Easton, Isle of Portland

[Mick Bonwick]

4 hours ago, MrWolf said:

Somewhere near back on topic, do you have any advice on ballasting pointwork without killing it? 

 

You appear to have tackled the most nerve wracking job first in the pictures.

 

Some of this you might not want to read.

 

The whole process starts with the modification of the points to remove dependency on contact between point blades and stock rail. It will then not matter whether paint gets in the way of that contact because electrical continuity is achieved by wires soldered underneath.

 

All other painting is completed before the ballast is laid, loose, and tamped/teased/cajoled into place. This takes a long time! Doing it this way means that you can keep individual pieces of ballast well away from the parts that are, ultimately, supposed to be able to move. Once the ballast positioning is complete it is dampened with IPA from a misting bottle and, before that evaporates, thinned IPA is applied from a disposable pipette. I restrict this process to a 6" stretch at a time because that works for me.

 

More about all this can be found on pages 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 41, 42, 45, 46 etc.

 

Just because it appears in pictures doesn't mean that's the first time it's been tried!

 

 

 

[Mick Bonwick]

5 hours ago, Alister_G said:

Hi Mick,

 

I hate to interject a note of sanity to your thread, but I noticed that you have a bit of a nasty kink at the join between these two turnouts:

 

 

You might want to address that before ballasting it?

 

Cheers,

 

Al.

 

It's my favourite one and I've called it Ray.

 

Now you've pointed it out everybody will know it's there.

 

I'll make sure it never appears in any more photographs.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Mick Bonwick
Clarify my attitude.

[Alister_G]

Just now, Mick Bonwick said:

 

It's my favourite one and I've called it Ray.

 

Now you've pointed it out everybody will know it's there. I'll make sure it never appears in any more photographs.

 

Sorry Mick.

 

Al.

[Mick Bonwick]

33 minutes ago, Alister_G said:

 

Sorry Mick.

 

Al.

 

It's OK, Al, I've read the post again and realise that there is no hint of levity therein. That's not what I had in mind when I wrote it, so I've amended it a bit.

 

My turn to alopogise.

[Mick Bonwick]

By the way, there are three others. They're called Dave, Pete and Mick.

 

All four of them were introduced by my method of sticking the track down. Careful positioning, placing a flat piece of plywood over the top and then weighting that down with lumps of old lead pipe. There is a basic flaw in that process, and that is that once the weights are all in place there's no way of telling that you have moved something slightly. You only discover that the following day, once everything has set solid. You would have thought, wouldn't you, that if it happened once then steps could be taken not to do it again?

 

The most complex junction on the board was laid using this method, and was left for two days to dry, because I had other things to be doing. When I removed the weights I found that one half of the crossover was 3.5mm away from the other half. Fortunately there were insulating rail joiners between the two, so I was able to position those half-way across the gap. What I now have is a rail join that really accentuates the clickety-clack of wheels crossing it.

 

 

I've just been out to the workshop to record all of these kinks for posterity, but won't be showing them on here because they're all blurred. I couldn't be bothered to open the blinds so it was too dark and my hand not steady enough while the shutter was open. You'll just have to wait until tomorrow to see them.

 

Tired of waiting for you, all day and all of the night. You really got me.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by Mick Bonwick
Photograph inserted to illustrate gap.

[KNP]

4 minutes ago, Mick Bonwick said:

By the way, there are three others. They're called Dave, Pete and Mick.

 

All four of them were introduced by my method of sticking the track down. Careful positioning, placing a flat piece of plywood over the top and then weighting that down with lumps of old lead pipe. There is a basic flaw in that process, and that is that once the weights are all in place there's no way of telling that you have moved something slightly. You only discover that the following day, once everything has set solid. You would have thought, wouldn't you, that if it happened once then steps could be taken not to do it again?

