Castle Aching

[corneliuslundie]

Not directly relevant to East Anglia, but I have just realised that in Great Western Way there is a table 2 entitled "Transverse sleepered track - sleepers" which gives details of the rails used by 10 subsidiary companies, another (table 3) which gives details of rails for nine subsidiary companies plus eight for the GWR, dated between 1846 and 1933 (and a table giving spacing for concrete "pots" used in some situations), as well as rail cross sections by the dozen.

I knew that there were two pages with diagrams on broad gauge baulk track but had forgotten the rest.

Jonathan

[Hroth]

Reduced to 'phone camera at present, so I apologise for the poor image quality.

 

In the pause between baseboard construction and track laying I should be attending to the village or to rolling stock.  Instead I have been distracted.  Whatever is Edwardian up to now?!?

Its the Zombie Apocalypse, innit......

[jwealleans]

[Compound2632]

Reduced to 'phone camera at present, so I apologise for the poor image quality.

 

In the pause between baseboard construction and track laying I should be attending to the village or to rolling stock.  Instead I have been distracted.  Whatever is Edwardian up to now?!?

 

Cameo scene in breach of Rice's First Law of Motion? He's running for the train, she's shouting at him because he's about to miss it because for once it's leaving on time. How do I know? Enacted nearly daily in our house, substitute school bus for train...

 

Or... is she going to be waving a red petticoat...

Edited October 3, 2017 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

Its the Zombie Apocalypse, innit......

 

No, but that could be a further distraction ....

 

 

 

 

That is wrong, on so many levels.

 

I like it a lot.

 

Cameo scene in breach of Rice's First Law of Motion?

 

 

Well, yes, I am just proving how completely non-finescale my approach must be.  Not only is it to be a cameo scene, but, as you correctly observe, it will be in direct contravention of Rice's First Law of Motion!

 

If there was a bridge anywhere nearby, it would be a safe bet that you'd find a horse-drawn omnibus sat right atop it.  Fortunately, there is no bridge.

 

 

she's shouting at him because he's about to miss it because for once it's leaving on time. How do I know? Enacted nearly daily in our house, substitute school bus for train...

 

 

 

So glad that I gave up commuting!

 

 

 

 

Or... is she going to be waving a red petticoat...

 

 

Steady on!

 

Oh, alright then ...

[nick_bastable]

to get away from red bloomers may I inquire if you have varnished the baseboards, the reason I ask is the local area groups small plank was ply construction and varnished prior to any construction beginning, the local railway clubs new N gauge layout started about the same time was also ply constructed but left unvarnished.  Over the first winter the N gauge unvarnished layout grew a beard of mold  due to the unheated conditions in the club room most of the week, the varnished one did not, the n gauge layout was subsequently varnished after cleaning up but still bares the scares,   I do not know how damp cold the shed the layout is stored is so this may not be a issue.

 

Nick

[Regularity]

Or... is she going to be waving a red petticoat...

My wife once described me as a “weirdo who watches the ‘Railway Children’ for the trains”!

She has yet to come up with a similar explanation for why I watch “An American Werewolf in London” or “Walkabout”...

[Edwardian]

to get away from red bloomers may I inquire if you have varnished the baseboards, the reason I ask is the local area groups small plank was ply construction and varnished prior to any construction beginning, the local railway clubs new N gauge layout started about the same time was also ply constructed but left unvarnished.  Over the first winter the N gauge unvarnished layout grew a beard of mold  due to the unheated conditions in the club room most of the week, the varnished one did not, the n gauge layout was subsequently varnished after cleaning up but still bares the scares,   I do not know how damp cold the shed the layout is stored is so this may not be a issue.

 

Nick

 

Nick, good advice, thank you, and I predict that this will be an issue given my layout's home.

 

I do intend to varnish.  I did not think of this before construction, however, I had planned to varnish before the winter sets in and before any further scenic work.  I can presently get to all the exposed surfaces.

 

It struck me that it should be an exterior grade varnish.  My local hardware shop runs to a can of yacht varnish.  I don't know whether this would be overkill, but I thought it could do no harm to use it. 

 

I will also varnish the legs.  I don't know if softwood is susceptible in the same way as ply, but I thought that varnish may go at least someway discourage infestation!

