Painted myself into a corner?

[Philou]

@ Joseph_Pestell

 

Thanks - I was lucky that someone in the village has a mass of woodworking machines - real professional ones (about 100 years old some of them) and he gave me a hand to plane and square the planks I had. (Not saying at the moment what the wood was as I'm waiting 'til this evening to see if anyone can guess).

 

BTW - and if it's not being too inquisitive - where abouts in France are you based?

 

Salut,

 

Philip

[Joseph_Pestell]

I'm not sure about the branch lines but I love the rest of the concept. I am guessing that you will mostly be operating the layout on your own so the arrangement with the fiddleyard on a peninsula down the middle works really well.

 

It is also a layout that you can easily build in stages, getting part completed in a reasonable timescale.

 

I see no reason not to go for the full turntable fiddleyard as you have the space for it to turn. By strange coincidence, I was looking yesterday afternoon at some aluminium extrusions that I found at a house a tenant has recently left. About eight foot long but very strong and light. I think they could make the basis of a good turntable.

 

It's cold here - but I bet it is even worse, much worse, in Franche-Comte!

[Joseph_Pestell]

@ Joseph_Pestell

 

Thanks - I was lucky that someone in the village has a mass of woodworking machines - real professional ones (about 100 years old some of them) and he gave me a hand to plane and square the planks I had. (Not saying at the moment what the wood was as I'm waiting 'til this evening to see if anyone can guess).

 

BTW - and if it's not being too inquisitive - where abouts in France are you based?

 

Salut,

 

Philip

 

French house is in the Corbieres, about 40km NW from Perpignan. My parents were the first Brits to buy there in 1973 and subsequently retired there in 1985.

 

My next door neighbour's house, currently up for sale at £94k, has a barn/garage even larger than yours and a large attic. Very tempting!

Edited March 1, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell

[Denbridge]

Chums,

 

Just a quickie or those that might have been following the stairway to hell heaven saga: Here is a photo of the finished thing (well - not quite as I have to back-fill the join between the render and the stairs).

 

I just hope I can do a decent job in the barn laying the new floor . It is about 4m up in the air!!!

 

Domestic harmony has ensued for a while. She must be pleased as she didn't bat an eyelid when I announced that there was yet another parcel arriving for me on Saturday (no not the Super D, that'll be next week - this week is the GBrF Class 66 'Evening Star').

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

20180228_211024_resized.jpg

Stairs look great. I'm sure you'll do a grand job of the floor. No matter how good, when it comes to baseboards, screw adjusting legs are your friend

[Philou]

Yay! Harlequin wins! Yes, it was elm. The local woodsman sold it to me - he'd had in stock for years from when the last few elms were cut down. Some of the planks he had were a bit far gone so they've been used in the risers and the good stuff went into the treads. A bit like oak as the good stuff was quite hard with which to work.

 

@ Denbridge

 

Around here, oak isn't protected and I burn it in the woodburner. The large trunks go into coffin and furniture manufacture - one of the biggest makers of coffins in France is about 5 miles away - and no I haven't put myself on their waiting list for one thankyouverymuch.

 

@ Joseph_Pestell

 

Thanks for the update on the Ledbury info - I went straight to page 8 and hadn't seen your reply.

 

Regards,

 

Philip

[Joseph_Pestell]

Stairs look great. I'm sure you'll do a grand job of the floor. No matter how good, when it comes to baseboards, screw adjusting legs are your friend

Agree. And French DIY stores seem to sell far more of this sort of gear than the UK ones.

[Joseph_Pestell]

@ Joseph_Pestell

 

Thanks for the update on the Ledbury info - I went straight to page 8 and hadn't seen your reply.

 

Regards,

 

Philip

 

Just checked the series index. Ledbury is on Page 110 of vol 3.

[Philou]

Sorry chums,

 

These replies are all out of sync - arghhh!

