Jump to content
 

Quarry transshipment point (009)


Recommended Posts

Time for another micro layout. After building my cake box micro layout Cule’s Quarry ( https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/130099-009-quarry-micro-cules-quarry/ ) I’d decided that it would be good to extend it by building extra modules. With a 40 x 20cm Scale Model Scenery baseboard (similar style and geometry but twice as long as the cake box one) I’m ready to get started and now hopefully have a bit more time on my hands. I’m not sure what intermediate modules there might be in future, but for now I’m modelling the point where the narrow gauge quarry line meets a siding off the local branch, where the gravel is transferred from the V skips into standard gauge wagons for onward transport.

 

First thing is to finish off the very basic loco shed I’ve been building, loosely inspired by one at Beamish: http://beamishtransportonline.co.uk/2012/08/narrow-gauge-developments-august-2012/

 

As I complete the cladding, I’m wondering if it needs some sort of ventilation and guttering. Lots of similar corrugated iron sheds I’ve seen pictures of don’t seem to have this though and on an industrial line they may not have bothered. It will mainly be used by diesel locos (Minitrains Gmeinders).

 

93483381-9024-4F7A-9657-6BA259BCD742.jpeg.fef987394205053f791c736143fca56e.jpegCE191EC5-10B5-44E6-BF94-F70B572A3328.jpeg.24c5a6243d7d45fb46819d3ea2e22529.jpeg14A9565E-F28C-4F01-9325-FF6FA2247147.jpeg.7712cf8755f40e5f079f9897d9e3af6e.jpegDCEAB1B3-254C-4E4B-8922-098398B11786.jpeg.1bfad70f5fdf1d2fc0f6327c5e9bf69a.jpeg

Edited by 009 micro modeller
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 but for now I’m modelling the point where the narrow gauge quarry line meets a siding off the local branch, where the gravel is transferred from the V skips into standard gauge wagons for onward transport.

 

Have you any plans for the gravel to actually move? Or indeed create an illusion of it being transhipped - or just use good old imagination?


Ralf

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ralf said:

 

Have you any plans for the gravel to actually move? Or indeed create an illusion of it being transhipped - or just use good old imagination?


Ralf

If you look at the cake box thread you’ll see that the loading actually works and uses moving, loose gravel. This is fairly easy because it’s just gravity and a chute with no moving parts. For the unloading the Roco skips don’t actually tip, so the options seem to be:

 

- modify them to tip (people have done this but I don’t think I could make it reliable enough).

- use these instead (they are longer than 009 skips which could create problems and also don’t look as good).

- create the illusion of the wagons being emptied.

 

In the past I have experimented with the Minitrix wagons and I understand these originally came in a set with a trackside tipping mechanism but that this is too close to the track when used for 009. This time I think I’m going to go for the third option though. At the moment the idea is for the wagons to be “tipped” in a shed which also forms a scenic break. Currently I’m not sure whether this should be a sheltered tipping dock for direct narrow to standard gauge loading or a tipping shed where gravel is stockpiled before loading into standard gauge wagons using a short conveyor. I’m not sure whether either can be made to look very realistic given that gravel was likely to have been tipped in the open. Current thinking is that the standard gauge loading will also need to be imaginary because of the way the chute would need to work but I’m happy with this - I’d just be repeating something seen on the quarry section anyway so it wouldn’t add much interest. The idea is more to create a space for the train to run through from the quarry before it goes off scene (it will have a working point to the loco shed though so the loco can go off to be refuelled etc.). The standard gauge may be non-working due to space constraints although I’m still wondering whether a couple of wagons could be hauled on and off with a hook from behind the scenes even if no locos are involved.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually started (and have now finished) making some doors, showing the framework. I think they’ve turned out OK and if they get stuck on this will be with gel superglue after painting as this should be easier to pose correctly than with polystyrene cement. I’ve possibly run out of Wills guttering though so this bit will have to wait. I’m in no hurry to paint and complete as I won’t need it for a while - I need to start the rest of the layout first.

FB85B058-DC8D-4A0A-B54E-4E4FEAD1C1ED.jpeg.ff6c2ac55314d45284078563759973f5.jpeg

B77A1E79-D666-4D54-BA2B-F7C8EE9112EC.jpeg.03fed9a3d891d281b5bdfeb33dc8a92f.jpeg

ABB2FCC9-4922-4C23-B693-5C43DB59E25F.jpeg.74ca18b6bb50ae3dc55f2cea485b5dff.jpeg

BB371D49-46E8-42C6-9546-D4B60694F039.jpeg.3c51cc714ae01bdfde98811e56845339.jpeg

 

I also checked the Minitrains Gmeinder still fits properly.