[nick_bastable]

Nick, good advice, thank you, and I predict that this will be an issue given my layout's home.

 

I do intend to varnish.  I did not think of this before construction, however, I had planned to varnish before the winter sets in and before any further scenic work.  I can presently get to all the exposed surfaces.

 

It struck me that it should be an exterior grade varnish.  My local hardware shop runs to a can of yacht varnish.  I don't know whether this would be overkill, but I thought it could do no harm to use it. 

 

I will also varnish the legs.  I don't know if softwood is susceptible in the same way as ply, but I thought that varnish may go at least someway discourage infestation!

exterior varnish would not be wasted given the amount of time and effort it takes to build a layout,   I would advise that make  sure  all exposed ply edges are thoroughly varnished, I think I gave the plank two coats but as much as anything that was to use the varnish up

 

Nick

[Edwardian]

exterior varnish would not be wasted given the amount of time and effort it takes to build a layout,   I would advise that make  sure  all exposed ply edges are thoroughly varnished, I think I gave the plank two coats but as much as anything that was to use the varnish up

 

Nick

 

 

Will do.

 

With my budget, I cannot afford to install proper insulation, so it will be a case of foil insulation stapled across the face of the rafters.  There is ventilation at the ridge, so, if I leave a strategic gap in the foil, I should avoid condensation. That, and replacing the broken windows, is all I will be able to manage for the foreseeable future.

 

Giving the walls a lick of paint will brighten things up, of course, but the workshop will remain an essentially agricultural building I'm afraid.

 

I can install an oil heater and varnish the boards, but that's about it.

[Nearholmer]

Yacht varnish: thin the first coat to a watery consistency using white spirit or whatever it recommends for brush cleaning. It will then soak in, and take days to dry. Subsequent coats then build much better. If you want a real shine, sand with a very fine grit between coats.

 

The figures made me think of something melodramatic, and probably musical. Haven't we proposed a WNR-themed operetta before? Plots available by return of post, on receipt of a large melton Mowbray pie.

[Edwardian]

Yacht varnish: thin the first coat to a watery consistency using white spirit or whatever it recommends for brush cleaning. It will then soak in, and take days to dry. Subsequent coats then build much better. If you want a real shine, sand with a very fine grit between coats.

 

 

 

Thanks, Kevin, very helpful. 

 

 

The figures made me think of something melodramatic, and probably musical. Haven't we proposed a WNR-themed operetta before? Plots available by return of post, on receipt of a large melton Mowbray pie.

 

Orange Pekoe, by J. B. Jimson, I should have thought.

 

I shall get some playbills printed up once I have a station fence, once I have a station.  

[St Enodoc]

Yacht varnish: thin the first coat to a watery consistency using white spirit or whatever it recommends for brush cleaning. It will then soak in, and take days to dry. Subsequent coats then build much better. If you want a real shine, sand with a very fine grit between coats.

 

The figures made me think of something melodramatic, and probably musical. Haven't we proposed a WNR-themed operetta before? Plots available by return of post, on receipt of a large melton Mowbray pie.

But not after the first thinned coat, only after the second and subsequent coats. The thinned coat makes the fibres stand up ,so if you sand then they will look like hundreds of dots.

[St Enodoc]

Reduced to 'phone camera at present, so I apologise for the poor image quality.

 

In the pause between baseboard construction and track laying I should be attending to the village or to rolling stock.  Instead I have been distracted.  Whatever is Edwardian up to now?!?

Dunno, but whatever it is that bloke's head has definitely come off worse.

[runs as required]

Unusually for me, resisisting the desire to roll around in the above OT temptations, I shall stay with damp livestock sheds not being the healthiest places for a delicate largely card constructed sculpture to spend the winter.

 

I can well understand the impossibility of adequately insulating and stabilising condensation problems in James's large stone outhouse.

 

My elder son (a lawyer too) keeps his pension  four or five classic cars under separate zipped up tent structures within pretty windy outhouse structures. He used to store them in a sort of Bladerunner underground nuclear bomb storage facility near Bicester but they suffered badly through the winter in the still air.

I am wondering whether James could conceive of a way of accommodating/contracting the layout within an 'off the peg' tent structure within the outhouse which might have a humidity control and circulation unit within it?

