Castle Aching

[Hroth]

Comme ça?

 

DSCN1778.JPG

 

Or as a tandem

 

DSCN1783.JPG

 

Copper clad sleepers in the switch and crossing areas with individual Easitrac sleepers in between.  Building a tandem with all copper clad sleepers does your head in when trying to decide to which sleeper a rail is to be soldered!!  (been there.......!)

 

Jim

 

PS.  Do I get brownie points for including French and bicycle references in a post which has nothing to do with either?

I've spoken to Brown Owl and she says that they don't do "Brownie Points" as such any more, but she ought to be able to wrangle you a Craft Badge.  You'vew got to do three things and explain how you made them and what you're going to do with them, bringing the third item to the test unfinished and show the tester how you will finish it. 

 

So:

 

1. Design and print out track layout.  Done
2. Lay plain trackwork in a layout. Done
3. Build points: Just leave a couple of copperclad sleepers to do and demonstrate soldering them into place.....

 

Simples!    

[Edwardian]

Comme ça?

 

DSCN1778.JPG

 

Or as a tandem

 

DSCN1783.JPG

 

Copper clad sleepers in the switch and crossing areas with individual Easitrac sleepers in between.  Building a tandem with all copper clad sleepers does your head in when trying to decide to which sleeper a rail is to be soldered!!  (been there.......!)

 

Jim

 

PS.  Do I get brownie points for including French and bicycle references in a post which has nothing to do with either?

 

Very nice indeed.

 

You see, you're corrupting me with all this finescale mastery. 

 

Part of me simply does not believe that I can construct a working point.  However, I have no choice but to try and (eventually) succeed, so another part of me says, if I have to build a point, it might as well look like a point that had to be built; this is just a case of a different sleeper arrangement, how much harder could it be?

 

Part of the point of CA is that it looks different from the more standard late Grouping/Grouping/Nationalised steam-age railway many of us are more used to seeing.  East Anglian by-ways in the 1900s are places where bogie coaches are rarely seen, most wagons still have small Victorian lettering, and track has fine ballast laid over the sleepers and uses vignoles rail on all but the recently renewed running lines.  l cannot help but think that the use of standard length timbers, interlaced, on points would be prototypical and also more typical of the era.

 

 

I think they've all aged waiting for the first train from Castle Aching. Think they ended up taking a train from Pott Row as despite the walk it was still quicker as it had been built!

 

 

 

 Well, one of them regained the years she apparently lost, one is sadly dead and the other is an aged Nun. 

 

 

 

What about a micro layout to check your confidence? Castle Aching manure factory sidings anyone? Built with just two points in a shoe box in glorious smellovision!

 

 

 

A good idea, but that might prove a significant distraction that I could ill afford given my pathetic rate of progress! 

 

How many points would a micro- layout need?  Castle Aching only needs 5 (and a working Victorian turntable (!))

 

 

 

 

PS.  Do I get brownie points for including French and bicycle references in a post which has nothing to do with either?

 

Yes.

 

 

I've spoken to Brown Owl and she says that they don't do "Brownie Points" as such any more, but she ought to be able to wrangle you a Craft Badge.  You'vew got to do three things and explain how you made them and what you're going to do with them, bringing the third item to the test unfinished and show the tester how you will finish it. 

 

So:

 

1. Design and print out track layout.  Done
2. Lay plain trackwork in a layout. Done
3. Build points: Just leave a couple of copperclad sleepers to do and demonstrate soldering them into place.....

 

Simples!  

 

Or a craft badge.

 

 

  

Two questions:

Why would you try to grow a moustache whilst sitting on a bicycle?

Why would that make it fall over?

 

Au contraire, it should operate as an aid to balance.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Edwardian

[Compound2632]

Au contraire, it should operate as an aid to balance.

 

Man becomes machine...

[Donw]

Having been rather busy for the past few days this thread has rattled along. Lots of ideas but I feel Edwardian  must be rather at sea with it all

 

A few points (pun inevitable)

 

Bullhead rail is easier to file up and create crossing wing rails etc as it lays flat and bends evenly 

 

If the track is to be more or less covered in ballast the type of sleepering will not show.

 

Electric wiring as I drew the track plan I will do the wiring diagram some small discussion of planned operation ( i.e how tail traffic will be handled, where locos may be parked etc.) will help get the best from it.

 

C+L chairs  will adhere nicely to ply sleepers. Thin card packing is usefull where different sleeper thicknesses meet.

 

 

Bascially Edwardian needs to decide whether BH/FB Interlaced or otherwise will achieve the look he wants and we work from there but I will point out the track plan shows though timbers does Templot offer an interlaced option. Once that has been decided we can work out how to deal with it. 

CA will get built even if I have to build the turnouts and post them to him. However I would prefer to help him develop his own skills much more satisfying.

