Any Question Answered

[Caley Jim]

Regarding turnouts, I would strongly recommend you by yourself a copy of the book 'Track - How it Works and How to Model it' from the Association shop.  this will give you a better understanding of turnout geometry.

 

Jim

[Royal42]

I bought that book recently; however, it is still rocket science to me.  I know that some members on here can look at a map, such as the one I posted, and say "Ah!  that left turnout is an xx, and the middle one is a yy" or something like that.

I will get to grips with the subject of turnouts over time but I could do with buying some items now, to practice with, just not the wrong items.

cheers,
Mike

Edited April 14, 2021 by Royal42

[Nigelcliffe]

I agree with Andy's comment above on loco wheels, the 2mm shop ones are very expensive for static non-working dioramas.  If Mike has a 3D resin printer, then just print the wheels for locos as well.  They'll probably have a better appearance than the functional ones the shop stocks (because the functional ones are constrained by the minimum cross-sections for the metal sintering process).  Might be worth trying printing centres and pushing them into Association wheel rims (available from shop 3).   

 

 

[Donw]

Hi Mike .   Well for a start none of use know what turnouts would be used in that diorama so we would be just guessing the size however I would go for a B7 , B8, B9. The more tricky bit is what construction to use. Choices are

 

Rail soldered to PCB   probably the easest and most robust but not the most realistic although I you have a good soldering techinque and use solder ballls it can look very good painted up.

 

Pegged chair kits these are designed to help beginners have more chair detail  but you have a restricted choice no diamond etc. available

 

Easitrac parts for turnouts these comprise plastic timbering which you cut to size. Chairs are on a sprue I find they need to be threaded onto the rail before separating from the sprue. The chairs are glued onto the timbers with solvent. It produces a fine result but needs care and is less robust. Some people put in some PCB timbers for added stength.

 

Etched chairs stronger than the plastic ones need pcb timbers to solder too can produce a very fine result.

 

For plain track use easitrack much the best option. 

 

I have no knowledge of what track was at New st in 64  however the earlier period it would have been bullhead rail on timber sleepers.

 

As to the sizes I think you have to accept that your first efforts may not be as good as you want and not worry too much about reusing them

 

So I would suggest ths shopping list

 

1-006  Code 40 Bullhead NS rail

 

1-025  PCB timber strip

 

1-160 or 1-161  Easitrac  Sleepers 8ft6in bullhead rail

 

1-208 planning jig 1:8 crossing

1-213  assembly jib 1:8 crossing

 

1-250  2 off   track gauge

 

1-313  1:8 turnout plan   

 

For pegged chair kits I would try 1-409 or 1-410

 

 

This is just a  suggestion feel free to ask more

 

 

Don 

  

 

 

[Armchair Modeller]

There is a 1950s 1:1,250 map available from Old Maps site that looks much clearer than your original plan and would be a better starting point for an accurate model. You can purchase a digital version and print it to 2mm scale. Should then be possible to work out roughly what angle the turnouts are. Don't assume any map is 100% accurate though. Details were often missed off, for example, particularly on eaarlier maps.

 

https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/406720/286702/13/101329

 

I would imagine that very little of the standard 2mm turnout kits could be used, to be honest. Most of it looks very non-standard with slips, 3-way interlaced  turnouts, curved diamond crossings and curved turnouts to a variety of sizes. Getting someone to draw it in Templot would probably be the only way to get a realistic idea of what you actually need IMHO.

[Royal42]

1 hour ago, Donw said:

........... I would suggest ths shopping list

1-006  Code 40 Bullhead NS rail

1-025  PCB timber strip

1-160 or 1-161  Easitrac  Sleepers 8ft6in bullhead rail

1-208 planning jig 1:8 crossing

1-213  assembly jib 1:8 crossing

1-250  2 off   track gauge

1-313  1:8 turnout plan   

For pegged chair kits I would try 1-409 or 1-410

 

Hi Don,

that looks to be a fair listing and I shall give that serious consideration.  I say that because, having now realised that I haven't learned much from the "Track - how it works book", I have decided to hold off my order until I have read and absorbed more from this book.  As such, instead I have ordered  the etch set for a Black 5 body and chassis kit and will need to wait until next month to purchase the track.

Whilst I am waiting for that etch to arrive, I shall start assembling some Scalescenes models for my diorama.  These consist of retaining walls, low relief arches and inspection pits.

