Jump to content
 

Quintland (4mm/OO)


Kenton

Recommended Posts

Just 30minutes in a cold garage and I'm starting to really feel like I'm up the north pole. So not much to show for a few cuts of wood and screws yet.

 

I'm concentrating now on the station board although I will continue to construct the factory board so that they fit together correctly.

 

A little more planning of what is going where has been developed and the single platform has now moved to a double though some indecision on that. The layout now firmly set in the 60's - I'm taking my prototypical queues from Edinburgh Haymarket.

 

The waverley end tunnel entrance becoming the road over bridge. The scenic break to the optional FY cassette being the walk over bridge and a similar corner/edge of the main building on the viewing side. This will be about 12 inches of blocked/semi hidden view to the viewers left.

 

Operationally, this side of the layout will revolve around two options:

1 - Double track station, both platforms in use and the cassette FY receiving and interchanging stock between the two running lines. Factory freight arriving and backed into the factory area.

2 - Platform 2 derelict and track only used for freight.

I can see this will be a real puzzle for signaling (not my specialist subject)

 

So some thought going towards the wiring of the layout:

There is the potential to operate 3 locos ! (factory yard, platform 1, platform 2) what I will call power districts.

The station board will also have those two crossovers (3 points and the catch)

 

Now I have decided exactly where the track goes on this board - more importantly where the tortoise lie - and I have warmed up a bit - I can go back and put in the bracing to the frame.

 

trackplan_4_station_board.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Fascinating to watch this trackplan develop Kenton, almost feels like we're inside your mind (well only almost, don't worry!).

 

I can certainly see the "novelty" interest if you in make one platform derelict and disused by passenger services, but do you think you can stick to that principle when it comes down to real-world operation? Will you not be tempted to run that extra loco and passenger rake - and if so, perhaps better to make it a fully functional platform from the outset? Just a thought.

 

Must be a bit frustrating that your work is constrained by the weather/season. Not possible at all to work on parts of it inside, I assume?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can certainly see the "novelty" interest if you in make one platform derelict and disused by passenger services, but do you think you can stick to that principle when it comes down to real-world operation? Will you not be tempted to run that extra loco and passenger rake - and if so, perhaps better to make it a fully functional platform from the outset? Just a thought.

You are probably right with that.

Though there is a problem with operation. That 30" cassette FY is probably still within the 2010 but there is certainly no space for it to be set up that way and have the other board connected - there is 10ft and no more (absolutely :D )

 

Must be a bit frustrating that your work is constrained by the weather/season. Not possible at all to work on parts of it inside, I assume?

"What do you think you are doing bringing THAT in my house!"

rolling_pin.jpg

More snow fell this afternoon - almost unheard of in the Thames (silicon) Valley.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well slightly warmer today so go back in the garage and blew the dust off!

 

The baseboard for the station is complete as far as the woodwork is concerned and it will get a coat of varnish to seal it later this afternoon.

 

Next up is to cut out and build the 30" traverser section. This needs to be done prior to making the factory board as they will need to be level. The traverser base will be 25"x12" and the sliding board 30"x8". I think I have enough room for 4 tracks in 8" and that should enable at least 3 tracks on the board to be usable alongside any of the 4 inbound tracks. I am only planning for 2 of the tracks to be aligned together - it just gets too complicated otherwise.

The intention is to have the whole traverser as a removable unit - I can do without the additional weight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A little more progress to report - in a freezing garage - it is surprising how difficult it is to work wood with gloves on.

 

I simply must remember to take the camera with me on my next arctic adventure.

 

The station board had a quick sand down following the exterior "it does what it says on the can" wood treatment. Except it doesn't "do what it says on the can" as 36 hours were required to freeze dry.

 

The traverser was also completed. I reckon I could squeeze 5 tracks on to it - but that might be just greedy ... considering the stock situation for a '60s layout one would be more than enough. The traverser took quite a bit of aligning on the runners. It presents at a slight angle to the factory board - I could say it was intended that way :D - but it wasn't. Still the gap, where it matters, is non-existent and it rubs along the face. The traverser board itself is demountable (including the runners) being bolted to its well in the factory board. M6 Bolts and captive T nuts.

 

The factory board was also built with the exception of one support spar, the position of which will depend on the track plan on that board - still not 100% finalised.

The traverser and factory boards were also sealed with the same dark brown wood treatment.