 

dh

[Northroader]

The one thing I'd say against varnished baseboards is would the glue you're using for ballasting and so on "take" as well to a sealed surface?

[Fenman]

Are the local beaches more sand than shingle? I believe it was the South Eastern's use of Dungeness shingle that was a contributory factor to the blanket 60 mph speed limit - though with the greatest respect, I cannot imagine that that would be a consideration for the West Norfolk.

...

A ludicrously late reply (also ludicrous, since your question was probably rhetorical...).

 

Mostly sand, but some shingle (eg, Heacham and Snettisham ("Snet" to the locals), depending on weird currents).

 

There are very significant sand deposits inland though - a 3 mile stub branch from Lynn to Ashwicken (the first part of the Lynn-Dereham, connecting Lynn and Norwich - and not recommended for the axe by the Good Doctor. We have the "saintly" Gerry Fiennes to thank for that...) survived Beeching and post-Beeching cuts as a freight-only branch.

 

Still used today - 3 or 4 trains per week - to take high-grade industrial sand for glass-making.

 

The very substantial disused quarries nearby are now vast lakes (on Google maps check out "Leziate lakes"), a deserted and delightful wilderness of silver birch, fern and pine, with the occasional piece of flat-bottomed rail re-used as bollards or fencing. It's also adjacent to the real village of Pott Row, and I was dropping unsubtle hints to Mullie that it might be fun to incorporate into a model.

 

That was way OT, even for me...

 

Paul

[Fenman]

...

The West Norfolk is certainly not built for a modern, Twentieth Century, 4-4-0 express passenger loco, and herself possesses none.

 

In addition to the aspects of her permanent way mentioned, CA only has a 45' turntable.

 

In due course I plan to have visiting locomotives. I do not see any of them as a problem, though some may overhang the TT slightly!

 

My first choice for the GE would be a No.1 Class 'Little Sharpie' 2-4-0. My second choice would be a T26 'Intermediate' 2-4-0 (LNER E4).

 

For the M&GN, I think the ideal choice would be one of the Beyer Peacock A Class 4-4-0s. I have not checked to see if I can fit a Johnson 4-4-0.

 

If a Claud came, it would only be because it was on a Royal Train working, which would be a rare, if not unique, occurrence. The Clauds were used to working the empty stock back tender first, as there was no turntable at Wolferton, so no problem there!

I am shocked - shocked! - that a man of your obvious taste and discernment has prioritised the Beyer Peacock over the Johnson. To my eyes, the Johnson is an almost perfect Victorian 4-4-0 express. Wonderful flowing curves.

 

The BP just looks a bit boxy - not even functional-pretty (like, say, the gloriously purposeful Q1s from another time and place).

 

Though, for me, few things in life are as lovely as a Claud, I'd still go for the Johnson.

 

Paul

[Hroth]

Just be glad we're British......

 

 

Muahahahaaaaaaaaa......

[Compound2632]

In addition to the aspects of her permanent way mentioned, CA only has a 45' turntable.

 

In due course I plan to have visiting locomotives.  I do not see any of them as a problem, though some may overhang the TT slightly!

 

For the M&GN, I think the ideal choice would be one of the Beyer Peacock A Class 4-4-0s. I have not checked to see if I can fit a Johnson 4-4-0.

 

Tragedy!

 

The Midland used only three 45' tables: Malvern, Marple, and at the GSWR shed at Carlisle. The only bogie coupled engines these could accommodate were the earliest two batches, the 1312 and 1327 classes. However, there were many 46' tables - at most of the larger passenger sheds or stations - which could take any of the 8'6" or 9'0" coupled wheelbase bogies engines (in post-1907 terms, any 4-4-0 from 300 to 522) along with any bogie single except the 2601 class. The Johnson bogie coupled engines of the M&GN were 9'0" coupled wheelbase engines of the 2203 class, so alas! for want of a foot you will not be able to turn one at Castle Aching [Hawkins & Reeve, LMS Engine Sheds Vol. 2: The Midland Railway (Wild Swan, 1981) - quoting a 1911 document].

 

EDIT: I subsequently realised I had misidentified the M&GN Class C which were in fact 8'6" coupled wheelbase engines similar to the 1808 Class - see later post.