 

1 hour ago, Armchair Modeller said:

....I would imagine that very little of the standard 2mm turnout kits could be used, to be honest. Most of it looks very non-standard with slips, 3-way interlaced  turnouts, curved diamond crossings and curved turnouts to a variety of sizes. Getting someone to draw it in Templot would probably be the only way to get a realistic idea of what you actually need IMHO.

Ha ha!  you might as well be talking a foreign language with those names and I shall have to dig out a glossary.  I am subscribed to Old-maps.co.uk and use them regularly for other projects.  Coincidentally, I started my model with that very plan

 

but someone stated that it was missing essential detail and salient points and, so, I changed to the map in my earlier post.

 

I always tend to trust OS maps, probably from my military days, I was persuaded this time to go by their advice.

 

cheers,
Mike

Edited April 14, 2021 by Royal42

[James Parker]

Mike, Im a newbie relative to many of those posting here, but I have had experience of fitting points to a prototype plan (Helston GWR if you are interested - has just 8 turnouts five of which are curved on both roads and two of which more or less merge into each other).   

 

What I did was start with a 1:40 plan I picked up from somewhere which, for good measure, I also overlaid onto the OS 6inch map (which you clearly have) so I could cross check them.  I then scanned the the plan to a jpeg and imported it as a background into Templot.  It was the first time I had ever used Templot and its not an easy tool, however the videos on the 2mm Youtube channel (which weren't available at the time) look good. 

 

To start with its quite easy to get the crossing angle from the plan  (or the 6in OS map) by simply measuring it, which gives you a good start.  Once you have that its a lot of messing around with curve radii to get the alignments to work.  This is a bit tedious but Id much rather be messing around with curve radii on a computer than building and rebuilding points which look right, but when you actually come to butt them up, don't quite align properly.  To be honest I really couldn't imagine getting things to fit properly even on the relatively relaxed geometry that is Helston without Templot (or some similar tool) so its definitely IMHO the way to go if you want to come close to matching what appears to be a very complex geometry without having ugly kinks where transitions between components aren't quite properly aligned. 

 

A trick I found useful with a series of points where both roads are curved was first to draw them as overlaid pieces of curved track.  This helps work you to visualise the alignments between the various sections first and also shows up where the plan is probably wrong.  Whether you then build a point over the top or change the curve into a point is up to you (I did a mixture).

 

It took many, many hours and several false starts to get a flow of curve that I was happy with and which was sufficiently close to overlaying the plan that I felt reasonably confident that it matched the prototype, but the effort was well worth it and, as I say, far better than building points which then don't align properly with each other when placed on the track plan.  

Edited April 14, 2021 by James Parker

[Armchair Modeller]

This is an example of a slip

 

This is an example of an interlaced pointwork, where turnouts overlap.

 

 

 

Several examples of both exist in the plan but are not available as kits in 2mm finescale.

[James Parker]

PS.  I built my points using easitrak, gluing the sleepers to 10thou plasticard, with the printed out templot plan underneath the plasticard.  This is made up on a sheet of glass.  The plasticard stays with the point and is glued to the baseboard, all of which improves the robustness no end.   During construction you can just see through the plasticard sufficiently to follow the plan, occasionally referring to a separate printout where things are a bit 'busy', or holding the glass up to the light so that it shines through (Ok ideally this should be done on a light table - but I don't have one)

 

I have done pcb point construction in the distant past (and I still use it for track in my fiddle yard) but the appearance of easitrak is so much better.  I would personally say that constructing points from scratch in easitrak is roughly the same difficulty as constructing them from pcb sleepers, but that depends of course on your soldering skills as compared to your skills with threading miniscule chairs onto rail where its barely possible to tell which is the right way up!  For me it was making the crossings and 'planing' the switches that were the most difficult part, and that's the same whether you use PCB or easitrak.  Sadly none of my crossings were available pre-built from the shop (I needed 1:8 and 1:10 whereas the shop sells 1:6, 7 and 9); a wider range of milled crossings would be a real bonus, but I quite understand why its not economical to produce them.

[Donw]

I would agree with the fact that Templot would be the best way to get the turnouts right. My suggestions of buying some stuff to start is that you really need to get some idea of what it takes to build a turnout and start to understand how they go together .Holding off until you have read more of the Trck book is a good idea'

 

From a plan if you can get an accurate angle of the crossing that helps the other thing that would help is the lead the distance from the blade tips to the crossing nose. This is much easier if you look at the satelite view but unfortunately you cannot look back in time.