 

Tomorrow, all being well, I shall bolt on the backscene boards and that will be the end of the majority of the woodwork.

 

Oh, and I'm not sure if I said ... but the board surfaces are only screwed down at the moment (the resto the framing is screwed and glued. The reason is that during track laying and wiring I want to be able to turn the boards on their sides ... having them removable from the frames means that I can actually lift them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Sounds good Kenton, I'm rather impressed that you are working in a (unheated?) garage during this weather (which is the same in Denmark). blink.gif I think maybe we should consider a prize during the competition for "most hardship during build" or similar smile.gif

 

 

Would be great to maybe see some photos of the traverser when convenient? (but don't freeze your fingers off!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be great to maybe see some photos of the traverser when convenient? (but don't freeze your fingers off!)

Photo details of the Traverser and the Baseboard added to the blog.

 

 

Now I can see the actual size of the boards in reality I have been toying with a change to the plan - as you do at this late stage :(

 

Nothing too serious but a change that could bring about a massive improvement in operating potential.

 

As the layout is designed at the moment it has the potential/intention of having up to three operators and will be wired accordingly as 3 CAB control. More of that later.

The station end will have a cassette based FY (when used outside in summer weather :D :D :D or at any show invite. This FY will be controlled by one operator and the "down" CAB controlling the reception of trains from the Traverser Table FY through the station and on to the cassette. Also any "down" goods dispatched from the factory yard.

[The "up" CAB controlling the opposite direction and the "goods" CAB the shunting in the factory yard.]

In theory these can be isolated from each other and therefore independently operated.

 

However, looking at the width of the station and the need to slightly turn in the tracks for the last 12 inches of the platform so that they will align square to the cassettes - I am toying with the idea of extending that back hidden "storage" track right through to the cassette table - making a hidden shuttle track between the two FY. For most of the distance it would have been behind the wall of the station and under any "tenement"/road half relief. The platform was intended to have a "waiting room" structure at the end -- by making this very much half relief as well it may be possible to squeeze that track right through behind it.

 

The ability to fool the viewer into wondering where that came from, does appeal. While at home it can continue to be used as storage. I think I need to bash together some temporary card structures as I put the main track down to see if this will work.

 

But is it really going to be worth the effort?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

As the snow melts and slides off the garage roof - it has been warm enough to make a series of supports for the backscene. - The glue is drying so I don't wish to disturb them with the camera now - perhaps tomorrow.

 

There is a solid and rather heavy (more weight) backscene board that is simply bolted on to the backs of the boards. This is strong enough to take the casual operator reaching over to enact and desperate "hand of god" stock adjustments.

 

In front of that will be the backscene "board" - I will be using the same polythene material used in Sychpwll as I was so pleased with the effect there. To support this and put the lower part out in front of the shuttle/storage track a series of 'h' frames have been made and secured to the baseboard.

 

 

Another task started today was the tediously mind-numbing process of re-inventing the Peco Code 75 track.

 

quintland009.jpg

 

This involves removal of all the webbing and those moulding pips on the end of about every 10th sleeper. The sleepers are removed from the rails and then the webbing cut off with a sharp scalpel. Any remnant, along with those moulding pips, is then filed off before returning the individual sleepers to the rails.

 

It is a long tortuous process with no end in sight.

 

After only one length of straight flexi track I am starting to question my sanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the snow melts and slides off the garage roof - it has been warm enough to make a series of supports for the backscene. - The glue is drying so I don't wish to disturb them with the camera now - perhaps tomorrow.

 

There is a solid and rather heavy (more weight) backscene board that is simply bolted on to the backs of the boards. This is strong enough to take the casual operator reaching over to enact and desperate "hand of god" stock adjustments.

 

In front of that will be the backscene "board" - I will be using the same polythene material used in Sychpwll as I was so pleased with the effect there. To support this and put the lower part out in front of the shuttle/storage track a series of 'h' frames have been made and secured to the baseboard.

 

 

Another task started today was the tediously mind-numbing process of re-inventing the Peco Code 75 track.

 

quintland009.jpg

 

 

This involves removal of all the webbing and those moulding pips on the end of about every 10th sleeper. The sleepers are removed from the rails and then the webbing cut off with a sharp scalpel. Any remnant, along with those moulding pips, is then filed off before returning the individual sleepers to the rails.

 

It is a long tortuous process with no end in sight.

