Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, peach james said:

Tony W,

 

I know that Jason Shron is looking for photos of lift out sections for his home layout. (it's a travesty, being of Toronto Union Station to Kingston, Ontario...).    He's looking for the best of solutions, as he has a lift out to slowly build.

 

He uses Facebook as his homepage for the layout, I know you don't use facebook, but if you have any good images, a note to him via the Rapido page might go well appreciated.

 

James 

Good evening James,

 

What's the Rapido page, please?

 

I posted some of the following images on here last year, but can you make sure Jason sees these, please? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They should be self-explanatory. The hinges are off a paste table, turned around. 

 

This is St. Enodoc's lifting section (below), in Australia.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited June 6, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Buhar]

I wonder if there's a woodworking forum somewhere where Norman shows off the locos and tells other woodworkers, "I got these wonderful models that each run like a swiss watch, beautifully detailed and painted and all I had to do in return was bung some bits of ply together, I know I got the best of the deal."

[richard i]

Modeling with a question. Here is the gcr petrol railcar, I have tried to get all the underside detail correct. 

However, it seems very bare. Am I missing something? Did it have battery boxes or a dynamo? Or does it get electricity from the engine directly? 

Any help from anyone with more knowledge than I could find would be most gratefully received. 

Many thanks

Richard 

[Chamby]

9 hours ago, Buhar said:

I wonder if there's a woodworking forum somewhere where Norman shows off the locos and tells other woodworkers, "I got these wonderful models that each run like a swiss watch, beautifully detailed and painted and all I had to do in return was bung some bits of ply together, I know I got the best of the deal."

 

Then it was a good deal... a classic “win-win”.  

[Not Jeremy]

 

 

St Enodoc's lifting section is pure genius - I have never thought of doing it like that.

 

Thank you very much for sharing it with us, along with everything else on this thread!

 

Simon

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Buhar said:

I wonder if there's a woodworking forum somewhere where Norman shows off the locos and tells other woodworkers, "I got these wonderful models that each run like a swiss watch, beautifully detailed and painted and all I had to do in return was bung some bits of ply together, I know I got the best of the deal."

Ah, but look at it the other way, Alan,

 

 

 

 

I got a set of baseboards for a 32' x 12' layout, built with perfect mortice and tenon joints by a master-craftsman, giving a structure strong enough to support a (big) man, and all I did was to solder some bits of metal together!

 

I know who got the better of the deal - by miles! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Speaking of soldering bits of metal together...................

 

 

This is the progress to date with the DJH 'Semi'.

 

The cylinders are temporarily tacked in place to check clearances during testing. On test yesterday, it was found necessary to shave a tiny bit of the inner back edges, just to clear the swing of the rear bogie wheels on the out-of-sight curves. Other than that (as Graham Nicholas will, I hope, agree) she fairly flew around LB with 11 heavy bogies behind. 

 

Graham was here fixing another signal-operating-mechanism failure. It works just fine now. Thanks Graham.

[Michael Edge]

Presumably you've left the cylinders stuck out where DJH put them and not moved them inboard to where they ought to be. I've had to bring a lot of the Carlisle locos built from DJH kits into gauge to clear the platforms.

[Tony Wright]

13 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

Presumably you've left the cylinders stuck out where DJH put them and not moved them inboard to where they ought to be. I've had to bring a lot of the Carlisle locos built from DJH kits into gauge to clear the platforms.

The outside edges of cylinder casings are just a twitch wider than the outside edge of the footplate. Where they should be. 

 

They don't interfere with Bytham's platform edges. 

 

It would seem that Carlisle's platform edges are very close to gauge, judging by the amount of overhang on the edges. 

 

 

 

 

 

With the inherent 'slop' in model railway dynamics (even in EM), I always allow a bit more space between platform edges and stock. 

 

I've seen so many model railways where the platform edges get clouted.

 

If nothing else, though, these shots show the beautiful 'sweep' of the complex trackwork through Carlisle. 

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

 

 

St Enodoc's lifting section is pure genius - I have never thought of doing it like that.

 

Thank you very much for sharing it with us, along with everything else on this thread!

 

Simon

Thanks but I must point out that the idea wasn't mine. A friend in Adelaide, John Dolan, developed the concept and I adapted it to suit my situation. All credit for the design belongs to John.

 

 

Yes, the photo is back-to-front - intentionally.

[Clive Mortimore]

It doesn't matter how sophisticated one makes ones lifting section or how simple I can make mine. As long as it works and trains do not derail then the layout owner is a winner.

 

Dore Bridge on Sheffield Exchange.

 

Carpentry is not a skill I have acquired through railway modelling. 

 

[Michael Edge]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

The outside edges of cylinder casings are just a twitch wider than the outside edge of the footplate. Where they should be. 

 

They don't interfere with Bytham's platform edges. 