The three key things that define a turnout is the crossing, the switch, and the lead (the distance from the blade tips to the crossing nose) These are related a more gentle switch or a shallow crossing will increase the lead.  One thing you will find with prototype turnouts is that they may well have a gentle curve in the main. If you lose that curve you lose the flow of the track. Trying to build some prototype installations with paper templates can result in track that looks unatural. 

I would suggest if you can find some of the videos Laurie Adams has made  these show trackwork accurately modelled to great effect. perhaps someone knows the links.

 

Don

 

[Laurie2mil]

Thanks Don!

 

I agree: Templot is the only way I know to get decent alignment through all those switches and crossings.  As you know I am a fan of Templot, but it does need some investment to make use of what it offers - hence the ongoing "Templot Tutorial" project from our AG Zoom sessions.  And to understand and use it, You do need to know the basic anatomy of a prototype point/turnout.  The Templot Forum has an excellent series of helpfiles and tutorials; the following link takes you to the the introduction about this: 

https://85a.uk/templot/companion/gs_firstoff.php#first_time_turnouts

Read the first few (short) paragraphs, then follow the link "about real track" which will take you to the nitty gritty about switches and crossings. 

 

The next of our "Templot Tutorials" to be uploaded (when I've edited it) will be on the same subject, and in truth will be an alternative presentation of much the same facts.  The introductory videos we did on Templot are on the 2MM YouTube channel here:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRIhMhLNf_X1NTquYGCmt9A

I'm sorry about the poor screen quality: I have now discovered this is due to the compression caused by repeated edits using the Windows Movie Maker program.  They are quite usable, but future videos will be edited using a single final "save" (hopefully the PC won't crash and waste it all en route) so should be much clearer. 

 

I don't blog, but I have put a short video primarily about superelevation on YouTube, which does show some of the track I have built (if this is what you are referring to Don):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iff1MxMsEPA

 

A look at Mike's track plan for his New Street diorama shows what an ambitious project this is, especially if you are new to track-building in 2mm (N or 2FS).  Is it to be exactly to scale, Mike?  If not, and if it is to remain non-operational, then that would allow you to sharpen up he radii more - at the expense of the gentle smooth radii of the prototype.   I don't think you will be satisfied with the appearance if you try to make it with the limited range of commercially available "SetTrack"  points (there is at least 1 tandem and 1 slip that I can see, + several diamonds in addition to all the points and I doubt many will be to SetTrack geometries).  It will be a lot of work however you decide to build your points.  I agree with much of what James Parker says.  Specifically, when laying out a complex plan, draw in the main roads in plain track first until you get the alignment you want, then add in the points and diamonds to fit; import your plan into Templot and use this as a basis for developing the track plan; build up your points on the templates you have derived and "stiffen" them: James has stuck his sleepers to plasticard, but an alternative that works well for me is to stick the sleepers directly onto the paper Templot template (I use butanone for "plastic" (ABS) sleepers, cyano gel for pcb sleepers if you're soldering any) and leave the paper stuck to the finished point and stick the whole thing down onto your track bed.

 

Don has given good advice summarising the basic techniques for 2mm track-building, and IO would agree with his shopping list.

 

Hope this all helps, Mike, best wishes.

 

Laurie Adams

 

 

 

[1965Nick]

Hi everyone, 

Ive just started one of the 2SA kits of the BR CCT. I’ve realised that the parts diagram (the one on the website) is different from the actual etch. Is this right? I’m thinking that it might be that the end plates might simply be too small in 2mm and that the parts diagram is taken from a larger scale etch. 

[2mm Andy]

2 hours ago, 1965Nick said:

Hi everyone, 

Ive just started one of the 2SA kits of the BR CCT. I’ve realised that the parts diagram (the one on the website) is different from the actual etch. Is this right? I’m thinking that it might be that the end plates might simply be too small in 2mm and that the parts diagram is taken from a larger scale etch. 

 

I think the diagram is from the 4mm scale kit (the CCT kit was made available in 4mm, 3mm and 2mm scales). The 2mm kit doesn't have the underframe central framing (although the replacement underframe for the N scale Farish CCT does) and as you say, some other parts are too small to reliable reproduce in 2mm scale.

 

Andy

[Donw]

Laurie 

it is not just that video of the superelevation despite how good that is, it is the total of what I have seen of your layout, at a 2mm meet, the video of the tractor working, pictures of the point rodding complementing the excellent trackwork and also knowing you take trackwork seriously.