 

The most complex junction on the board was laid using this method, and was left for two days to dry, because I had other things to be doing. When I removed the weights I found that one half of the crossover was 3.5mm away from the other half. Fortunately there were insulating rail joiners between the two, so I was able to position those half-way across the gap. What I now have is a rail join that really accentuates the clickety-clack of wheels crossing it.

 

I've just been out to the workshop to record all of these kinks for posterity, but won't be showing them on here because they're all blurred. I couldn't be bothered to open the blinds so it was too dark and my hand not steady enough while the shutter was open. You'll just have to wait until tomorrow to see them.

 

Tired of waiting for you, all day and all of the night. You really got me.

 

 

 

This Time Tomorrow....

 

after all you are

 

A Well Respected Man

 

taking pictures on a

 

Sunny Afternoon 

 

and so on......

 

 

 

 

[MrWolf]

I have the feeling that this joke will go on,

 

Till the end of the day.

 

At least.

[MrWolf]

1 hour ago, Mick Bonwick said:

 

Some of this you might not want to read.

 

The whole process starts with the modification of the points to remove dependency on contact between point blades and stock rail. It will then not matter whether paint gets in the way of that contact because electrical continuity is achieved by wires soldered underneath.

 

All other painting is completed before the ballast is laid, loose, and tamped/teased/cajoled into place. This takes a long time! Doing it this way means that you can keep individual pieces of ballast well away from the parts that are, ultimately, supposed to be able to move. Once the ballast positioning is complete it is dampened with IPA from a misting bottle and, before that evaporates, thinned IPA is applied from a disposable pipette. I restrict this process to a 6" stretch at a time because that works for me.

 

More about all this can be found on pages 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 41, 42, 45, 46 etc.

 

Just because it appears in pictures doesn't mean that's the first time it's been tried!

 

 

 

 

The problem of effective connection and not relying upon contact between the switch blades has been dealt with. 

No doubt there will be other things that need a comprehensive swearing at, but at least what I have in mind for the order of jobs to do is in line with what you have already done.

 

Thanks for the info.

[Alister_G]

1 hour ago, Mick Bonwick said:

 

It's OK, Al, I've read the post again and realise that there is no hint of levity therein. That's not what I had in mind when I wrote it, so I've amended it a bit.

 

My turn to alopogise.

 

No worries, I did get the levity, subtle though it was

 

I had the same problem as you describe, except in my case I'd already laid the ballast:

 

 

Oops!

 

So I had to lift it, clean it up and relay it:

 

 

Al.

[MrWolf]

Slightly less tricky to rectify, but it wasn't until I took a photo in the right direction that I noticed my platform line had a distinct wobble.

 

 

[Mick Bonwick]

Another kink.

 

This one is Dave, the second most prominent member of the group.

 

 

Whrn  studied this one more closely I saw that the rails were neither in line nor level at the right-hand join. The insulation rail joiner was positioned underneath the rail at the far side of the join. Being flexible it had formed itself in such a way as to leave the rail top almost level rather than having a large step in it as it would have if the rail joiner was a metal one. Thanks to @Alister_G for making me look closer at my previously perfect ( ) trackwork.

 

The fix.

 

Trackwork on Easton, as most will remember from way back in the account of its construction (!), is stuck to the foam underlay with Copydex. This means that in the unlikely event of something being wrong, it can be put right without too much disruption. A metal rule pushed gently between the sleepers and the foam will separate the two quite easily.

 

 

Just be careful not to catch any droppers or point operating mechanisms!

 

A thin layer of fresh Copydex can be pushed under the sleepers using the brush contained in the lid and the track repositioned more accurately with the insulating rail joiner in the right alignment.

 

 

Out with the lead pipes and leave it for a few hours, just checking first that the new alignment hasn't been affected by the placing of the lead pipes.

 

 

The trouble with the originally noticed kink (Ray) is that it is between the pair of points that have other points next to or very close to them, thus rendering the correction impossible without the repositioning of all the point motors as well. It will remain a kink for all to see and marvel at. Or point and snigger, whichever they deem appropriate.