 

There is a slight anomaly: the diagrams show the total wheelbase of all the 8'6" coupled wheelbase engines as 43' 6 1/4" or thereabouts so it's not clear why only the oldest two classes were considered short enough for a 45' table. The 9'0" coupled wheelbase engines are around 4" longer (most of the diagrams are for H-boiler rebuilds but these used the same frames etc.). The earliest bogie singles came in at 43' 2 1/4" but needed a 46' table; the 115 class, like their contemporary coupled sisters, were 43' 10 1/4" [Essery & Jenkinson, An Illustrated Review of Midland Locomotives Vol 2 (Wild Swan, 1988)].

 

Any Midland six-wheeler could be turned on a 42' table. Any engine with a 6-wheeled tender could fit on a 50' table but 55' was needed for the engines with bogie tenders.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

The one thing I'd say against varnished baseboards is would the glue you're using for ballasting and so on "take" as well to a sealed surface?

 

Well, you anticipate my next question.

 

The ply frames and the softwood legs will be varnished.

 

There is very little base board, 9mm ply under the station/yard area and the track bed.  What to do with this?

 

Well, obviously I will varnish the underside and the edges. 

 

I will not varnish the top side as this will either be covered in cork or painted.

 

But, do I varnish the top of the cork?  I would have thought not. I will need to stick the Templot print-out on to it and then the whole will no doubt be sealed with PVA as a result of ballasting.

[Edwardian]

I am shocked - shocked! - that a man of your obvious taste and discernment has prioritised the Beyer Peacock over the Johnson. To my eyes, the Johnson is an almost perfect Victorian 4-4-0 express. Wonderful flowing curves.

 

The BP just looks a bit boxy - not even functional-pretty (like, say, the gloriously purposeful Q1s from another time and place).

 

Though, for me, few things in life are as lovely as a Claud, I'd still go for the Johnson.

 

Paul

 

Tragedy!

 

The Midland used only three 45' tables: Malvern, Marple, and at the GSWR shed at Carlisle. The only bogie coupled engines these could accommodate were the earliest two batches, the 1312 and 1327 classes. However, there were many 46' tables - at most of the larger passenger sheds or stations - which could take any of the 8'6" or 9'0" coupled wheelbase bogies engines (in post-1907 terms, any 4-4-0 from 300 to 522) along with any bogie single except the 2601 class. The Johnson bogie coupled engines of the M&GN were 9'0" coupled wheelbase engines of the 2203 class, so alas! for want of a foot you will not be able to turn one at Castle Aching [Hawkins & Reeve, LMS Engine Sheds Vol. 2: The Midland Railway (Wild Swan, 1981) - quoting a 1911 document].

 

There is a slight anomaly: the diagrams show the total wheelbase of all the 8'6" coupled wheelbase engines as 43' 6 1/4" or thereabouts so it's not clear why only the oldest two classes were considered short enough for a 45' table. The 9'0" coupled wheelbase engines are around 4" longer (most of the diagrams are for H-boiler rebuilds but these used the same frames etc.). The earliest bogie singles came in at 43' 2 1/4" but needed a 46' table; the 115 class, like their contemporary coupled sisters, were 43' 10 1/4" [Essery & Jenkinson, An Illustrated Review of Midland Locomotives Vol 2 (Wild Swan, 1988)].

 

Any Midland six-wheeler could be turned on a 42' table. Any engine with a 6-wheeled tender could fit on a 50' table but 55' was needed for the engines with bogie tenders.

 

My ranking of the BP and the Johnson was based purely upon their perceived suitability for CA.

 

The thing is, I have more chance of building a Slater's Johnson 4-4-0 (assuming that kit to be suitable) than I have a Peter K Beyer Peacock; and the Johnson would look equally good on a 5-coach train of GNR 6-wheelers or 4 Clayton bogie clerestories. B*gger. 

 

So, would 46' do it?

 

I haven't built the TT yet.  I have expanded my plan of a Victorian 40' table to 45', precisely so things like the Beyer Peacock could visit. 

 

I am trying to keep the TT as small as possible, so it will be all antique-like and fit with the various WN locos, all of which could doubtless be turned on a 40' TT, as I had originally envisaged.

