Jump to content
 

Camden Shed


92220
 Share

Recommended Posts

Amen to that; your coaching stock is coming together very, very nicely, but one of the comments struck a chord with me. There are three words used to describe red and they are maroon, crimson and carmine. I remain in a state of slight confusion, but to my eye, carmine is the lighter shade used for earlier non-corridor stock, vans and the bottom half of "blood & custard" vehicles. Maroon is, I think, the darker shade used for post 1956 coaching stock including non-corridor vehicles repainted and possibly some vans.

 

I am just not sure about crimson; is it maroon, is it carmine or is it something else in the spectrum? I wish someone could clarify this.

 

Yours spectrographically challenged.

 

Terry D

 

PS See edit note , but I am conscious that this might be better placed on your coaching stock page.

Edited by TerryD1471
See PS
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 92220 said:

I’ve just posted some photos and descriptions of more carriage bodging in my other thread Coaching Stock for Camden - link in the signature below.  Decided I had better shift some unfinished projects before I started any new ones.

Iain

 

Lovely work, as always. Only about another 200-odd to go! Good to see you making the most of the ill wind and all that(!)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 2 months later...

I have a question, which may be better asked in a separate topic, but I’ll try here first.

 

Camden Mk1 used C&L thin sleeper plain track on the scenic side.  I’m not sure how available that is now.  
It was a bit flimsy but the ballasting effect was good, I think (tell me if it wasn’t?) 

I have a few lengths of new track left over but not much.  And I do need a fair bit to be honest.

 

But either way, I’d like the smoothest transition from Peco Streamline code 75 off scene to the finescale bullhead on the scenic section.  I have used code 100 on the gate section and under the workbench for durability, but transition to code 75 beyond.

 

It seems I have more choices now.  I am also intrigued by the new OO-SF pointwork that promises to become available soon, which is thick sleepered and would therefore steer me to thick sleepered plain track.  If these kits in different sizes come in at £22.95 each, they can be slightly curved to fit the templot plan, they would cut my build time by about 90% and only increase the cost by a little.  
 

So for plain track?

 

C&L thick sleeper? With directional keys for the mainlines and alternate/ random for the yard? And 60’ lengths?

Peco bullhead?

SMP thin sleeper?

 

Can anyone advise which is closest in railhead height to the Peco code 75?   Or is the difference so minimal that my carpentry will add far more errors?!?

 

How well does the thick sleepered stuff ballast? 
 

Maybe I should just buy a bit of each and test it out, but the combined expertise on here is usually more helpful than I am.

 

thanks in advance,

 

Iain

 

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

Hi Iain,

 

First of all - WOW! I missed the postings last week so have just caught up with the excitement of the main boards being set out. Clearly a very productive holiday period. And the gate looks great(!). You certainly do a good line in brick-built exterior-lavatorial engineering. I'm sure it'll pay dividends in the long run.

 

Re the track, I think we may already have had this conversation but I'll repeat(?) thoughts here in case it causes others to comment further.

 

I think I questioned whether the mainlines past the shed would still be bullhead, chaired track in the late 1950s ... and I think you produced pictures to show that they were! In which case the Peco Bullhead option is definitely an option. I do find the sleeper spacing to be wider than I thought it would be (probably too conditioned to using Code 75 and Code 100!), although it doesn't look quite so stark once ballasted. The points adopt the style of the sleepers being increasingly at an angle towards the crossing end, rather than at 90 degrees to the straight leg. Someone commented that this is a GWR style (perhaps not too surprising, knowing the manufacturer!). Not sure how important these things are visually to you?

 

When it comes to track, I'm a great believer in 'life's too short', particularly for a big layout. The prime focus and attention for your layout when complete will be the shed itself and will be viewed from the west side (ie shed at the front; running lines at the rear). The mainlines and the trains running on them thus form the backdrop to the scene. Even if your eyes are averted to the mainlines, it'll be to the locos and their trains - not the track! Provided it's laid and ballasted well (which I'm sure it will be) then I really can't see the point (ha!) in handbuilding the track on the mainlines. Save that for the closer up depot area.

