RMweb Premium NCB Posted January 28, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 28, 2019 Nice. I prefer Dublo without excessive scenery. How big's the baseboard. Had intended to get mine out this winter. So far been too occupied with other things, mainly 3mm/ft. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolseley Posted January 28, 2019 Author Share Posted January 28, 2019 It's 8 x 4 (feet that is, it doesn't seem right to use metric measurements but, if you must, 1220cm x 2440cm). It will have some scenery when I'm finished, but not a lot. I do want it to look like a layout though, rather than just a set of tracks quickly set out on a table. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 It's 8 x 4 (feet that is, it doesn't seem right to use metric measurements but, if you must, 1220cm x 2440cm). It will have some scenery when I'm finished, but not a lot. I do want it to look like a layout though, rather than just a set of tracks quickly set out on a table. I don't know about Australia, but here the change to metric meant that 4 foot, 6 foot and 8 foot lengths became 1.2metre, 1.8 metre and 2.4 metres. The slightly reduced measure must have resulted in quite a bit more profit over the years, as obviously there was no reduction in price. In Italy, and I suppose everywhere else in the metric world, timber is sold by the metre. The hoo-hah over making it illegal to sell greengroceries in pounds and its subsequent revision has seen produce still sold in pounds (which of course is conveniently less than half a kilo. Drinks are still quite commonly found in 440ml cans rather than 500ml. We obviously enjoy being conned! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolseley Posted January 28, 2019 Author Share Posted January 28, 2019 (edited) Australia went Metric in the early 1970s (Building and plumbing materials were given a few years to comply due to the time and expense involved in retooling etc). I did my driving test in January of 1971 and I remember having to learn all the distances and speeds in both Imperial and Metric. Most sizes these days are in even lengths and widths (in Metric of course) but for some odd reason you can get sheets of plywood and MDF in both 2440x1220 and 2400x1200. I used a 2440x1220 sheet of 9mm plywood for my board. Edited January 28, 2019 by Wolseley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolseley Posted January 29, 2019 Author Share Posted January 29, 2019 Apart from a couple of sidings that I know will not present any problems, all the track is loosely in place, ready for clearance testing. I was initially going to use a Co-Bo with a Tri-ang Caledonian coach (about 2cm longer than a Dublo Super Detail coach) and also the "Canadian Pacific" Duchess (the cowcatcher sticks out more on curves than a normal Duchess bogie) hauling a Dublo breakdown crane. I also seem to remember it being mentioned at one point that a Dublo Castle has quite a bit of overhang at the front, so I might bring that one out later. Any other suggestions as to other rolling stock that might be good for testing clearances? While I had the breakdown crane out earlier today, I took the opportunity to give it a good clean inside and replace the thread that operates the jib. I used a brown linen thread intended for hemming tapestry work and carpets, that appeared to be more or less the same as what Meccano used originally. It wasn't a job I was looking forward to, but it turned out to be a lot easier and quicker than I was expecting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolseley Posted January 29, 2019 Author Share Posted January 29, 2019 The road next to the engine shed might have to go...... In case you're wondering, the terminal rails in the photos are for supplementary feeds, not the main feeds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 (edited) Not Dublo, but possibly the worst overhang is a Tri-ang T.C. passenger car* (the British version rather than the Australian one), There should be no problems with Dublo track. The only real possibilty is where a crossover is made with a curved and a straight section of two points, as this brings the tracks closer than the 2¼" spacing. The curved sections (¼ and ½ rails) from a turntable are also close but problems are easily avoided by not stabling stock on the inner curves. * Long but but still too short as the real things are 87 feet long (like most Continental caoches). Hence the common 1:100 length habit.... P.S. The engine shed needs moving slightly farther from the turntable. I forgot that 2" x 1" timber become 50mm x 25mm etc. Since the measurement is nominal, it shouldn't have made any difference, but it seems smaller! The proper Meccano cord is available from dealers. You can get it in the 50/60s green or the modern and more realistic black. As usual the postage is more than the item (it was 25p a metre last time I looked). I did use 'silk' embroidery thread, but replaced it with the real thing. Hooks (and screws) are available from the same source. I did a Dinky Coles mobile crane, which was fidly the first time . Then I found the cab section hinges open, which makes the job simple Edited January 29, 2019 by Il Grifone Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolseley Posted February 1, 2019 Author Share Posted February 1, 2019 I was able to move the engine shed back slightly, but not much, as it then gets a bit close to the curve on the inner running line. In its present position, I have run locos from the "Canadian Pacific" Duchess down to an 0-6-2T and haven't had any problems, even if it is a bit of a tight fit for some of them. I was able to retain the siding to the left of the shed although to do so I had to use two 1/4 curves in the form of a reverse curve - hardly the most elegant way to do it but, with the space I have available, the only way. The small siding could be the perfect home for my diesel shunter or maybe one of my 0-6-2 tanks. The one problem I had that I couldn't work around was the amount of overhang on locos coming out of the engine shed siding and hitting the island platform of the through station (the goods shed siding had the same issue, but that could have been resolved by moving the platform as far to the left as possible). I was expecting the "Canadian Pacific" Duchess having clearance problems when leaving in a forward direction, and was prepared to place a restriction on it so that would only be permitted to reverse out, but it turned out not to be the only one to have problems in that regard. One thing that surprised me was the amount of overhang from the cab of a reversing Duchess. If the board was 4' 6" wide rather than 4', I could have laid in an extra line but, as it was, I had a choice between having the platform edge around 4 or 5 scale feet from the track, getting rid of the turntable and engine shed, or getting rid of the station. Moving the platform further towards the edge so that only Olympic athletes would be able to board trains on the inner line looked ridiculous and also ate into the space I am using to mount switches for isolating rails and electric points and signals. Getting rid of the turntable and engine shed was not an option, as I want to have both (as does my grandson), so I ended up opting for getting rid of the station - reluctantly, as it did give a bit more purpose to the running of the trains. I have finished re-laying some of the tracks, but it's getting a bit late for testing them now - maybe tomorrow.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now