 

It would seem that Carlisle's platform edges are very close to gauge, judging by the amount of overhang on the edges. 

 

 

 

 

 

With the inherent 'slop' in model railway dynamics (even in EM), I always allow a bit more space between platform edges and stock. 

 

I've seen so many model railways where the platform edges get clouted.

 

If nothing else, though, these shots show the beautiful 'sweep' of the complex trackwork through Carlisle. 

The width over cylinders is less than 1" wider than the platform and that's the valve chest, the cylinders themselves are noticeably narrower. The Carlisle platforms are set up at scale distance from the track but a great many models are built with no regard width whatsoever, DJH LNER Cartazzi axleboxes are way over gauge. The platform setting was forced on us by an error in the Templot trackplan which left insufficient room for the platform ends at the south end of the station. While building the platforms Geoff Taylor asked for some stock which had the biggest throwover to check them - I gave him a Princess a Fowler 2-6-4T and a 12 wheel restaurant car for this but  while these were the right choices unfortunately both the locos were mine and were built at the correct width. The restaurant car was for centre overthrow and was fine but we subsequently discovered the all the 12 wheel sleepers had out of gauge steps on the ends. Although this was forced on us the appearance of trains running through the station is greatly improved with very little gap between train and platform from normal viewing distance. I've had a lot of work since re-gauging locos in this respect, mostly kit built ones, the few rtr ones seem to be essentially correct.

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

The width over cylinders is less than 1" wider than the platform and that's the valve chest, the cylinders themselves are noticeably narrower. The Carlisle platforms are set up at scale distance from the track but a great many models are built with no regard width whatsoever, DJH LNER Cartazzi axleboxes are way over gauge. The platform setting was forced on us by an error in the Templot trackplan which left insufficient room for the platform ends at the south end of the station. While building the platforms Geoff Taylor asked for some stock which had the biggest throwover to check them - I gave him a Princess a Fowler 2-6-4T and a 12 wheel restaurant car for this but  while these were the right choices unfortunately both the locos were mine and were built at the correct width. The restaurant car was for centre overthrow and was fine but we subsequently discovered the all the 12 wheel sleepers had out of gauge steps on the ends. Although this was forced on us the appearance of trains running through the station is greatly improved with very little gap between train and platform from normal viewing distance. I've had a lot of work since re-gauging locos in this respect, mostly kit built ones, the few rtr ones seem to be essentially correct.

Mike,

 

I've just checked on the Roche drawing, Mike, and the dimensions are thus - 8' 7" width of platform and 8' 11 1/2" over cylinders. These match my 'scale' rule exactly. 

 

I know Roche's drawings are suspect in many areas, so I state the above and the following with caution. For comparison (using Roche's drawings), the 'Scots' are 8' 10" over the cylinders, the Stanier 2-6-4Ts are 8' 11 5/8", the bigger Ivatt 2-6-0s 8' 8", the A3s 8' 9 7/8", the A2s 8' 9 3/4", the 'Kings' 81 11 1/2", the 'Halls' 8' 11 1/4" and the original 'MNs' 8' 8 1/6". This last dimension might in part explain why the 'Duchesses' were never transferred to the SR as suggested. 

 

All of this, of course, is rather academic, since any model railway platforms always have to be further away than 'scale' to accommodate the over-scale side-to-side 'slop', whatever the gauge. 

 

When I set out LB's platforms (and track-centres), I used the oldest of methods (what's Templot?). 

 

 

 

Sometimes, the old ways are the best ways. This Hawksworth BG is among the longest vehicles running on LB. After running the pencil through the station area, the 'footprints' of the LB's platforms were plotted from this.

 

 

On making an island platform, it's not good practice to try and make it all in one go. Clearances were easily achieved by just moving these obechi bases in and out as necessary before finally fixing down.

 

 

DJH 'Austerities' have a reputation for having their cylinders a bit far out (though these have been moved in a bit).  If something like this goes past, then everything else will. As always, it's check, check again, and then fix down. Not just a 'static' test, either - make sure the locos/stock runs past on the move as well.

 

Al the above pictures are in my Crowood book. 

 

 

This was the 'clearance' results in practice. I think this is as near 'scale' distance as is practicable. 

 

In case folk think this might be a bit too far off, well....................

 

 

I know this is only a small loco, but that's quite a gap - at York, in the 'new' platforms. This NER tank is about 8' 7 1/2" over the loco footplate.

 

Far too many model platforms are too high as well - a Peco legacy? 

 

 

I applied the same basic principles for setting out the respective distances between tracks.

 

 

The Thompson A1/1 has the greatest throw-over and a Pullman ca the greatest overhang. Is that the right way round? Either way, if these miss each other, then everything else does. 

 

 

I also made sure there were transitional curves at the ends as well. 

