Jump to content
 

La Belle Sauvage (once again, Holborn Viaduct)


Lacathedrale
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

 

 

A couple of suggestions, firstly initially just tack items in place until you know all is in gauge and working, so on long lengths initially stick one in every 5 chairs, except around common crossings

 

To test the work as you go tack in place the stock and closure rails and test with locos as well as wagons, I use both motorised and non motorised rolling chassis, I have six or more jumper cables for testing with a motorised chassis.

 

As for holding wing rails in place, just get use to getting burnt fingers/nails

Hi,

 

when i was building my N gauge track, although most of each turnout was built in place on the layout, I built all the crossings on my workbench, using a simple jig to hold the rails in place whilst soldering.  After cleaning up it was placed into position, care fully checked then the remainder built using that as a datum.  The 3-way was trickier, as you can imagine, but I was able to build all the crossings, with a bit of jiggery-pokery, similarly, then continued as for a standard turnout.

 

Roja

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 37Oban said:

Hi,

 

when i was building my N gauge track, although most of each turnout was built in place on the layout, I built all the crossings on my workbench, using a simple jig to hold the rails in place whilst soldering.  After cleaning up it was placed into position, care fully checked then the remainder built using that as a datum.  The 3-way was trickier, as you can imagine, but I was able to build all the crossings, with a bit of jiggery-pokery, similarly, then continued as for a standard turnout.

 

Roja

 

 

 

Roja

 

When I build track I build turnouts and crossings on building boards on my work bench, even formations, there are jigs for common crossings available, but you would need one for each angle you are using. I do have EM/S4 Vee filing jigs for 1-5 to 1-12 which build very accurate vees, but the first Vee in a 3 way normally is an odd angle plus is a curviform vee.

 

I also have the Wheelwrights wing rail jigs in P4 & EM gauges, and if you have an 00SF block gauge the EM one can be used. Had the timbers been plastic I have in the past successfully built a turnout using a soldered together vee and chairs to hold the wing rail in place and to gauge, the wing rail must be made spot on for this to work. Many don't trust this method, but if it works on plain tract, no reason for it not to in other areas    

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

 

Roja

 

When I build track I build turnouts and crossings on building boards on my work bench, even formations, there are jigs for common crossings available, but you would need one for each angle you are using. I do have EM/S4 Vee filing jigs for 1-5 to 1-12 which build very accurate vees, but the first Vee in a 3 way normally is an odd angle plus is a curviform vee.

 

I also have the Wheelwrights wing rail jigs in P4 & EM gauges, and if you have an 00SF block gauge the EM one can be used. Had the timbers been plastic I have in the past successfully built a turnout using a soldered together vee and chairs to hold the wing rail in place and to gauge, the wing rail must be made spot on for this to work. Many don't trust this method, but if it works on plain tract, no reason for it not to in other areas    

Hi Hayfield,

 

I made some simple jigs for the different crossings.  I  tried to standardise on 1:6 and 1:7, although this wasn't always possible.  For a crossing jig, I drew the angle, say 1:6.5 accurately onto paper.  This was stuck onto a piece of copperclad then very carefully cut out with a razor saw then this piece was turned over and soldered to another piece of copperclad.  Side supports for the rail where then added by copperclad strips, paxolin sides facing inwards, set for the width of the rail I was using; in this case code 55.  In use, a thin piece of paper was placed at the point where the crossing rails met so they didn't get soldered to the base!   To make a curviform vee the the main piece of copperclad was gently sanded to the required curve before attaching to the base piece.  I know this method may not appeal to everyone, but it worked for me in N.  Whether it would work in 4mm I don't know.  I may have a go to find out.

 

roja

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made some simple jigs for vees by soldering Ali strip to some plywood, even made an adjustable one. However using the EMGS Vee filing jigs files the ends accurately, then you could use the jig in reverse to hold it at the correct angle while soldering it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I have a jig for soldering them up. It's just a bit of 6mm ply with EMGS crossing timbers glued forming Vs of the required angles 1:5 to 1:8 and I hold the rail in place with bluetack. Cost just about nothing and it's worked just fine for 30 years. Lowtech works for me everytime.

Regards Lez. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi William. I've spent a pleasant time reading developments so far. It is a very interesting project. Thanks for sharing.

 

I was unaware of the SECR website. As my layout is firmly planted in their territory I will be joining in the near future. I look forward to seeing more posts. 