 

Don

[Royal42]

Hello all,

I have another query, this time about road walls over and adjoining railways.  This photo shows fairly thick walls that sit on retaining walls of the railway and I suspect that it might be approx. 18 inches thick.  My query is how thick are these road walls generally?  I am about to build this section and knowing the dimensions would be of great use.

 

note the wall appears to be built  in sections and the tops are stepped as they proceed down the incline of the road.

 

Here is a view from the other side, showing the retaining wall and the road wall over. The bus is in the same postion in both views.

 

Also, I have found descriptive notes on retaining walls and buttresses etc., but nothing on the road walls built upon them.  Is there a go to site for articles on such structures?

 

cheers,
Mike

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Royal42

[Klaus ojo]

Mike,

your project really does impress me.

As you have ordered a Black 5 kit  as well: Are you sure you do not want to build it working, at least a part of it?

1 or 2 rails through? Appetite is growing with eating...

 

You certainly already have watched various tutorial videos for building turnouts, havent you?

Being a newbie I found this helpful: www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ1I9wWJ3c8

It´s for soldering and many things won´t apply to you using Easitrac and you do not need it functional. 

Interesting is the approach to begin at one edge and adding one piece after the other , filing, fitting, soldering until the track gauge fits and the bogie runs (So possibly build a long bogie as well. When the bogie will run, the track hopefully looks good as well)

For the parts where the Easitrac does not fit: glue or solder to PCB cosmetically?

Thanks to all the others for their advice, it will help me as well...

 

Please further share some photos!

cheers

Klaus 

 

[Donw]

Brick walls tend to be 9 inch thick with piers twice that. You can usually see if the wall is in english bond or flemish bond or garden bond that suggests 9 inch walls. Piers tend to be square so by counting the bricks for their width it will suggest their depth. Tretaning walls are usually specified by a civil engineer based on the soil type predicted loadings, the water table, natural drainage but you cannot see the thickness, usually where the is a parapet that may bear little relationship to the wall below ground level. Retaining walls usually have a batter i.e the wall leans against the soil being held back this is much stronger and directs some of the force down through the wall. I would expect these to be 9inch walls built onto thicker retaining walls

 

Don

[Royal42]

4 minutes ago, Klaus ojo said:

Mike,

your project really does impress me.

As you have ordered a Black 5 kit  as well: Are you sure you do not want to build it working, at least a part of it?

1 or 2 rails through? Appetite is growing with eating...

 

You certainly already have watched various tutorial videos for building turnouts, havent you?

Being a newbie I found this helpful: www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ1I9wWJ3c8

It´s for soldering and many things won´t apply to you using Easitrac and you do not need it functional. 

Interesting is the approach to begin at one edge and adding one piece after the other , filing, fitting, soldering until the track gauge fits and the bogie runs (So possibly build a long bogie as well. When the bogie will run, the track hopefully looks good as well)

For the parts where the Easitrac does not fit: glue or solder to PCB cosmetically?

Thanks to all the others for their advice, it will help me as well...

 

Please further share some photos!

cheers

Klaus 

 

Hello Klaus,

 

I fear that I have opened up a hatchway and entered into a pathway which has no end.  I started out just wanting to do a little diorama of the station I used to go train spotting; however, after reading lots of stuff on N gauge and 2mm, I now have a desire to make a working layout.    

I still don't really know what I am talking about but members on here are so helpful that I feel I need to go with the flow.  I shall continue with my little diorama for a couple of reasons:  first, it will hopefully help me through my learning curve and; secondly, allow time for me to build up funds for real, working track and items to run on them.   I have joined the 2mm Association, although perhaps I shouldn't have; seeing all those lovely items they have for sale!

 

cheers,
Mike

[Klaus ojo]

Mike,

I understand - because it happened to me last year.

However, if  for now you stay with the trackwork you can do wonderful things without much money.

I´d suppose 2mmFS track is the most affordable trackwork you can do compared to any other rail system.

Especially with your layout which possibly is making the dearer kits not so suitable anyway and you´ll stay with the basic items.

Considering your posts it seems to me that you like the engineering challenge...

cheers

Klaus

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Klaus ojo
typo

[Royal42]

1 hour ago, Donw said:

Brick walls tend to be 9 inch thick with piers twice that.

Hello Don,

thanks for this.  9 inches works out to about 1.5mm so now I have something to work to when cutting the pieces.  I'm still googling like crazy, about all the naming conventions for railway stuff, and found out that a road wall over a retaining wall is actually called a parapet.  Getting there.........  slowly!