 

 

[Alister_G]

So, in answer to the Cluedo question, it was Mick Bonwick, in the railway room, with the lead piping...

 

 

Al.

[Gedward]

4 minutes ago, Alister_G said:

So, in answer to the Cluedo question, it was Mick Bonwick, in the railway room, with the lead piping...

 

 

Al.

 

And there was me thinking, it was Colonel Sanders, in the kitchen, with the drum stick.

[Zero Gravitas]

16 minutes ago, Alister_G said:

So, in answer to the Cluedo question, it was Mick Bonwick, in the railway room, with the lead piping...

 

 

Al.

 

I’ve always said that Mr. Bonwick is the most dangerous man in railway modelling...

[Mick Bonwick]

14 minutes ago, Zero Gravitas said:

 

I’ve always said that Mr. Bonwick is the most dangerous man in railway modelling...

 

Trained to kill, Mark, trained to kill.

[ian]

26 minutes ago, Mick Bonwick said:

 

Trained to kill, Mark, trained to kill.

Given his experience with the C company canteen I wouldn't be suprised to learn that he has a licence to grill.

[Stubby47]

I just thought it was kill via food poisoning...

[Gedward]

8 minutes ago, ian said:

licence to grill.

 

...bacon not charred.

[Mick Bonwick]

After a couple of days doing other things I return to the workshop, remove the lead pipes and find that, although the kink has been eliminated, the sleepers have moved away from the join and left a gap larger than it should be. The steel rule came into play again and the sleepers moved into their correct space. I haven't stuck them down this time because the application of ballast will eventually achieve that.

 

In other news:

 

An arrival from Kernow Model Rail Centre prompted me to get the camera out and take a picture of these family members:

 

[MrWolf]

Very nice, one brake van is good, three is much better.

[Fishplate]

4 hours ago, Mick Bonwick said:

An arrival from Kernow Model Rail Centre prompted me to get the camera out and take a picture of these family members:

 

Hi @Mick Bonwick. Very nice.

 

I have two versions of the SR pillbox brakevan, one as the model on the right in your picture.

 

I noticed whilst watching a train go by that the chimney for the stove is right in front of the lookout window. Your model is the same. 

 

I pondered on Page 1, May 27th 2018, of my thread if this was really correct as I don't have any info on the internal layout. (I also pondered if I might have an extremely rare factory error which would be worth a fortune in  . . . . . .). 

 

The other model I have has the chimney diagonally opposite the lookout, which seems more sensible.

 

It would appear that there are at least two potential factory error models, so my hope that,  one day Rodders we will be millionaires, are at least halved. . . .

 

I didn't get any comment back on my page one way or the other, so am taking the opportunity to raise the query here to see if you or some of your audience might have any ideas?

 

John

 

ps Unfortunately away from home at the mo, so can't copy the pic from my thread here using this kindle thing with its annoying predictive text, hence page / date reference.

[Fishplate]

My comment seemed to be caught by the RMWeb update process that was taking place. I presume that prevented me posting the picture from my topic:

 

 

Above: Stove by the lookout window on the model on the left, as yours. It is diagonally opposite on the right hand model.

 

Below: models turned round. The white chimney would more logically be over the SR on this side. . . .

 

[Mick Bonwick]

It's quite simple really, John. All of the Bachmann models with left-hand duckets are wrong, or at least that was what I was told when I bought mine. I plan (one day) to remove the chimney on all of mine and create a new one to place in the correct position. I ought to be able to do that without wrecking the models. He said, confidently.

[Fishplate]

1 hour ago, Mick Bonwick said:

All of the Bachmann models with left-hand duckets are wrong, or at least that was what I was told when I bought mine.

 

Simples!

 

So all factory errors then. . . .

 

Thanks Mick.

[Mick Bonwick]

Just in case you have a few days to spare in August . . . . . . .