 

Although, to be honest, I might even question that in time, mainly because of the general level of detritus and muck covering much of the depot tracks in practice.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
56 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

The points adopt the style of the sleepers being increasingly at an angle towards the crossing end, rather than at 90 degrees to the straight leg. Someone commented that this is a GWR style

 

It was used by all railway companies. It depends on the track layout and traffic over each route. Used for running-line junctions where both routes have equal traffic. Also very common in yards and sidings, and anywhere that track was built on site rather than pre-fabricated -- it makes it much easier to get the chairs in the right place. Not so common nowadays with tamping machines.

 

Martin.

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

Thanks Graham and Martin.

 

Yes the mainlines were definitely still bullhead into the early 60’s.  
 

I am definitely leaning towards the British Finescale pointwork for the running lines and the shed area, because it will be only slightly more expensive, a hell of a lot faster, and less likely not to work well than if I handbuilt it.  The only complex pieces are the scissors crossover off the down fast to the shed, and the characteristic fully checkrailed 3 turnout 2 crossing formation by the turntable.  I think these might not be able to be made effectively from the British Finescale kits, so will need to be handbuilt.  I have approached an esteemed modeller on this forum who did agree he’d be happy to do these, although it was 2 years ago when I asked him!
 

The plain track throughout will be proprietary, not handbuilt.  I was just wondering which to go with.  I am assuming thick sleepered track to match the point kits.  

 

Iain

Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

It was used by all railway companies. It depends on the track layout and traffic over each route. Used for running-line junctions where both routes have equal traffic. Also very common in yards and sidings, and anywhere that track was built on site rather than pre-fabricated -- it makes it much easier to get the chairs in the right place. Not so common nowadays with tamping machines.

 

Martin.

Thanks for that.

 

Looks a bit odd to me when using as part of a crossover formation in a section of double track (ie not a junction), which will be the case for Iain.

 

I have one of the Peco bullhead long radius points to hand but have yet to use it in anger. Will probably be for a siding or loop somewhere when I do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
25 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Looks a bit odd to me when using as part of a crossover formation in a section of double track

 

That's why some folks prefer to build their own track -- you can have prototypical timbering for each location.

 

A crossover in double-track running lines would normally have the timbering square-on, especially in curved track. Square-on timbering helps to prevent gauge-spread -- in such a crossover all the fast heavy traffic will be in the running lines, the crossover road will see only low-speed occasional use.

 

Equalized (skewed) timbering is used where you need strength in both routes. Or in neither, for yards and sidings -- it's easier for timbering layout.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 92220 said:

I thought you had used C&L Mark?  

I was probably mistaken!

Iain

I did ,but I relayed the front when peco brought out the code 75 bullhead. 
I had an accident where I caught the end of a baseboard and damaged a section of c&l track at a show so the only thing I could get was peco bullhead. That’s why I had to relay it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Martin.  That makes sense.  From what I can see, these new kits have square-on timbering so would be ideal for my mainlines?  
 

In the yard, most of the timbering will be almost hidden under ash ballast and debris anyway.  But I can build a few and use a few kits there.  

 

How fast will Wayne be producing the longer versions - C10 etc?

 

Iain

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 minutes ago, 92220 said:

How fast will Wayne be producing the longer versions - C10 etc?

 

Hi Iain,

 

Only Wayne can answer that. I suspect it might take him a while to cope with the initial demand for the first kits!

 

Either timbering style is never wrong, unless you are modelling an actual prototype turnout at an actual date. You can find both styles almost anywhere in bullhead days, it's just that the greater likelihood in any given location is as I mentioned. Even in a fast running line you might find equalized timbering, or some hybrid arrangement, where the first turnout is connected to a diamond-crossing or slip. Diamonds and slips are always equalized. It is easier to continue the same style through a formation, in setting out the chairing and rail-joints.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
27 minutes ago, cb900f said:

That's a heck of a lot of pointwork to be laid down  Iain.

 

Pete

Hi Pete,

 

Well, yes that’s true I know, but 

(a) I will just do it bit by bit as it was always going to be a long term project. 

(b) I hope for a bit of assistance (paid) for the two most complex formations, and

(c) Wayne’s new British Finetrax OO-SF point kits will shorten the build time a lot.  Assuming they can be available soon enough.

Planning to get the mainlines laid and fully functioning before starting on the yard.  
 

There is quite a lot of plain track too!

 

Iain

  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 5
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...