 

@ Joseph

 

I'm not sure if it's been better down in the south of France these last few days - woke here to 4" (100mm) of snow this morning - melting fast. I'll say something for those based in the UK and might be in the snow at the moment. Our village is in the sticks - the nearest sizeable 'town' has just over 1000 souls in it, the county town is minute - 20000 or so - but the snow plough has been through TWICE already!!!

 

Regarding the neighbouring house - if it's saying to you 'buy me' why not? You probably won't make money re-selling it later as houses over here are sold by the m² - not what YOU think it's worth - the barn is probably worth having though .

 

As I'm a half-breed (Frenglish), one side of the family has always been here, but I was born in the UK, worked there and then retired here.

 

@ Denbridge

 

Yes - as Joseph has said - over here you can get adjustable feet in DIY stores easily. The club uses them on their modules so as to adjust between modules and make up for any slight deficiencies in the floor when they go to shows. I shall use them regardless of the quality of my finishing - but thank you for your kind remarks.

 

(@ Joseph - I might have caused a bit of confusion - I meant page 8 of this thread).

 

Edit: Eeeek! I'm not really English - I'm Welsh and I should have said Wench or Frelsh .

 

Regards everyone,

 

Hope you're not too cold wherever you are,

 

Philip

Edited March 1, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

I had a thought whilst I was doing something else - as one does. It's an open question to those who have been following this topic:

 

If you will recall that we have arrived at plan #72 which overall gave the most satisfaction - subject to tweaks and details (which I haven't yet done). My thought was: Should I remove the single line link within Ledbury tunnel altogether and just retain the accesses direct into the traverser?

 

Why? Well, it would prevent any train in either direction going twice round  the circuit and retain more of an element of prototypical movement through each of the stations. The traverser becomes either Worcester or Newport - you can no longer go from Ledbury to Pontrilas in the 'wrong' direction (or vice versa from Pontrilas).

 

'Aaah' you will say, 'you have lost the ability to do a roundy-roundy.' Well, yes - if roundy roundy is more your thing, of course. Would the interrupted flow make for more operational interest? Perhaps I'm just over-complicating matters - as I say it was just a thought - as I could just make the two points lead into the traverser by default and keep the option open - wherein lies the temptation.................. .

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Denbridge]

I had a thought whilst I was doing something else - as one does. It's an open question to those who have been following this topic:

 

If you will recall that we have arrived at plan #72 which overall gave the most satisfaction - subject to tweaks and details (which I haven't yet done). My thought was: Should I remove the single line link within Ledbury tunnel altogether and just retain the accesses direct into the traverser?

 

Why? Well, it would prevent any train in either direction going twice round  the circuit and retain more of an element of prototypical movement through each of the stations. The traverser becomes either Worcester or Newport - you can no longer go from Ledbury to Pontrilas in the 'wrong' direction (or vice versa from Pontrilas).

 

'Aaah' you will say, 'you have lost the ability to do a roundy-roundy.' Well, yes - if roundy roundy is more your thing, of course. Would the interrupted flow make for more operational interest? Perhaps I'm just over-complicating matters - as I say it was just a thought - as I could just make the two points lead into the traverser by default and keep the option open - wherein lies the temptation.................. .

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

i think there is a lot to be said for keeping the continuous option. It is handy for running in locos and stock if nothing else. #72 achieves this nicely with no real access or other problems and uou still have end to end for 'proper' operating.

[Philou]

@ Denbridge

 

I think you're probably right - keep the options open and run as you feel on the day. Thinking further, I expect it's good to have a continuous run just for running-in new stock.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[The Stationmaster]

I had a thought whilst I was doing something else - as one does. It's an open question to those who have been following this topic:

 

If you will recall that we have arrived at plan #72 which overall gave the most satisfaction - subject to tweaks and details (which I haven't yet done). My thought was: Should I remove the single line link within Ledbury tunnel altogether and just retain the accesses direct into the traverser?