 

Does anything in the above 'prove' anything? Of course not, but the model-making tries to follow established principles (not established by me, I hasten to add!). Though it's very nice to achieve an 'intimacy' between platforms and stock, the prototype didn't always show this. On curved platforms (Carlisle's are curved), I've come across many exhortations painted on the platforms to 'MIND THE GAP', such was the space passengers had to cross to access a carriage. At Retford's (old) Down main platform, small steps were provided for passengers to board trains, such was the wide gap (partly because of the super-elevation) passengers had to negotiate.

 

Returning to the DJH 'Duchess'. I've tacked on the cylinders in the place dictated by DJH's arrangements. And, they're exactly in the right place. 

 

To conclude - might I be contentious, and suggest Carlisle's platforms were originally placed too close to the tracks?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

Hello Tony

 

You ask what is Templot? Here is a link to Martin Wynne's Templot site. http://www.templot.com/

 

I have my own views on the system which I will not say on here.

[Michael Edge]

There are a lot of errors in the Roche drawings as you know and many are not obvious - the dimension over cylinders is about right but the width over platform is 8' 10 7/8' according to the LMS diagram, I don't know what the DJH kit measures, I've not got one here at the moment. The quoted width over cylinders is measured at the valve chests, i.e. maximum width at this point. They fitted on the SR main lines with no difficulty as was seen in the locomotive exchanges, only needing bigger tenders to compensate for the lack of water troughs.

The Templot track drawing was made before we started building the layout as was much of the pointwork, I laid the track as shown in the drawing and only later realised that there wasn't much width for the platform ends relative to their position over Crown Street. Carlisle's platforms are at the correct distance from the track according to loading gauge dmensions, unlike those on the vast majority of layouts. Incidentally, loco cylinders clouting platform edges wasn't exactly unknown, especially if they were in run down condition.

As to Templot, it's the most incredible piece of software I've ever used (although it drives me mad at times), it produces accurately designed pointwork for any scale/gauge/track/wheel standards you want - I wouldn't dream of not using it now, only wish I'd used it earlier.

[Tony Wright]

59 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

You ask what is Templot? Here is a link to Martin Wynne's Templot site. http://www.templot.com/

 

I have my own views on the system which I will not say on here.

Thanks Clive,

 

I assume it means using a computer? In that case, count me out.

 

I have heard of it to be fair. In the similar way I've heard of hard sums, philosophy, religion and golf, among other things - none of which I understand.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Barry Ten]

Thanks for that picture of the NER tank at York, Tony - it makes me feel a bit better about my own platform clearances.

 

Perhaps being primarily a GWR/WR modeller I've my own ideas about which locos/stock to use during testing. When my Dad and I had

a layout in the early 80s, it was a Lima Western that gave the most problems with platform clearances, due to the front valences. So now

I always make sure a Western will get through, followed by a Castle or King. For carriages, if a 70 foot Collett will get through, I assume

everything else will, within my period.

[Tony Wright]

18 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

There are a lot of errors in the Roche drawings as you know and many are not obvious - the dimension over cylinders is about right but the width over platform is 8' 10 7/8' according to the LMS diagram, I don't know what the DJH kit measures, I've not got one here at the moment. The quoted width over cylinders is measured at the valve chests, i.e. maximum width at this point. They fitted on the SR main lines with no difficulty as was seen in the locomotive exchanges, only needing bigger tenders to compensate for the lack of water troughs.

The Templot track drawing was made before we started building the layout as was much of the pointwork, I laid the track as shown in the drawing and only later realised that there wasn't much width for the platform ends relative to their position over Crown Street. Carlisle's platforms are at the correct distance from the track according to loading gauge dmensions, unlike those on the vast majority of layouts. Incidentally, loco cylinders clouting platform edges wasn't exactly unknown, especially if they were in run down condition.

As to Templot, it's the most incredible piece of software I've ever used (although it drives me mad at times), it produces accurately designed pointwork for any scale/gauge/track/wheel standards you want - I wouldn't dream of not using it now, only wish I'd used it earlier.

Thanks Mike,

'Incidentally, loco cylinders clouting platform edges wasn't exactly unknown, especially if they were in run down condition'.

 

Very true, that's why the original A1s and A3s had their front buffer beams clipped off at the bottom corners (and they weren't run down), and why the later LNER-designed Pacifics had their front footplates tapered in plan view (or made less-wide in the case of the A1s and A2s). I assume that's why 'Jubilees', Black Fives and 8Fs (among many other LMS types) did the same. The 'Semis' and 'Prinnies' certainly had their front platforms tapered in. 

 

The prototype Deltic nibbled away at the edges of Newcastle Central's platforms, and as for the 'Grange' which reached Huddersfield - well!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited June 7, 2019 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Tony Wright]

4 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

Thanks for that picture of the NER tank at York, Tony - it makes me feel a bit better about my own platform clearances.