 

John

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hello again friends,

 

Not a huge amount has happened on Holborn Viaduct - with the lockdown Peco are in no position to offer any more accurate timelines for their double slip or any other bullhead pointwork, which somewhat scuppers my ability to progress on the layout. The original specification called for slight bends in the formation of the throat between peco pointwork. That curvature combined with insulating gaps cut in the rails introduced unwanted kinks and so progress stopped (Option 2, below) - here are the choices for moving forward in order of expediency:

  1. Use Peco pointwork throughout including the internal diamond, regardless of bullhead/streamline style, with a view to replace them with ready-to-plonk pointwork when it becomes available.
  2. Use Peco as above, but hand-laying the diamond
  3. Use Peco as above for standard turnouts, but hand lay the diamond, the double-slip and the threeway in 00SF
  4. Disregard all Peco pointwork and build the entire throat in 00SF
  5. Decide that life isn't hard enough and build the entire throat in EM or P4 :bad:

I'm not sure that Option 2 is that feasible as an option - it introduces way too much compromise, cost and duplication of effort. I feel like I either take a fully temporary approach and go with Option 1, or I just get it done with Option 3 or 4. I've yet to be convinced of the worth of Option 4 but happy to hear any arguments for or against. Option 5 is somewhat tongue on cheek, but if I'm going to go to all the effort of hand-laying every single component and fixing the point geometry with Option 4, I may as well see what's involved...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

personally I'd go for option 5, unless you're heavily committed to OO, in which case then option 4.  Being able to build turnouts to fit specific locations without the constraints imposed by r-t-r track is very liberating, and once you take the plunge you'll wonder why you didn't do it sooner, and once you've bought the necessary gauges, which may seem expensive at first, and the materials, especially if going down the pcb route, the cost per turnout plummets compared to commercial products.

 

Roja

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Roja / @37Oban - I've already done a fair bit of hand laying track mostly in 2mm but also in  EM and S7 - and I absolutely agree with you that it's more liberating. Thankfully, I already have rail, chairs and timber sleepers as well as gauges in EM and 00SF (just P4 to go for the triple eh?)

 

The main justification for OO/OO-SF was for the sake of not molesting the RTR items I've collected, and getting a layout done in my lifetime, rather than constantly having one in the track-laying stage. May I ask why you and also you @Worsdell forever - think that EM/P4 is a better choice than 00SF?  I would have thought leveraging the existing Peco BH turnouts for the plain pointwork and for the FY would be a no-brainer - but clearly that opinion is not in the majority! 

 

As an aside: I feel like if I decided to go with EM or P4, then if the stock could just be re-wheeled (without fitting compensated or sprung chassis)  I would go with EM, but otherwise, i.e. if I had to go through the rigamarole of building lots of all new chassis for my entire collection I'd probably go with P4.

Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

As an aside: I feel like if I decided to go with EM or P4, then if the stock could just be re-wheeled (without fitting compensated or sprung chassis)  I would go with EM, but otherwise, i.e. if I had to go through the rigamarole of building lots of all new chassis for my entire collection I'd probably go with P4.

The common view is that P4 needs springing or compensation but EM is OK with rigid underframes. IMHO, this is oversimplified to the point of being wrong. There are examples of long-wheelbase wagons with rigid underframes in P4 where long trains can be propelled safely. Conversely, I've seen EM layouts where the stock falls off all the time.

 

It all comes down to track laying and curvature. If you can maintain track twist less than about three quarters of your flange depth over the wheelbase of the longest vehicle (the 0.010" criterion in the 2mm Association Handbook), then rigid stock stays on very well when hauled. In addition, if your curves are gentle, and gently negotiated, that stock will stay on when propelled. If you have really wavy track, or try to propel at speed round tramway curves, then no flange depth or fancy suspension will save matters. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

 May I ask why you and also you @Worsdell forever - think that EM/P4 is a better choice than 00SF?  I would have thought leveraging the existing Peco BH turnouts for the plain pointwork and for the FY would be a no-brainer - but clearly that opinion is not in the majority! 

 

For me it's the look of the thing and as I'm kit or scratchbuilding almost everything I might as well. 00SF to me is a massive backward step, making the gauge even narrower just to get better running when, to me, EM (or P4 if you must!) looks so much better.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to build all my track when i modelled in N and when I made the switch to 4mm I dismissed OO immediately, primarily because of it's appearance and settled on EM after seeing several layouts in exhibitions and deciding it was within my modelling capabilities.  For the record I'm disabled, having the use of only one arm so somethings are somewhat difficult to achieve, but with a will...  I have a thread in the kit and scratch building section.   Roja's EM bits and bobs

 

At the moment I feel that the tolerances in P4 are just a wee bit beyond me, but who knows what tomorrow may bring!  Then again, I could be tempted by 7mm!

 

Roja

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I am not sure a fresh 00/EM/P4 debate will add anything new to the old arguments!