 

Why? Well, it would prevent any train in either direction going twice round  the circuit and retain more of an element of prototypical movement through each of the stations. The traverser becomes either Worcester or Newport - you can no longer go from Ledbury to Pontrilas in the 'wrong' direction (or vice versa from Pontrilas).

 

'Aaah' you will say, 'you have lost the ability to do a roundy-roundy.' Well, yes - if roundy roundy is more your thing, of course. Would the interrupted flow make for more operational interest? Perhaps I'm just over-complicating matters - as I say it was just a thought - as I could just make the two points lead into the traverser by default and keep the option open - wherein lies the temptation.................. .

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

I think the result would be smoking hole in foot.  First you would lose the facility noted by Denbridge.  But second, and in my view more critical, its that you would be making a very big rod for your back (or somebody else's if they get lumbered with traverser siding and having to see in and out every single train.  if you are operating single handed, as might be the case at times, you will become a 'traverser drudge' in order to run anything at all however if you have the opportunity to let something run while you're sorting the next few trains at the traverser (or whatever) you will give yourself some breather space plus a spot of pleasure in being able to watch something running while you are slogging away to sort out the next train.

[Philou]

See? I said I'd have silly thoughts in my head if I was left alone for too long!

 

Mike, you and Denbridge are quite right. Thank you for pointing out the difficulties and pitfalls. (Note to oneself - think things through first - leave the gun in the top drawer )

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

PS: I feel quite humbled having seen the trials and tribulations of gordon s and Eastwood Town - makes you think - but I'm rooting for him (only 117 pages to go!).

Edited March 7, 2018 by Philou

[The Stationmaster]

See? I said I'd have silly thoughts in my head if I was left alone for too long!

 

Mike, you and Denbridge are quite right. Thank you for pointing out the difficulties and pitfalls. (Note to oneself - think things through first - leave the gun in the top drawer )

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

PS: I feel quite humbled having seen the trials and tribulations of gordon s and Eastwood Town - makes you think - but I'm rooting for him (only 117 pages to go!).

 

As you've started from the beginning with Eastwood Town you can count the number of excursions to the tip which Gordon has made.  I think he's got it right with the current version although I must admit that I quite liked his idea based on Paris Bastille (you'll get to that one eventually).  But we can all learn a massive amount from Gordon's experience let alone admiring his skill in building pointwork.  He's nice chap too so more than one reason for forever looking forward to the day when he'll be inviting assistant operators to help out.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Sorry chums,

 

These replies are all out of sync - arghhh!

 

@ Joseph

 

I'm not sure if it's been better down in the south of France these last few days - woke here to 4" (100mm) of snow this morning - melting fast. I'll say something for those based in the UK and might be in the snow at the moment. Our village is in the sticks - the nearest sizeable 'town' has just over 1000 souls in it, the county town is minute - 20000 or so - but the snow plough has been through TWICE already!!!

 

Regarding the neighbouring house - if it's saying to you 'buy me' why not? You probably won't make money re-selling it later as houses over here are sold by the m² - not what YOU think it's worth - the barn is probably worth having though .

 

As I'm a half-breed (Frenglish), one side of the family has always been here, but I was born in the UK, worked there and then retired here.

 

@ Denbridge

 

Yes - as Joseph has said - over here you can get adjustable feet in DIY stores easily. The club uses them on their modules so as to adjust between modules and make up for any slight deficiencies in the floor when they go to shows. I shall use them regardless of the quality of my finishing - but thank you for your kind remarks.

 

(@ Joseph - I might have caused a bit of confusion - I meant page 8 of this thread).

 

Edit: Eeeek! I'm not really English - I'm Welsh and I should have said Wench or Frelsh .

 

Regards everyone,

 

Hope you're not too cold wherever you are,

 

Philip

 

You have been brainwashed by the French who call you Anglais. Britannique is a concept they don't get at all.

