Jump to content
 

Eastwood Town - A tribute to Gordon's modelling.


gordon s
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

You can always weather down the edges of the slepers using poster paint. Steam locos "dribble" oil, grease and general clag which seems to come to rest at the sleeper ends. Thanks to Robert the Devil that's how Grantham has been weathered, I also did the same on Chapel en le Firth.  It doesn't take long and it's like a dry brush method using a mix of black, blue, green and brown 

Baz

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Barry. I have played around with weathering ballast before using an airbrush, but it's so easy to end up with another 'uniform' appearance. I'm sure I'll be back to you when I get to that stage.

 

Funny couple of weeks. Around 10 days ago I woke with all the symptoms of an oncoming cold/sinus/chest infection. I've had immunity issues since the late 80's which have been treated with intravenous infusions every couple of weeks.  We do the whole thing at home and it only takes a couple of hours, so many thanks to the NHS for setting the whole thing up and keeping me healthy. I rarely have too many problems, but this little devil slipped through the net and I ended up being laid up for 10 days until a course of antibiotics kicked in. Happily they've done the trick and I'm probably around 60% fit right now.

 

Being confined to barracks gave me loads of thinking time and many hours have been spent on Templot exploring the issues on ET that I was far from happy with. None of this will affect the work that has already been done, so rest easy....:D

 

ET is being built to simply enjoy watching trains run in a reasonably realistic environment. I hope the track and buildings will provide a backdrop in which to enjoy and remember the last days of steam and the first years of diesel traction. Of course it's down to each operator to do whatever suits them and there are opportunities for shunting/changing loco's and running a wide selection of different trains.

 

One of the things I was unhappy about at the time was the somewhat inadequate and haphazard storage arrangements. I was so keen to get something running they were a bit of an afterthought and they would never have been sufficient. Over the months, I grew to realise that and knew they had to be changed, but kept putting it off whilst work on ET station was progressing.

 

I was also unhappy about the shed area as it took up a massive amount of space and like Brexit, it was clear there was going to have to be compromises in a few areas to allow development of others.

 

Being laid up for a few days, provided the ideal opportunity to revisit both of these areas of the layout and hopefully improve them. I'd better add a health warning at this point. Templot is a great programme to use, but boy is it addictive and you'll often find one small change leads to another and half a day has gone by. Before you realise it four or five days have passed before you arrive at something that is close to your requirement.

 

The trains I want to run will be similar to those I showed in my last video. I'm aiming for passenger express trains to have a maximum of seven coaches. With the length of layout I have, any more than that will look out of place. Having measured it up, seven coaches and a Pacific comes in around seven feet in length. That also sets a maximum for goods trains, which roughly works out at 25 wagons,

 

Having arrived at the train length, you then need somewhere to store them when not in use and trying to maximise the number of 7' sidings has been quite a challenge. The earlier version of ET had just five carriage sidings at ET station and then six storage sidings. Both sets were at the upper level and it occurred to me that having seen trains run, they were going to block out the view from the stairwell end of the layout and prevent some of the low viewing points which were most enjoyable.

 

By taking out the central shed area, I have managed to put in a smaller shed area and 16 storage roads, each of which are 7' long, plus or minus an inch or two. I plan to put a vertical separator between the shed and the storage roads and have some low profile industrial buildings that could form a backdrop to the shed area and block out the storage roads from normal viewing angles. Coming up the stairs, the shed with associated buildings, turntable, coaling stage and ash pit will be directly in front of you. To the left will be a diesel shed and refuelling point and to the right will be ET station. The carriage sidings have been spaced further apart and moved away from the main running lines. They will also be at a slightly lower height, so as not to block another viewpoint.

 

Funny how odd bits of earlier versions of ET creep back in....:D

 

This is the type of thing I'm thinking about as the separator between the shed and storage lines. These will now be behind the low profile buildings. Or course the track plan will be totally different, but most of the buildings are unchanged.

 

IMG_6842.jpg.d8b176a35158079f3a3f2139f320db5a.jpg

 

I've managed to get a sketch board drawing from Templot, but still have some work to do with creating the various shapes of platforms etc. ET station is on the right as you look at the plan.

 

I've colour coded the various sections. The main running lines and small industrial areas are in dark blue. The steam shed is an olive green and is set at a low level, accessed via a 1:50 gradient which will be fine for light locos. The diesel shed is at a higher level and is shown in light blue.