54412590-781A-4CBB-B793-8BA8CDC431E9.jpeg.a9d9b312b5c4afdbacbc9e87c50fcdbe.jpeg

 

Edit: also realised some of the corrugated panels are the “wrong” way up (they are more rippled on one side than the other) but never mind.

 

Edited by 009 micro modeller
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve dry-fitted the baseboard together (it looks like there aren’t any holes that can be drilled until later so I’ll probably glue it soon) and placed a few bits and pieces to see how it looks. I still think making the standard gauge operational could be a bit pointless given that it can only be about 25cm long (probably slightly less). The clearances between the shed on its siding and the main running line are a bit tight but should be OK. To ease it I may need to truncate the standard gauge a little bit. An alternative is to move the standard gauge to the back where there is more space but then the tipping dock will be less visually interesting and the transition from the low level standard gauge line to the backscene will be quite abrupt. I’m not sure whether to put something more at the back though.

2CEC02C5-73AD-4860-A0C3-5582A994DBA3.jpeg.193812789b41e361fd9f9866d633c460.jpeg

FE307460-A905-48FA-887A-7D94C373B1F2.jpeg.dd2f3d2ddb556ee412e1960a929adde1.jpeg

 

The backscene level may also need to be raised slightly to accommodate the raised level for the narrow gauge and the height of the shed.

FEFCDC05-11E8-4523-B913-88343B9B863F.jpeg.d01448fb211e54b32671c8a48d02ea86.jpeg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

144E6945-022F-4D7A-9B82-914234AA330F.jpeg.668eb275d7dbe655fc397a0b7c7fb0fe.jpeg

 

This is slightly annoying. It suggests that, if I want the track position to join up with the existing scenic section, I’ll make the front even more cramped and have difficulty getting a siding into the loco shed (although of course the radius for this could be extremely tight if necessary  because it’s only for light engine moves). Alternatively I can move the main 009 track further back; the scenic modules will eventually be displayed in separate interconnected picture frame boxes (as the original cake box board already is) so potentially the front not being flush isn’t as much of a problem. A further option is to use a right handed point instead and place the loco shed behind the main running line but I’m not sure whether I’ll be able to create an effective scenic break to replace it. Does anyone else have any ideas?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve now begun landscaping with some polystyrene taken from an earlier unfinished layout. To avoid the issues noted above I’ve sacrificed the precise track alignment with the original board but not the placement of the loco shed at the front; although I’ve found a tree to adapt, the shed is still a better scenic break and the tree will be placed on the other side of the hole in the backscene. Similarly, I don’t actually need the standard gauge line to extend across the whole length of the board as I’ve decided it will be static so it will end halfway.

 

F3C5A8D4-FF73-4FBB-82B0-77C3F92C137C.jpeg.8890ed966d013edca2b2d82b5f1d20cb.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My track has now arrived (along with some other bits and pieces) so it’s now a case of more precisely aligning and levelling the trackbed and then painting the scenery before actually laying it. I’m planning to construct the transshipment building later, as it will be on two levels, half relief and over the tracks. However, these photos give a clearer idea of the overall layout. I’m still slightly undecided about whether to do the standard gauge with an off-scene connection to allow wagons to be rolled on and off. Also for a purely static standard gauge line I’m not hugely impressed with the appearance of the Peco code 100 track but I do have a lot of it in stock and have already spent quite a lot buying the 009 track.

1417FA25-81A9-4285-8C65-5C904AAE40EB.jpeg.6bb798a49026222fc03d9b4b37ceef7e.jpeg1706885A-C930-4B6F-A09C-05ABB9854685.jpeg.9d6b6c7bccacb9131dc7251e8f7b4527.jpeg9FB3818B-B67E-4E58-BEBF-7E97C59FBF81.jpeg.f25d3c3c18c3b0448ba872ba37e132da.jpeg

Edited by 009 micro modeller
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great start to your micro layout. I like how you are using different gauges at different levels on the layout.