 

Don 

 

ps will reply to your PM later

[Compound2632]

If the track is to be more or less covered in ballast the type of sleepering will not show. 

 

Tho' as pointed out above, the visible tops of the chairs will be a tell-tale (if BH rail). If the sleepers are covered with ballast, would it be simpler to construct the point on a single solid base? (ply or plastic, not copper clad.) Has anyone tried this?

[Nearholmer]

Making switch tips in FB isn't that painful, if you follow the approach used in reality.

 

This is a 'zoom' of a photo I just took, from a safe place, so a bit fuzzy, but you can see that, on the stock rail, only the foot is planed, not the head, and on the switch rail the 'closing' side is planed, then the head on the other side. This leaves the switch tip nice and stable, not too flexible, and I can vouch that it works with Peco Code 82 FB.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Compound2632]

May I make an heretical suggestion? Unless I've missed a key piece of the discussion, this is 00. Given the proposal is to ballast over the sleepers, why not just use commercial points and remove a hurdle to getting running? The satisfaction of being able to play trains at an early stage in the proceedings is for me the fundamental attraction of 00. If one is going to agonise over the appearance of one's track, there's no argument for not going P4...

 

I expect to hear the heavy tread of the Grand Inquisitor's footsteps...

 

EDIT: Anticipating the event, let me stress that "there's no argument for not going P4" is a personal opinion with which I fully expect others to disagree; I respect the choices others may make though I would not necessarily make such choices myself. I would like to avoid being accused of gaugism!

 

For full disclosure, my current layout is 00 using set-track (although playing games with the geometry to get nearer prototypical six-foot on the straight), purely with the aim of having a continuous run on which to play trains.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

If one is going to agonise over the appearance of one's track, there's no argument for not going P4...

 

 

One step away from my tiny comfort zone at a time!

 

Besides, as CA is likely to be my only working layout for some considerable time, I will need to test lots of other OO equipment on it (amassed during the Armchair Years) and, while no one is looking, indulge in lots of Rule No.1 Running (did anyone mention biscuits?)

 

You did make me think, though, so I made a Little List, of modelling conundrums that now and then persist ....

 

Was Agonising over:

 

Baseboards, but I seem to be getting away with this so far.

 

Track-plan.  This was solved splendidly by DonW, but in my heart of hearts I know that I should have mastered Templot and done it myself.  In my heart of hearts I also know that this would have added at least a year to this project, so I am very grateful.

 

Currently Agonising over:

 

Building points - mainly because they are precision items that have to work.  A definite blow to my manhood and sense of self worth if I do not manage to do this (see also Silhouette).

 

Wiring  - because electricity is magic and I've read every pamphlet, book and article on the subject since 1978 and none of it has ever made any sense to me.

 

Anticipate Agonising over:

 

Signalling - mainly because they are precision items that have to work, though also because I have yet to master the finer points of applying general principles to particular arrangements.

 

Silhouette (!) - because we have history!

 

Not agonising over:

 

Deciding upon track, sleeper and ballasting arrangements - this involves research and discussion here, both of which I enjoy

 

Building plain track and laying track

 

RTR loco bodges

 

Plastic rolling stock kits

 

Buildings, scenics and accessories

 

 

Having been rather busy for the past few days this thread has rattled along. Lots of ideas but I feel Edwardian  must be rather at sea with it all

 

A few points (pun inevitable)

 

Bullhead rail is easier to file up and create crossing wing rails etc as it lays flat and bends evenly 

 

If the track is to be more or less covered in ballast the type of sleepering will not show.

 

Electric wiring as I drew the track plan I will do the wiring diagram some small discussion of planned operation ( i.e how tail traffic will be handled, where locos may be parked etc.) will help get the best from it.

 

C+L chairs  will adhere nicely to ply sleepers. Thin card packing is usefull where different sleeper thicknesses meet.

 

 

Bascially Edwardian needs to decide whether BH/FB Interlaced or otherwise will achieve the look he wants and we work from there but I will point out the track plan shows though timbers does Templot offer an interlaced option. Once that has been decided we can work out how to deal with it. 

CA will get built even if I have to build the turnouts and post them to him. However I would prefer to help him develop his own skills much more satisfying.

 

Don 

 

ps will reply to your PM later

 

Thanks, Don.  determined to conquer this, though very sensible of how important help is at this stage.

 

The help with the wiring is also greatly welcome.

 

To summarise where, I think, we have got to so far:

 

- BH on the running line including platform road and loop

 

- Therefore 3 BH points

 

- FB everywhere else

 

- Therefore 2 FB points

 

- All points built on PCB, though I note you suggest ply.

 

- BH points to have cosmetic chairs

 

- Interlace sleepers on points? But, as Don points out, would I see the sleepers if ballasted over?  Perhaps the ends?  Perhaps in semi outline?