 

Low level storage is accessed via a 1:100 gradient and is shown in red. Another compromise I have had to make is creating pointwork that is inaccessible. That has always been a red line for me, but there was no other way to get the 7' storage roads with inboard pointwork. Having looked at it, I will have to make that part of the main running lines removable, just in case a tie bar comes adrift . The carriage sidings are shown in purple.

 

sketchboard_2019_03_22_1358_15.jpg.7ba77e8d0296a6a58850438859a5ac6d.jpg

 

 

Still upbeat although summer golf is not that far away and the first few Senior Open events are just around the corner. Whether golf will take over again remains to be seen, as right now I'm enjoying ET and will hopefully move the station board back this weekend to get trains running again, before taking out the next couple of boards for track painting and ballasting.

 

Getting there.....wherever that may be...;)

 

Edited by gordon s
  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 minutes ago, gordon s said:

I've managed to get a sketch board drawing from Templot, but still have some work to do with creating the various shapes of platforms etc.

 

Hi Gordon,

 

If you create the platforms as part of the track templates, they will appear automatically on the sketchboard. That's at real > platforms... menu item.

 

Looking good. smile.gif

 

Hope you are fully fit soon.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Would it be possible to install a loco length traverser at the end of the carriage sidings? This would obviate the need to handle your locos, to get them to the other end of the train, or sending them to shed for turning.  The alternative might be to make the whole unit a turntable, like the late Peter Denny did with his Buckingham layout.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts were That a train would pull into one of the main platforms at ET and an 08 or similar would then manoeuvre the coaches as required to one of the carriage sidings. A release crossover would be ideal to allow a loco to run round the empty train and that’s something I’ll take a look at.

 

These sidings will only be 25mm or so below the adjacent main lines, so a Peter Denny turntable is a physical impossibly with all the other obstacles like stair bannisters and bullastrades at that end of the room. As you know I like ET to have a semblance of reality and am not sure I’ve ever seen a traverser or sector plate in such a prominent position. No problem if it had been in the hidden areas.

 

Release crossovers may be possible, but I don’t want the storage length to drop below my 7’ requirement. I’d always visualised coaching stock to only be there long enough for the cleaners to do their bit and then the coaches would be returned to service. 

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

  • RMweb Premium

Looks good to me Gordon. If you get started it won't take long to get the track sorted ..then it will need more testing (oh dear what a shame!  NOT!)

 

Baz

  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Ian Smeeton said:

Why not use a traverser or sector plate to eliminate alll the points, anyway?

 

Regards

 

Ian

 

Are you referring to the low level storage? I did look at a traverser as I’ve built a large one before. Each road is 7’ long and I stipulate a minimum of 3’ radius anywhere on the layout. The approach road is 1’ in from the wall and then you have 3’ for the curve plus another 1’ straight section to enter the traverser. Another 7’ storage and you are up to 12’ across the room. What’s not shown in the layout drawing is the support framework and whilst this could be modified, I really want to leave access clearance to each area of the layout to avoid having to climb under boards if there is a running problem.

 

The shed area on the front of the storage area means the traverser can only go towards the top curve and there simply isn’t the room and still provide access space. Having built a large traverser, the distance it moves is critical and with 16 tracks I’d probably have four access tracks, so the traverser movement is kept to the bare minimum.  Trying to feed a 16 track traverser that is 7’ long with just one track is impossible. The alignment, the weight and the overhang become huge issues, so reducing the movement makes those issues more manageable. Four access tracks will still mean three turnouts, but they would be outside the main running lines and certainly more accessible.

 

I was tempted to build another traverser and learned a lot from my first attempt. Off hand I can’t recall exactly why i discarded the idea. Perhaps when I look at it tomorrow, I’ll be reminded of the physical difficulties.

 

Edited by gordon s
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As promised, I managed to take a look at the traverser option again and this was the outcome. It was a week or so ago that I first looked at it and I'd forgotten the finer details until I looked at it again this morning.  Since that time there have been some minor changes that may mean it is possible, but there are still some factors to consider.

 

Experience has shown that with a large traverser bed, the greater the distance of movement back and forth, then the overhang at the front of the bed becomes more of an problem. It also increases any alignment issues, so the way to overcome that is to have several access points. For instance with sixteen tracks and one access the bed needs to move either 7 tracks in one direction and 8 in the other, or if using one direction only then the distance increases to 15 tracks. By the time you get to the last track, the weight of the overhanging bed is starting to tip the track alignment out or at worst, the weight of a fully loaded bed may even tip the whole traverser over.