 

Mike

[2mm Andy]

2 hours ago, Royal42 said:

Hello all,

I have another query, this time about road walls over and adjoining railways.  This photo shows fairly thick walls that sit on retaining walls of the railway and I suspect that it might be approx. 18 inches thick.  My query is how thick are these road walls generally?  I am about to build this section and knowing the dimensions would be of great use.

 

cheers,
Mike

 

18 inches sounds about right to me for those walls.

 

Have you come across Jim Smith-Wright's project to model Birmingham New Street in P4? It is set after the station was rebuilt and the lines electrified though, so quite a few differences from your proposed model;

 

www.P4NewStreet.com

 

Andy

[Royal42]

Hi Andy,

now I'm in a quandary as Don has quoted 9 inches?

 

Yes, I saw Jim's P4 setup but, as you say, it is after the rebuild and a lot had changed by then.  Platforms and roads were dug up and rebuilt in different locations, plus the bridges were widened, raised and/or rebuilt so not much to match the setting that I am doing. 

 

cheers,
Mike

[2mm Andy]

9" walls might possibly be OK for small bridges, but I'd expect those to be 18" walls as you initially suggested. I used to walk around that area when I was studying civil engineering at university in Birmingham (the bridges were between my accomodation and Ian Allan's railway bookshop!) and the civil engineering in that area is pretty chunky stuff.

 

The photos below were taken during a railway bridge inspection near Nottingham last year - looking at the coursing on the bridge parapet it shows 2 x 9" bricks making up the thickness. Not quite the same as your bridge, but it hopefully illustrates the scale of the engineering involved in bridges and how it is an order of magnitude bigger than domestic brickwork.

(photos taken with full railway safety arrangements in place)

 

Andy

Edited April 16, 2021 by 2mm Andy

[Donw]

It is very difficult to judge from the photos. However Andy was showing photos of the walls alongside the tracks. The railway company would want strong walls in case there was a derailment. Could be expensive claims if a railway truck crashed through the wall. I was looking at the walls alongside the pavements where  the danger would be a road vehicle crashing through and should it be a passenger train there would be concerns about the risks to passengers. They may be thicker if say there was a platform right underneath. Note too the one Andy shows has no piers therefore needs to be thicker, the ones I was looking at in your post had lots of piers which are used to strengthen walls. If you can see the caping on the walls 9inch walls would usually have a 12 inch wide caping and 18 inch wall would have a 21inch or 2ft caping.  Note two in a lot of cases there is a wider bit at the top of a wall  to add extra strength so a 9inch wall might have two top courses of 13.5 inches (that allows the thicker section to overhang by half a brick) there may be a thicker number of courses at the base too. Sometimes with the piers and the thicker courses top and bottom the 9inch bit looks like an inset panel.

 

Don

 

[2mm Andy]

22 minutes ago, Donw said:

It is very difficult to judge from the photos. However Andy was showing photos of the walls alongside the tracks. The railway company would want strong walls in case there was a derailment. Could be expensive claims if a railway truck crashed through the wall. I was looking at the walls alongside the pavements where  the danger would be a road vehicle crashing through and should it be a passenger train there would be concerns about the risks to passengers. They may be thicker if say there was a platform right underneath. Note too the one Andy shows has no piers therefore needs to be thicker, the ones I was looking at in your post had lots of piers which are used to strengthen walls. If you can see the caping on the walls 9inch walls would usually have a 12 inch wide caping and 18 inch wall would have a 21inch or 2ft caping.  Note two in a lot of cases there is a wider bit at the top of a wall  to add extra strength so a 9inch wall might have two top courses of 13.5 inches (that allows the thicker section to overhang by half a brick) there may be a thicker number of courses at the base too. Sometimes with the piers and the thicker courses top and bottom the 9inch bit looks like an inset panel.

 

Don

 

 

There are piers (pilasters) on the wall I photographed Don  - there is one on the right hand side of the second photo (the parapet was cut long after construction to allow another viaduct to be built alongside the existing one). 

 

I would consider the likelihood of a train derailment on the viaduct to be lower than the likelihood of a road vehicle crashing through a wall at a busy city centre road junction and the consequences of the latter if a vehicle were to go through the parapet would probably be more serious (the viaduct in my photo is about 30ft high and over a flood plain). 

 

Anyway, it's getting late and I suspect all this is probably confusing Mike even more!

 

Andy