 

Perhaps being primarily a GWR/WR modeller I've my own ideas about which locos/stock to use during testing. When my Dad and I had

a layout in the early 80s, it was a Lima Western that gave the most problems with platform clearances, due to the front valences. So now

I always make sure a Western will get through, followed by a Castle or King. For carriages, if a 70 foot Collett will get through, I assume

everything else will, within my period.

Thanks Al,

 

Better to have your platform edges a bit too far away from locos/stock than too close. 

 

As I mentioned, I've seen so many model railways where locos/stock foul platform edges. Thankfully, though dozens of items built/owned by others have run through LB's platforms, none has ever fouled them. I did have a visiting loco clout one of the overbridges on the MR/M&GNR bit. On measuring, its chimney was over a foot too tall! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Manxcat]

I have used Templot many times and have given demonstrations of its use and capabilities at some MERG meetings. It took me a long time to get to grips with how it works and its many capabilities but once well versed enough to really start using it I have not looked back. 

 

I find that one of the main benefits of using it is that one can quickly discover why the plan in your head will not actually fit the space available without looking rather stupid. It can be used to create plans in numerous gauges and the resulting track plan can be printed on A4 plain paper sheets which can then be spliced together with clear document tape for transfer of the plan to the baseboards. I use it a lot to make the templates for everything from single turnouts to complex curved junctions. The printout is then the exact template  for cutting and laying the correct sleepers at the proper spacing and for soldering the rails to make my own turnouts.

 

I have used it to plan three of our club layouts and two of my own. I have spoken to many people who have watched my presentations and decided then that it is not for them. To each his own. I am not here to force its use on anyone but if you persevere you might just surprise yourself. As if is often said on these pages, I recently looked at our latest club layout and thought "I designed that. I made the points. It all works and I am very pleased with that."

 

Here is a photo of part of the plan for our current club layout and the Templot diagram for the same section with the points I made laid on it to get a feel for the overall look.

 

Archie

[mullie]

I've dabbled with Templot  and keep a PC mainly to run it. Manxcat sums things up well it is an excellent programme that can drive you mad, 

 

Martyn

[Clive Mortimore]

I have used Templot in the past, but only got as far as printing out a proposed layout of Tinsley Servicing Depot. A small two road shed at a lower level than the main six road shed, tucked away by the marshalling yard hump. Even in 4mm  it would have been over 20 ft long. It will not be built as I have decided to concentrate on my permanent layout. 

A section of the BR drawing of the whole marshalling yard.

All the furniture in our old living room pushed out the way.

[Manxcat]

I just finished this Walthers kit for a gas holder which is actually just over half of the full kit. We wanted a gas works on a specific corner of the layout but the gas holder is so large, about 9 inches in diameter, that it would not fit. However, one bright spark had the idea of making a low relief version instead. Because the kit is manufactured in segments this made construction of just a part of it an absolute doddle. I painted and weathered it today and am very pleased with the result.

 

With care as to which parts go what way round the kit goes together very well. 

 

Even though it is an American design of gas holder I think it really does look the part on a UK layout. The best thing is...….there are enough bits left over to make another, albeit slightly smaller, half relief version, this time with the gas holder at a lower level holding less gas.

 

Archie

 

 

 

[Barry Ten]

Thanks for the collective wisdom regarding fixing the outside cranks on my Bird class: it turned out that they could be soldered quite easily, and they haven't shifted since.

 

I've now been gradually running in the loco under load. The motor was showing a tendency to get hot after a few minutes running despite everything being free and the gear mesh seeming to be not overly tight, but after applying some grease to the gears, rather than oil (which tends to be flung off as soon as the motor turns) things appear to be heading in the right direction. I'm now gradually increasing the running intervals and she seems to be getting quieter and faster, which I take to be a sign of things generally bedding in.

 

I've rarely had a loco go together without some major or minor snag to be overcome, but when all seems dark, I remind myself that all the previous snags were solved eventually, and some of the locos that were considered problem children are now among my favorite runners, even if it took some work to get there. The City class, which was a real swine to get working as well as I'd like, is a case in point - that's now the benchmark that the Bird has to match.

 

Al

Edited June 9, 2019 by Barry Ten
typo

[RThompson]

On 7 June 2019 at 20:13, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Al,

 

Better to have your platform edges a bit too far away from locos/stock than too close. 

 

As I mentioned, I've seen so many model railways where locos/stock foul platform edges. Thankfully, though dozens of items built/owned by others have run through LB's platforms, none has ever fouled them. I did have a visiting loco clout one of the overbridges on the MR/M&GNR bit. On measuring, its chimney was over a foot too tall! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I got a loco stuck once under the staithes on a club layout when I was very young. I didn't know locos weren't meant to go underneath and that particular loco had a very tall chimney!