 

- Point motors, as advised

 

- Very fine ballast (2mm Scale Green Scenes Light Grey) probably combined with wood ash on running line including platform road and loop.  Laid over top of sleepers. BH chairs will be clearly visible.

 

- Ash ballast elsewhere (on FB sections), laid over top of sleepers.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Edwardian

[BG John]

Ballasting over the sleepers is a great solution to quick/cheap/dodgy/inaccurate track (I hope!). My planned O gauge K&ESR layout will be using some fairly rough copper clad code 143 track, that needs totally rebuilding. The end result will probably look pretty awful, but almost all of it will be hidden. In fact I'm hoping it will convince people that it's actually FB rail! The only bit I'm not sure about is around the turnout switches, where more will have to be visible.

 

I'm currently laying Peco OO track on my new O-16.5 layout. I was going to cut out alternate sleepers to make it look a bit more narrow gauge, but as it will all be buried under some kind of ballast, I'm not bothering, as it means I need less material to fill it in with. What I may do though is to cut out the sleepers in a few places where I want them showing, and insert realistic ones. Stephen's suggest of using commercial points isn't as horrifying as it may may first seem, although learning to make them yourself is worthwhile. Maybe use the commercial solution as a fallback if you really can't make them yourself.

 

Building on a solid base is also an option. Someone posted this example of narrow gauge track in response to something else I'm planning. It will use far less ballast than sleepered track.

 

 

What I've thought of doing is to use widely spaced copper clad sleepers, just enough to hold it all together, and use shellaced card for the base, that should be as solid as wood. I'd cut slots for the copper clad sleepers before applying the shellac, and stick the rail to the card afterwards. Again, short sections of realistic track could be inserted if you want to show some sleepers.

 

[nick_bastable]

your electrickery problems should be helped by this https://www.merg.org.uk/ebook.php

 

Nick

[Edwardian]

Ballasting over the sleepers is a great solution to quick/cheap/dodgy/inaccurate track (I hope!). My planned O gauge K&ESR layout will be using some fairly rough copper clad code 143 track, that needs totally rebuilding. The end result will probably look pretty awful, but almost all of it will be hidden. In fact I'm hoping it will convince people that it's actually FB rail! The only bit I'm not sure about is around the turnout switches, where more will have to be visible.

 

I'm currently laying Peco OO track on my new O-16.5 layout. I was going to cut out alternate sleepers to make it look a bit more narrow gauge, but as it will all be buried under some kind of ballast, I'm not bothering, as it means I need less material to fill it in with. What I may do though is to cut out the sleepers in a few places where I want them showing, and insert realistic ones. Stephen's suggest of using commercial points isn't as horrifying as it may may first seem, although learning to make them yourself is worthwhile. Maybe use the commercial solution as a fallback if you really can't make them yourself.

 

Building on a solid base is also an option. Someone posted this example of narrow gauge track in response to something else I'm planning. It will use far less ballast than sleepered track.

 

Solid Track.jpg

 

What I've thought of doing is to use widely spaced copper clad sleepers, just enough to hold it all together, and use shellaced card for the base, that should be as solid as wood. I'd cut slots for the copper clad sleepers before applying the shellac, and stick the rail to the card afterwards. Again, short sections of realistic track could be inserted if you want to show some sleepers.

 

Fascinating!

 

Proprietary points - as Stephen and you suggest - will not fit Don's carefully quart-in-pint pot plot.  SMP's templates don't fit it either, so the points will be bespoke, so far as I can tell. 

 

 

your electrickery problems should be helped by this https://www.merg.org.uk/ebook.php

 

Nick

 

Thanks, but I had a panic attack and so had to close the link.

 

Electricity is bad enough, but "electronics" appears to be something even worse!  Surely this is a book by people and for people who actually like doing this stuff, for whom elegantly inventive ways of employing electricity to aid all aspects of operation is not merely a means, but is an end in itself.  

 

While admiring such things from a safe distance, should I attempt to read this book, I would expect to be in an asylum within the week!

[BG John]

Proprietary points - as Stephen and you suggest - will not fit Don's carefully quart-in-pint pot plot.  SMP's templates don't fit it either, so the points will be bespoke, so far as I can tell.

You can reshape Peco points. Just cut out the webbing and carefully bend .

[Guy Rixon]

For the electrical stuff, one has to consider carefully whether the programmatic issues of DCC outweigh the wiring issues of DC. It's not the difficulty of fitting it that counts, but the difficulty of mending it when it breaks; also the availability of goats and black chickens. For a small terminus, I suspect that the DC maintenance is going to be easier than the DCC maintenance. 

 

With a simple layout, one can cheat on the DC wiring if it's worked with one engine in steam. very little switching needed, and the only likely fragility would be the switches to change the polarity of the crossings.