The landscaping structure and plaster covering as turned out well. Lovely work.:drink_mini:

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately there’s a slight subsidence/levels issue at the right-hand end (the end with the standard gauge) no doubt caused by my use of rubbishy old bits of polystyrene I had lying around. I’ll need to fill this in but having fiddled around with the track surface and chipped away with a craft knife it’s looking nicely level, according to the small spirit level and testing with a wagon (the wagon doesn’t roll away, suggesting there isn’t an appreciable gradient one way or the other).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently I’m having a think about the track (particularly the point) before laying it. But I also remembered that the loco shed will need to go in before the track is laid; it has an integral floor which I will lay the track over. So I’ve started painting the shed - brown as a base, over which I will do some silver before finishing off with a few touches of a lighter brown to give a rusted effect. This is all enamel at the moment but the stone course at the bottom will be mixed from acrylic to match the landscape base colour. (Both the base of the shed and any exposed bits of scenery are supposed to represent the ‘local stone’ colour, which hopefully is a close enough match to the scenery base colour on the original module. This in turn is supposed to match reasonably closely to the rock face on the quarry, which is coloured to suit the Woodland Scenics buff-colour rock debris.) Currently I’m struggling to think how to get a reasonable amount of paint on the inside of the shed - brush painting is looking very difficult but I’m not sure spray will work hugely well either. Yes, I probably should have painted some of it before putting the roof on but it might then have been more difficult to attach the various panels.

33442ED2-BD78-4BE5-8A63-2A33C6B39E37.jpeg.8265095d57c26c6a384c6e3da02536c5.jpeg

Edited by 009 micro modeller
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 26/06/2020 at 16:13, 009 micro modeller said:

Also for a purely static standard gauge line I’m not hugely impressed with the appearance of the Peco code 100 track but I do have a lot of it in stock and have already spent quite a lot buying the 009 track.

 


For my micro-layout, I took a Stanley knife to the underside of my Code 100 (Setrack), removed the webbing between the sleepers and gently widened the spacing between the sleepers to around 9mm (scale: 2’3”), taking out a few sleepers along the way.


C487FDCC-12CA-4AE6-852B-166AA9861B52.jpeg.61a465320726a941bc280806b882b900.jpeg

 

It’s not a great photo and the ballasting is pretty terrible, but it no longer looks like Setrack.  Just one word of warning, some of my track is nearly 30 years old, and the sleepers on a few bits (that had been ballasted before) were a bit too brittle and broke off.  If you have a spare couple of pieces, and can afford to take the risk (track is a valuable commodity), it could make the comparison between the standard gauge and narrow gauge tracks look quite different.  Just a suggestion, Keith.

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating pictures
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

23 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:


For my micro-layout, I took a Stanley knife to the underside of my Code 100 (Setrack), removed the webbing between the sleepers and gently widened the spacing between the sleepers to around 9mm (scale: 2’3”), taking out a few sleepers along the way.


88682899-8110-412E-8D3B-0A53616C7387.jpeg.c4b3731b9c21887ca8e483ee3b858717.jpeg

 

It’s not a great photo and the ballasting is pretty terrible, but it no longer looks like Setrack.  Just one word of warning, some of my track is nearly 30 years old, and the sleepers on a few bits (that had been ballasted before) were a bit too brittle and broke off.  If you have a spare couple of pieces, and can afford to take the risk (track is a valuable commodity), it could make the comparison between the standard gauge and narrow gauge tracks look quite different.  Just a suggestion, Keith.

 

I’ve thought about changing the sleeper spacing, I have experience of doing this for the NG side (using N set track, removing alternate sleepers but keeping the existing spacing on the remaining ones. I’m actually using flexitrack for the standard gauge section on this layout, simply because I have lots of it already (bought for a round-the-walls test track but not used as the curvature and shelf overhang made it only practical to have a straight test track on one wall).

 

When I’ve tried this technique with flexitrack before it hasn’t stayed in gauge due to the loss of the sleeper web, as there are fewer links underneath the track on flexitrack to begin with. I feel that it could work for this short (and straight) section, where  I can make sure everything is aligned and staying in gauge is less important as it’s static. I’m not actually sure whether it’s the sleepers or the rail size that make it look slightly wrong, if it’s the latter it’s a bit silly as the 009 rail is equally oversized (code 80). Although that also has to operate whereas if the SG is static that’s all the more reason to make sure it looks right.

  • Like 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...