 

Having said that, I am firmly with "Mr Worsdell forever"! All my own personal modelling has been in EM for almost 40 years and I find the improved appearance and more forgiving tolerances give me an ideal compromise. I build almost everything rigid (apart from 4-4-0 and 0-4-4T types where I get better weight distribution and derailments due to track and wheel standards are almost unknown. Operator error and buffer locking when I have been careless in layout design maybe!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see you back! I would personally go for waiting for the Peco stuff or going EM. Converting stock would be a pain but I suppose you have time. Given that Holborn Viaduct is largely above ground I'm not sure how much the gauge will be too apparent.  I suppose it depends what you want to do in the next 30 years!  If you choose to wait for Peco you could of course begin with some buildings  ....

 

Whatever you choose,  all the best. 

 

Terry 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I can’t recall (apologies) if you’ve mentioned the display height. The higher it is the less apparent OO is, especially if using chaired track. The raised embankment/walls will also give you masking of OO gauge particularly if the track bed height is around 55inches from floor level for most people. OO will obviously give you the quick hit, you’re unlikely to need to do wheel changes except for cosmetic requirements. EM gives an easier ‘Finescale’ result and you’re likely to be able to use identical geometry for the track. P4 will require the most work and possibly expense, new profile wheels at a minimum for stock conversions, and I wonder if some of the tighter radii, if using the Peco slip as an example, might not be as practical as OO/EM.
(image shows OO Peco cd75 bullhead at 55” track height, for someone around 5’10”)

 

04AB2B1F-472E-4A19-B2C8-0E98E6BCC256.jpeg

Edited by PMP
chelling speck
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah wonderful, thank you all for the tips - I am going to whip up the plans in Templot just for a point of comparison. It seems there is something of a healthy market for used Peco pointwork, so I don't think I'd be hugely put out if I used streamline just to get trains running.

 

Since my first plan for this layout has essentially been scuppered and we are spitballing ideas to proceed, as an exercise, I put together three plans. Grid markings are 6" spacing:

 

1) The throat in EM/00SF  (since I'd be building to the same geometry depite the change to 18mm) :

image.png.8dd89d9904d449872bb8047f23ccf299.png

 

2) The throat in 2FS (since the main thrust of my modelling is in 2mm)

image.png.66638b934951d0a3c22488b888399a1e.png

 

3) The actual Holborn Viaduct throat, minus to platform 5 and 6 in 2FS:

image.png.488a0bf2934ee152b16462ece0218cec.png

(note, I've intentionally left extra space on the left and cropped from the right, so that the grid markings are more easily followed)

 

The S-curve is entirely prototypical in the Minories plan, in order to accomodate the LCDR metropolitan extension dive-under at one end, and the bridge over Ludgate Hill on the other - although it is exaggerated in this view due to the omission of P5 & 6. To add P5/6 would not materially affect the complexity (another single slip, crossover and single turnout) but I'm not sure it would add any operational interest - pretty scary how it's extremely close to @t-b-g's original suggestion from Buckingham of using a scissors and a threeway, and my addition of the double slip off one corner - albeit in a slightly different order but achieving the same result.

 

So I guess the quesiton might better be reframed as so: If I decide to not wait for Peco to release their bullhead components, and I either end up re-laying the whole throat in OOSF, EM or P4 - why not just hand lay it in my 'normal' scale of 2mmFS? And if I'm going to do that, why not just use the exact HV plan?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, Lacathedrale said:

Ah wonderful, thank you all for the tips - I am going to whip up the plans in Templot just for a point of comparison. It seems there is something of a healthy market for used Peco pointwork, so I don't think I'd be hugely put out if I used streamline just to get trains running.

 

Since my first plan for this layout has essentially been scuppered and we are spitballing ideas to proceed, as an exercise, I put together three plans. Grid markings are 6" spacing:

 

1) The throat in EM/00SF  (since I'd be building to the same geometry depite the change to 18mm) :

image.png.8dd89d9904d449872bb8047f23ccf299.png

 

2) The throat in 2FS (since the main thrust of my modelling is in 2mm)

image.png.66638b934951d0a3c22488b888399a1e.png

 

3) The actual Holborn Viaduct throat, minus to platform 5 and 6 in 2FS:

image.png.488a0bf2934ee152b16462ece0218cec.png

(note, I've intentionally left extra space on the left and cropped from the right, so that the grid markings are more easily followed)

 

The S-curve is entirely prototypical in the Minories plan, in order to accomodate the LCDR metropolitan extension dive-under at one end, and the bridge over Ludgate Hill on the other - although it is exaggerated in this view due to the omission of P5 & 6. To add P5/6 would not materially affect the complexity (another single slip, crossover and single turnout) but I'm not sure it would add any operational interest - pretty scary how it's extremely close to @t-b-g's original suggestion from Buckingham of using a scissors and a threeway, and my addition of the double slip off one corner - albeit in a slightly different order but achieving the same result.