 

Multiple access points mean you are only moving two or three tracks in each direction or four or five in one direction. I started off with 16 tracks and the bed can only move in one direction as the shed area prevents forward movement. Four access points seemed the logical solution, but you cannot bring in four tracks with B7 turnouts and a three foot radius curve, even with the access line curved towards the traverser. The choices then are to increase the line spacing or move to multiples of 5 rather than 4.

 

DSCF9798.jpg.63132a4ccb3307a9f90b0be55b44c7bd.jpg

 

I didn't want to take even more space so deleted one line and moved to three access points. This has resolved that problem, but then the next issue is clearance to the station board at 17"-18" and then clearance to the top board. The station board clearance is borderline at 18" which could be increased by 3" by reducing the straight traverser approach to 9" from 12". I'm a little wary of that, as you really want all the wheels in line before crossing onto the traverser.  The top board clearances can be overcome by cutting the boards to follow the curve of the mainlines allowing space for the traverser to pull out and still leave room for access. This was something I was considering anyway with the redesign.

 

The last point is one for the operator. With electrically powered turnouts, the operator can control everything whilst sat in front of ET station. Putting in a traverser resolves the hidden turnout issue, but it now means the operator leaving his seat to walk round to operate the traverser. OK, no big deal, but it is a consideration.

 

I'm not against the idea and will reconsider the option as I enjoyed building the last traverser and still have all the runners etc. It will be a challenge, but an enjoyable one.

 

Certainly food for thought.

 

Edit: just noticed a point motor clash with the lower lever between the industrial area sidings above and the 3rd traverser access road. I should be able to drop the turnout back a  few inches so that the Tortoise motor will sit between the 2nd and 3rd access.

 

traverser.jpg.db96523da41ff4e4b7cb45092466296c.jpg

 

Edited by gordon s
  • Like 7
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hi Gordon,

 

I have just skipped through the previous post, & can see some of the problems.

 

There was a J-shaped traverser on here somewhere, which would move L - R, rather than up & down.

 

Might that be worth a look?

 

Regards

 

Ian.

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

Thanks Ian. Nice idea, but I can't see how that would work in this situation. There isn't the room to move in and out and it would be impossible to take 16 tracks of different radii back to the access tracks. The shed would block out the curved end, so the cut line would have to be be directly across the radii and as they are all different nothing would line up. Add to that, the access point would be out of sight and there's no way of seeing alignment even if you could overcome the geometry involved.

 

Thanks for you input, but I think I'll give that one a miss.....;)

 

 

Edited by gordon s
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll hate it when you try to build the ramp down to the fiddle yard, and we all know where you'll be off to then.... :cry:

 

You could try one of those vertical fiddle yards, or perhaps a vertical lift to bring trains down to a lower level where you could build a normal fiddle. (I think Fen End Pit's blog has this.) Or you could use cassettes like Gilbert on Peterborough North: 2 cassettes should be able to hold a 7 or 8 coach train, and you could just keep them below the layout, ready for when they're needed. 'Keep it simple,' you've said before.

 

(And don't listen to anybody on here - we'll only drive you to madness.)

 

Alan

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is any help but I built a cassette system as per Peterborough North but the cassette spur/ loading line is hidden behind the Engine Shed Complex.

This gives the added impression that the trains are going somewhere even if it is only the carriage sidings.

 

Looking at your track plan it could be something that might work for you.

 

Richard

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The down ramp has already been built, but will need to be changed to accommodate the dual gradient of 1:50 to the shed and 1:100 to the traverser.

 

I’ve just taken another look at a ‘Nelevator’ and they are a pretty costly, yet novel solution, but the 00 version appears to be only 6’ long with space for 12 trains. Even if I could afford one, it may not be the right solution in terms of capacity anyway.

 

Having learned a lot from my first traverser, I would like to see if I can overcome the engineering challenges I ran into with my earlier version. Having three entry points, each will only need to handle five tracks, which could mean a maximum travel of just 200mm.

 

Gilbert has been really helpful explaining his cassette system and I think there is some mileage using the traverser to hold stock in place with a set of cassette ends to hold the loco’s. There could even be a possibility of having a dummy spur in the shed area to return loco’s from the traverser via a cassette into the shed.