 

What do you think? Should I extent a further foot to 46?

[Caley Jim]

Any Midland six-wheeler could be turned on a 42' table. Any engine with a 6-wheeled tender could fit on a 50' table but 55' was needed for the engines with bogie tenders.

There was more to whether a loco would fit on a turntable than just the wheelbase.  If the 'table was hand operated it was much easier to turn if the loco was balanced on it i.e. the centre of gravity of the loco was over the central pivot of the 'table.  This meant that there was much less of the weight on the outer carrying wheels and so less force required to turn it.   The CG of a loco was not necessarily at the mid point of the wheelbase and was obviously affected by how much coal and water were in the tender.

 

It wasn't unusual for a driver to move the loco slightly backwards and/or forwards a few times in an attempt to get it as well balanced as possible.

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

My ranking of the BP and the Johnson was based purely upon their perceived suitability for CA.

 

The thing is, I have more chance of building a Slater's Johnson 4-4-0 (assuming that kit to be suitable) than I have a Peter K Beyer Peacock; and the Johnson would look equally good on a 5-coach train of GNR 6-wheelers or 4 Clayton bogie clerestories. B*gger. 

 

So, would 46' do it?

 

I haven't built the TT yet.  I have expanded my plan of a Victorian 40' table to 45', precisely so things like the Beyer Peacock could visit. 

 

I am trying to keep the TT as small as possible, so it will be all antique-like and fit with the various WN locos, all of which could doubtless be turned on a 40' TT, as I had originally envisaged.

 

What do you think? Should I extent a further foot to 46?

 

Slater's Johnson 4-4-0? Do you mean the ancient Ratio kit? You have one? Hen's teeth! But, if so, it's no good for a 2203 / M&GN Johnson - it's a 1312 class, so, ironically, would fit on a 45' table (if the 1911 list is to be believed). I don't believe there is any 4 mm scale kit available for any of the longer-coupled-wheelbase engines - London Road Models do the 1808 class, with 8'6" coupled wheelbase...

 

... agh! Just realised I've fallen into a minefield! Clark's book says the M&GN engines were part of the 2203 class with which they were contemporary; London Road Models say their 1808 class kit is good for the M&GN engines... and indeed the dimensions listed in Clark's book do seem to be those of an 1808 (excepting half-an-inch larger cylinder diameter) and they look very alike in photos - the 2203 class is clearly different; the extra 6" alters the sweep of the splashers and they've got the drum-head smokebox. Actually the differences between an 1808 and a 1312 aren't so great; the Ratio kit (with appropriate back-dating at the front end) could pass muster.

 

But you still need a 46' table...

 

How would CA handle a too-long locomotive? With the arriving train drawn off, is there a triangle at the off-stage junction?

 

EDIT: Reference: Clark, R.H., An Illustrated History of M&GNJR Locomotives (OPC, 1990).

Edited October 3, 2017 by Compound2632

[Fenman]

Slater's Johnson 4-4-0? Do you mean the ancient Ratio kit? You have one? Hen's teeth! But, if so, it's no good for a 2203 / M&GN Johnson - it's a 1312 class, so, ironically, would fit on a 45' table (if the 1911 list is to be believed). I don't believe there is any 4 mm scale kit available for any of the longer-coupled-wheelbase engines - London Road Models do the 1808 class, with 8'6" coupled wheelbase...

 

... agh! Just realised I've fallen into a minefield! Clark's book says the M&GN engines were part of the 2203 class with which they were contemporary; London Road Models say their 1808 class kit is good for the M&GN engines... and indeed the dimensions listed in Clark's book do seem to be those of an 1808 (excepting half-an-inch larger cylinder diameter) and they look very alike in photos - the 2203 class is clearly different; the extra 6" alters the sweep of the splashers and they've got the drum-head smokebox. Actually the differences between an 1808 and a 1312 aren't so great; the Ratio kit (with appropriate back-dating at the front end) could pass muster.

 

But you still need a 46' table...

 

How would CA handle a too-long locomotive? With the arriving train drawn off, is there a triangle at the off-stage junction?

 

My memory is that the Johnsons used on the M&GN were derived from the 1808. But then again, I have the memory of a fruit fly.

 

Paul