 

After only one length of straight flexi track I am starting to question my sanity.

 

 

Hi Kenton

 

its all looking and sounding great. i've been trying to avoid that job with re-spacing the track, what distance are you using on your jig for laying the track?

 

cheers bry

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've been trying to avoid that job with re-spacing the track, what distance are you using on your jig for laying the track?

Not so much of the jig really just a spacer strip.

 

I suppose we could start a whole debate on what should be the prototypically correct space between two sleepers ...

 

But then we also have to remember two things:

1. Peco Code 75 is OO so the guage is not "correct" to start with.

and, I believe far more important

2. as modellers we tend to compress length by such a degree that what looks right is often not what is right.

A reason why IMO P4 and EM sometimes can look far worse than OO.

 

The problem with the Peco track is really the webbing and not so much the spacing - but I would agree that it could do with being wider. However when you do widen the flexitrack you have to do the same to the pointwork - which is much more difficult.

 

Anyway, you asked, so I just measured my spacer and it is 5.75mm with the sleepers being 3.25mm that works out as a total of 9mm (scaled 2ft 3") from one sleeper to the next. As said, I don't know if that is prototypical, but looks about right to me - and I'll leave others to judge and comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, you asked, so I just measured my spacer and it is 5.75mm with the sleepers being 3.25mm that works out as a total of 9mm (scaled 2ft 3") from one sleeper to the next. As said, I don't know if that is prototypical, but looks about right to me - and I'll leave others to judge and comment.

 

Having had a quick check in my old copy of the British Railway Track - Design, Construction and Maintenance 5th ed (1976) it states the following for sleeper spacing measured using 18.3m (60 foot) as a unit length

 

Pre 1969

 

24 sleepers per for all types of track.

 

After 1969

 

26 sleepers for Concrete CWR rising to 28 for high speed lines (101 to 125 mph)

 

28 sleepers for Wooden CWR ??“ However, the use of wooden sleepers with CWR is rather exceptional

 

24 sleepers for all jointed track - if traffic density requires then rising to 26 /28 for timber and 26 for concrete can be used for jointed track.

 

 

The spacing is quoted as being 2' 7'' for Bull head and 24 sleepers and 2??™ 1 3/4'' for Flat Bottomed CWR with 28 sleepers. With jointed track the spacing of the sleepers reduces the closer you get to the joint location.

 

Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaggzuk, thanks for the information. I am surprised that my "eye" guess comes so close to the prototype after all.

 

But I must stress that I cannot be doing with all this absolute measurement fine scale - as I think it is a total waste of time. Very few layouts that I have seen (especially shortened and compressed ones) look any more realistic in "fine scale" than in bog standard OO.

 

However, it is interesting that the prototype would have had so much variation. I guess pre-BR,, and even pre-grouping the variation would have been even greater - and possibly even the sleeper size.

 

In the case of the Peco track the improvement really comes about by the elimination of the webbing.

 

You soon realise when the gap has been made to big - it starts to look like narrow gauge track ... which in some ways it already is ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that is a very interesting outcome, just spent an evening watching Hustle and re-spacing a length of Peco flexi track to 2' 7' ish spacing to see what it looks like and well a lot better :) I then compared it to some SMP OO flexi I bought a while back and well there is not much difference. Ok the rail gauge on Peco is a lot chunkier and the sleepers are bit thinner, but once weathered I guess the Peco would be OK.

 

Just can I be bothered to cut all the sleepers? But you are right Kenton, removing the web make a lot of difference. At least I know now that I can make use of all the old stock of Peco track I have - was going down the route of SMP Flexi.

 

Thanks for the photo in post 34 as it gave me the idea to have a go tonight.

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick comparison photo to show the difference - there were many on RMWeb3 showing this, so nothing new - it just completes the picture.

 

quintland010.jpg

 

Thanks for that picture Kenton it has helped great deal it does make a massive difference tothe appearance too

 

cheers Bry

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Kenton

 

Can you help me? I too am building traversers for my layout, but have been to B&Q, Focus & Homebase and none have the draw runners you showed in your thread? Where abouts did you get them from, and how far from Wokingham was it? (I live in Reading so its in driving distance for me)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you help me? I too am building traversers for my layout, but have been to B&Q, Focus & Homebase and none have the draw runners you showed in your thread? Where abouts did you get them from, and how far from Wokingham was it? (I live in Reading so its in driving distance for me)

 

Right on your doorstep B&Q - I bought them last summer (june ish) when I started Sychpwll and then changed my mind and did a loony type SP instead - (a whole 'nother story)

 

Did you find where the drawer runners were and they just didn't have that type in stock ? or didn't they have any of any type ?