 

Right now I have the next main board out in the middle of the room. Before the track can be painted and ballasted, I do some pretty extensive testing with numerous loco’s of different types and wheelbases to ensure that every piece of pointwork will accept any loco with no bumping or any sign of derailment.

 

As always the first check is B2B measurements as they are often the cause of any problem. Having done that, the problem probably exists in the track itself.

 

I like to think I can sit and make turnouts to a reasonable standard, but even now I do find that minor relief around the outer check rail or easing the radius slightly can really smooth things particularly with those kit built loco’s with a long wheelbase and nominal side play in the chassis. Occasionally, despite my best efforts, I have found a component part that is slightly out of spec and one of the benefits of soldered construction is that it can easily be adjusted.

 

The key is to check the vital dimensions first and if they meet the 00-SF spec, they are left well alone. The only real change is perhaps easing the the curved outer rail where it runs alongside the outer check rail and here I may tweak the 1mm gap out to a max of 1.2mm. Just to be clear, you do not move the check rail. 

 

Hopefully I will complete the testing by the weekend and will post a pic or two.....

 

Whilst I’ve been typing I see Richard is suggesting something similar, so it’s certainly worth looking at.

Edited by gordon s
  • Like 5
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, gordon s said:

Gilbert has been really helpful explaining his cassette system and I think there is some mileage using the traverser to hold stock in place with a set of cassette ends to hold the loco’s. There could even be a possibility of having a dummy spur in the shed area to return loco’s from the traverser via a cassette into the shed.

Peco Loco-Lifts might be worth considering (usual disclaimer)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Peco Loco-Lifts might be worth considering (usual disclaimer)

 

I find that they do help but possibly not for the same reason.

I left a space for a loco-lift on the entrance road to my cassette spur which gives me two advantages.

 

1. They act as re-railers so any stock which is occasionally dislodged during transit of the cassette is put back on track as it runs through the Loco-Lift.

 

2. My cassettes have no track power as it didn't seem worth doing (the stock is merely pushed on) but with the Loco-Lift in place I can remove the Loco and put it straight into storage if needed regardless of which end of the train it is located.

 

Richard

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

Thanks Richard and St Enodoc.

 

For some reason these had passed me by, but now having taken a look on the Peco site, I may invest in one to play around with. Certainly a very neat solution for locomotives. My thoughts are to run a train onto the traverser, uncouple and then run the loco onto a cassette or Loco-Lift. There is a spur above the turntable which could be re configured to sit behind a building and loco's could then be transferred back onto the shed.  I could even add a cassette spur directly onto the turntable as another option.

 

For outgoing trains, I could add three cassette spurs between the access tracks of the traverser. This would then allow locos to be put back on the front of a train ready for service.

 

Thanks for your input guys. Much appreciated.

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

15 hours ago, Foulounoux said:

To add to the traversed options this popped up on you tube ok larger scale but about half way through a sort of hybrid traverser

 

Bit further than half-way: 20:08.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I did take a quick look this morning, but have family here for Mothers Day. Most impressed with the large gauge stock and that must be a huge room. I'm guessing it's Gauge 1 as I seem to recall seeing large German loco's with steam.

 

KM1? Beautiful stuff with the best smoke units I've seen. I know smoke can't be scaled, but this at least comes close. Unusual to see an 'underscale' van....:D

 

 

Oh for a bit more space....:)

 

The other thing I did like was the cantilevered/counterbalanced lifting flaps.  

 

Hoping to get stuck into track painting and ballasting again this week. At least that breaks the back of all the complex stuff and I might get something running again...

 

The Peco loco lifts arrived yesterday from the Isle of Man. Superb service as always. Be nice to play around with them and see how they'll work in the shed storage area.

 

DSCF9802.jpg.93d882b7099e023b9927216ed1c451d1.jpg

 

 

Edited by gordon s
  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 minutes ago, gordon s said:

I'm guessing it's Gauge 1 as I seem to recall seeing large German loco's with steam

 

No need to guess, Gordon:

 

rmweb_1to32.png.ed20f039df2677bb1f0532374aab6f81.png

 

 

Oh for a bit more space....

 

See: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79947-south-pelaw-junction/&do=findComment&comment=3509443

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...
  • RMweb Premium

The Rail Regulator has promised to investigate the latest in a string of passenger complaints regarding delays at Eastwood Town; apparently passengers have been left standing on the platform for a record four months without so much as a single train arriving.....  :(

  • Like 4
  • Funny 2
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...