 

For myself, I plan to do DC in the first cameo (mainly because I am too poor to buy DCC equipment) and then change it DCC when the cameo gets embedded in the main layout.

[Compound2632]

You can reshape Peco points. Just cut out the webbing and carefully bend .

 

Yes, but you can't change the crossing angle.

[runs as required]

In les dernieres 24 heures or so this thread seems to have veered regrettably away from the wholesome rigour of contemplating a daily pre Raphaelite.

Would you kindly replace that Impressionist Monet with a decent pre Raphaelite railway station.

dh

[Compound2632]

In les dernieres 24 heures or so this thread seems to have veered regrettably away from the wholesome rigour of contemplating a daily pre Raphaelite.

Would you kindly replace that Impressionist Monet with a decent pre Raphaelite railway station.

dh

 

The problem here is that railway stations were simply too prosaic and mundane to form a suitable subject for a pre-Raphaelite artist. Indeed, unlike railway modelling, the whole railway set-up was based on principles that ran directly contrary to William Morris' ideal of the individual craftsman.

 

Edit: 'wholesome rigour' my foot...

Edited September 28, 2017 by Compound2632

[nick_bastable]

 

 

Thanks, but I had a panic attack and so had to close the link.

 

Electricity is bad enough, but "electronics" appears to be something even worse!  Surely this is a book by people and for people who actually like doing this stuff, for whom elegantly inventive ways of employing electricity to aid all aspects of operation is not merely a means, but is an end in itself.  

 

While admiring such things from a safe distance, should I attempt to read this book, I would expect to be in an asylum within the week!

read the chapters on track and point wiring no real electronics involved 

 

Nick

[St Enodoc]

- BH on the running line including platform road and loop

No need to build your own plain track then. SMP, C&L, Peco or Legacy would all do the trick.

[Compound2632]

No need

 

Not need but desire. Sorry, I seem to be arguing on both sides of the fence today.

[runs as required]

The problem here is that railway stations were simply too prosaic and mundane to form a suitable subject for a pre-Raphaelite artist. Indeed, unlike railway modelling, the whole railway set-up was based on principles that ran directly contrary to William Morris' ideal of the individual craftsman.

 

Edit: 'wholesome rigour' my foot...

Sir!

I would be obliged if you would delete this post and re-post in Pre-Grouping Pendants Weeklywhere I shall be only too pleased to engage in further disputation with you  regarding the selfless endeavours of the individual craftsmen in the crafting of the earliestiron horses.

dh

[Edwardian]

You can reshape Peco points. Just cut out the webbing and carefully bend .

 

Interesting, though it might be simpler, for me at any rate, to set fire to a £20 note each time?

 

 

In les dernieres 24 heures or so this thread seems to have veered regrettably away from the wholesome rigour of contemplating a daily pre Raphaelite.

Would you kindly replace that Impressionist Monet with a decent pre Raphaelite railway station.

dh

 

Wholesome Rigour - see below

 

 

 'wholesome rigour' my foot...

 

Or her feet ...

 

read the chapters on track and point wiring no real electronics involved 

 

Nick

 

OK.  But I'll need to save up for a decent single malt so I can tackle the tome with confidence.

 

 

No need to build your own plain track then. SMP, C&L, Peco or Legacy would all do the trick.

 

 

Yep, have some SMP for that!

[St Enodoc]

Not need but desire. Sorry, I seem to be arguing on both sides of the fence today.

Fair comment Stephen, but my philosophy is to buy what I can so that I can save time to make the things I can't buy.

[Hroth]

The problem here is that railway stations were simply too prosaic and mundane to form a suitable subject for a pre-Raphaelite artist. Indeed, unlike railway modelling, the whole railway set-up was based on principles that ran directly contrary to William Morris' ideal of the individual craftsman.

 

Edit: 'wholesome rigour' my foot...

The phrase was probably the result of a personal response to pre-Raphaelite dames and should have been rendered as "wholesale rigor"....

 

But yes, if there had been steam railways in 16th Century Florence, then the movement would have had no problems with the subject (pausing to imagine a p-R take on Friths "The Railway Station"...).  At least there would be more detail, and a more accurate rendition of pre-grouping liveries!

[BG John]

Interesting, though it might be simpler, for me at any rate, to set fire to a £20 note each time?

New ones are a lot less than £20. Secondhand ones, like this, are more like a fiver .

 

 

 

[Regularity]

If you use "dead frog" points, then a lot of DC wiring requirements disappear. If you use them with Hornby's spring wire clips, to remove the "self-isolating" nature of the points, then other than a very small number of insulating breaks, between the curved routes of a crossover or the inner rails of a loop, then DCC becomes even easier.

 

Depending on the source of the rolling stock, and its wheel profiles, then either code 100 or code 75 Peco is perfectly suitable if the track is going to be ballasted over the sleepers.

 

Personally I favour hand built scale track, but it is not for everyone.