They were located in the row one back from the screws/nuts/bolts and had quite a few different types and sizes IRC ... of course they may have moved them around since.

 

http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav.jsp?action=detail&fh_secondid=9281448&ecamp=trf-005&CAWELAID=266898459

 

I think I have some of a slightly different style somewhere*** (I'm contemplating their use in the station FY - I'll dig around later and see if I can find them and post a photo. They all work basically the same way. But these seemed to run slightly smoother.

 

[Ed] *** just checked and they look about the same only slightly wider (few mm)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Always interesting to see comparison shots like the one you'e provided above, Kenton. Makes me think perhaps I should revisit this approach. I made some trials once but found it looked a bit too narrow gauge like, but I'm thinking now I probably went too far with the spacing. Think I'll give it another try, thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made some trials once but found it looked a bit too narrow gauge like

There is really no way of avoiding that ... after all it IS :D

Even if you get the sleeper spacing perfect the rails will never be the correct distance appart.

It will never be EM or P4.

Now perhaps if we modelled everything else in 3.5mm to ft ;)

 

However, I find it is just as good as OOSF (what I think is a complete waste of time) ... and I did see the letters "FINESCALE" embossed on some of the sleepers :D :D :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fishplates - are they just an ugly addition - a necessary evil - or is there an alternative?

 

I came to laying my second length of modified track thinking I had several packets of Peco rail joiners "fishplates" in a spares box - only to find that they were all Code 100 :( :(

 

Now barring a special journey all the way over to Alton to buy the correct size (and probably being talked into buying many more items than intended) I was thinking are they needed and do they match my "improved" track that I have spent hours removing that webbing from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In the end I decided against cosmetic fishplates and decided to go for the halved Peco variety - not that I need the electrical continuity and most will actually be of the insulated type. I just thought that the cosmetic ones were harder to source and really couldn't justify the extra effort for very little visual return.

 

Fishplates continue to be required as the removal of the webbing on the track does leave the track rather more flexible in its pre-glued-down state.

 

The assembly of the backscene supports are now complete on the station board following a slight mishap with PVA. The polythene film used for the backscene is quite stiff and has become "formed" in its rolled shape. Whilst bending it further round the scenic break (mouse-hole) to the station FY it broke free from the supports. I have now refitted it with the "no-more-nails" type of adhesive and will see if that holds it.

 

The reinventing of Peco track continues at such an agonisingly slow pace http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/public/style_emoticons/#EMO_DIR#/sad.gif

 

 

Now turning my attention to the station canopy that is so very distinctive.

 

quintland014.jpg

 

The only canopy available that I am aware of is the Ratio kit (not exactly appropriate - in fact nothing like it - because it is in N http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/public/style_emoticons/#EMO_DIR#/biggrin.gif !) Anyway any kit will require some major butchery to fit with the peculiar vanishing platform but if one is available it might help speed up layout construction.

 

Someone far more able than me would probably mass produce each individual board out of evergree/plasticard strip or even card. If I was pretty smart I guess I should be considering an etch - something that must be possible.

 

But I am surprised that it hasn't been done before by someone. Wouldn't it be popular?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Kenton, that valance certainly looks a bit of a challenge. Given the short time available, your idea of sourcing it from GT or York seems a good way to go - if it's affordable.

 

I know that consistency of detail is a golden rule in modelling, but in my humble opinion it is possible to have some sections of a layout more detailed than others, a bit like a photo where some parts are in the shade or out of focus while others are crisp and center stage. That still means that the canopy and its environs/building would have to be reasonably detailed though, and those support columns look a little tricky too?

 

I hadn't been to the York site before, what an amazing new world of opportunities laser cutting gives us. I have no real idea of the cost involved though, the site says minimum orders of 35 GBP but doesn't give any further indication of costs. Do you happen to know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kenton, please can you add the current date to your ever changing countdown signature, so I can work out exactly how long there is left?

Many thanks, Stu

Hi Stu, doesn't it calculate the exact time left for you. It should be current on any page you load it changes by the second - if in any doubt just do a page refresh - it should reload the latest image. I'd be interested to hear if it doesn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...