.ddbfa37ae083490ba7348d2edb05673b.png

 

Jon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

That looks great Jon :)

 

Having 15 options is going to make it difficult to match modules if everyone is picking different ones ;) Cuttings and lots of embankments raised above the ground on both sides are the least common general profile on the real lines. Now what do we think about picking three that we could offer online through G&H so we don’t have to cut them? As G&H need minimum orders of 12 I think we would need to order in batches and then offer them on amongst the group from there. I’m happy to do that again like I do with the 009 ones but I don’t want to be holding 15 profiles and find some just sit there with hundreds of pounds invested ;) So following the original idea of three we came up with how do people feel about that as an idea and do the three below look likely to you?

I’ve chosen them for the following reasons. 
Flat- good for stations in major towns from Samedan, Bever to Chur. 
Gentle slope - good for the Albula and Engadine Stations and much of those lines around stations. 
Steep slope - I’ve deliberately avoided the maximum height to make transitions easier from the other profiles and yet just as easy to transition to the steepest Albula & Bernina sections. Good for upper Albula line, Davos-Filisur and Bernina. 

 

Thoughts? 

E4939B0A-F130-4480-82D8-B09D7CDC2362.jpeg.0302b4761385b817c09a5b2b4e6528bd.jpeg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I think the 3 suggested offer a good selection of terrain while being practical for the logistics.

 

Super work Jonhall - much appreciated.

 

I would immediately use 2 of the flat sections, one for each end of Obervaz which has been designed to stand alone or connect with other modules.

 

Moving forward with my larger plan, I would use both of the other styles and while not having an immediate need, happy to buy them if that made up the minimum numbers for an order, subject to price of course. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Jim Easterbrook said:

My initial efforts at construction would use flat and gentle slope profiles. I'd certainly want 4 flats to start with, and subsequently 4 more flats and 4 gentle slope if my first efforts go well. What ballpark price do we expect each one to be?

Well the 009 ones I have are £4 pr now and these are 50% wider so a little more on the material cost, maybe £5 ish for a pair? I’ll get a quote once people are happy with the choice based on proposed above :)

Edited by PaulRhB
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in the interests of getting this off the ground, and since I have access to a laser cutter, provided people were happy to use 6mm ply (in practice 5.5mm ish) I could do an initial set of ends for whoever wanted them at 'material cost + postage'. This might have a negative impact on the viability of batches through G&H, so it needs a bit of thinking about - its likely they would be about the same price as G&H, but wouldn't have the min-order requirement.  Once the spec is set I'll obviously post DXF/DWG files here as well for anyone to make their own arrangements. 

 

Jon

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

That’s a great offer Jon can get things moving faster. I’m still happy to do the G&H route though on the basis of just one batch at a time to save holding big stock as this will be at cost rather than a business. 
What do you think of limiting the profiles to three?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I can see the desire to limit module proliferation, but I'd probably prefer to let people do what they want in the hope that more took it up.

 

and to add another option....

 

image.png.644dd48f7e1555efa2e512bec12a7085.png

 

I think that looks a bit better than the two embankment options using the existing landforms...

 

Jon

Edited by jonhall
  • Agree 1
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...