 

So I guess the quesiton might better be reframed as so: If I decide to not wait for Peco to release their bullhead components, and I either end up re-laying the whole throat in OOSF, EM or P4 - why not just hand lay it in my 'normal' scale of 2mmFS? And if I'm going to do that, why not just use the exact HV plan?

 

 

 

 

Sometimes it is possible to over think things to the point where the brain ends up going round in circles and getting nowhere fast. I find myself in that situation very often when planning a layout. Change this bit. Change that bit. Now that bit isn't right so if we move that slightly. Now that crossover needs moving an inch or two. If I put that point the other way round I can do that move. Ah, but I can't do that so put it back. Several hours later I end up back where I started.

 

It was a Military leader, I can't remember which one, who said "The worst enemy of a good plan is the search for a perfect one".

 

If 2mm finescale is something you are comfortable working in and you can build the layout as an accurate model in that scale, them what is stopping you? If it is the idea that you need to do four times the modelling in a given space and it becomes more ambitious than you fancy taking on, then rule it out. If you think the layout in 2mm is something that can be done with the resources and time you have available and that you won't run out of steam before it is finished, then 2mm is the ideal scale for such a project. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Tony - I'm very aware that I'm circling the drain on this one again.

 

I had an absolute set course of action - but after so many assurances from Peco that their double-slip was  'just around the corner', and they would be looking at a 3-way next - to come up with nothing and to find myself back at the stage where I have to make some fundamental decisions yet again is very dissapointing and dispiriting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
29 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Thanks, Tony - I'm very aware that I'm circling the drain on this one again.

 

I had an absolute set course of action - but after so many assurances from Peco that their double-slip was  'just around the corner', and they would be looking at a 3-way next - to come up with nothing and to find myself back at the stage where I have to make some fundamental decisions yet again is very dissapointing and dispiriting.

 

Speaking from personal experience, I can always find lots of reasons for not doing something, when really, the answer is to get on with it.

 

If you are capable of making your own points, the lack of new product from Peco puts your project back by a few hours while you make them, rather than months waiting for Peco to get their act together..

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have seen you want to build it in 4mm scale and use your existing stock without changing the gauge. No brainer use 00SF.

 

I am building a layout using hand built track, initially to 00SF, but as my stock is all kit build and I was going to re-chassis my locos to etched chassis I decided to go to EM gauge. But if I had RTR stock I would have continued to build in 00SF

 

Hand built track will always look better than RTR what ever gauge is used, if you have an elevated view few would notice anyway

Link to post
Share on other sites

@hayfield as you can see above hopefully I'm pretty comfortable with templot - but if the throat is laid out in such a way as to meet the layout design and the peco components I don't think I'm going to change it just for the sake of it!

 

Interestingly, there are a couple of bits of peco streamline 3way/double-slips up on eBay at the moment - the viewing angle for this layout will be almost flat across the rails, so maybe that's not a bad shout despite the duplication - just to get things bloody moving again. If I decide in the meantime to hand lay or refactor the plan at a more fundamental level then I'll at least know I've paid market rate for the parts! Whatever happens, I'm going to spend a couple of hours in the workshop today and see if I can progress with the pointwork I started before mothballing the layout.

 

The real throat (as opposed to my Buckingham GC inspired throat) fits into about 5' - it looks really lovely but based on t-b-g's mindful comments about not being wilfully distracted, it is probably the least desirable choice (given that it involves changing the plan, increasing the timelines, prevaricating, etc.)  - but I thought it was worth checking just incase...

 

One question that springs to mind though, is how the heck would the SE&CR turn their tender locomotives? Surely they wouldn't be running bunker-first all the way back to Herne Hill? Ewer St. didn't exist - so maybe all the way around the curve through Boro junction and turned on the tables by Cannon Street?

 

 

Edited by Lacathedrale
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

My original understanding was that this would potentially use 4mm RTR pre grouping equipment and Peco track for expediency. Assuming that to be correct if you’re heading towards your ‘comfort’ zone of 2FS, you need in my experience, (as @t-b-g has commented) to ask yourself, is the 4mm project in any gauge going to satisfy? The templot HV plan looks really nice. Dropped into the same footprint the opportunity to capture much more of the London landscape is massive, but significantly more architectural building work.

Edited by PMP
Additional words
  • Friendly/supportive 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...