[Philou]

Well chums,

 

As you might have seen, I've been trying to catch up with gordon s's Eastwood Town - I have got to page 75 - that's enough for today as it's keeping me from attending to my own layout and things that I haven't yet completed. The low relief buildings will have wait until the weekend now.

 

Things I have learnt over the last few days:

 

Gordon has courage to be able to decide that things are not going to plan and scrap it all!! I don't think I could. Hopefully The Stationmaster will be proved right in that we have (for my proposed layout) a sound plan. I agree as I am keeping the trackage relatively simple - but I am doing gradients .

 

I got to around page 65 or so where discussions were taking place regarding ballast and I must admit Gordon's was looking good (though too clean - not weathered of course). I thought to myself that my effort that I did on the module would compare favourably especially having tried the dry ballast + water and washing-up liquid spray + 50:50 PVA:water mix and washing up liquid. So I went and had a look - NAH!!! It's not bad but it has suffered from not enough care in laying the ballast absolutely level with the sleepers before wetting resulting in some places having definitive dips in-between the sleepers. In other places it looked fine. What does make a difference to my mind is ....... sleeper spacing.

 

It must be purely optical as Gordon is using SMP/CL which has a UK sleeper spacing whereas I used Peco Code 100 with tighter spacings. Though I graded my ballast (sharp builders sand) to achieve a ballast to a UK standard (was)  2 1/2" to 1/2" stone size (approx 0.83mm to 0.16mm) (as we all know graded grains make finer flour), when laid between the closer sleeper spacings it looks oversized compared to Gordon's. I may have to consider finer ballast even though mine was close to the scale size. Builders sand is too brown but I did find on another test piece that overspraying lightly with an acrylic light grey colour gave a more acceptable result and gave the sleepers that washed out look. Sourcing ballast over here with the right look is nigh on impossible.

 

On a very positive note, I have been able to test my 45mm track spacing (rather than 50mm centre-to-centre). I took delivery of the GWR Class 800 the other day and using the coaches, that have a major overhang at each end beyond the bogies, on a straight section there is just under 10mm of space between coaches on opposing tracks when one of them is using a 3ft Peco turnout and the other is on the through line. I will, however, now need to set up a couple of tracks on my chosen minimum radius (1.0m) to see how much flare I need to introduce on the curves so that stock cannot collide.

 

Scaffolding is coming on Monday so if we have dry weather, I can start the re-pointing at the back of the house (change of plan 'I want my sun-deck this summer') and then the barn immediately after  - so it's all going the right way at the moment.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

PS: I seem to be making out Management worse than she is ........ she is very tolerant, but there are things that really do need to be finished before I start the layout.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Philou

[Harlequin]

For the record, I'll say again that I'm not totally convinced by plan #72 for the reasons I gave earlier, chiefly amongst them: Having the branch line wind uncomfortably around the main line (literally) on one side while there's 2.8m of scenic hillside opposite seems unbalanced to me.

 

Sorry to be the dissenting voice.

 

I hope the re-pointing goes well - it's the sort of job you either love or hate!

[Philou]

Hello Phil,

 

No apologies needed - I'm glad you've made the point - I did say in an earlier reply that it was subject to tweaks. All the ideas that have been made, have not, as yet, been completely dropped. Once I get closer to starting the layout, I'll try to draw all the threads together.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

PS: Repointing: Don't like taking the render off but the finish is worth it.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Philou

[Denbridge]

For the record, I'll say again that I'm not totally convinced by plan #72 for the reasons I gave earlier, chiefly amongst them: Having the branch line wind uncomfortably around the main line (literally) on one side while there's 2.8m of scenic hillside opposite seems unbalanced to me.

 

Sorry to be the dissenting voice.

 

I hope the re-pointing goes well - it's the sort of job you either love or hate!

Personally i think the way the branch runs will look very attractive. And the other side has 2 big advantages. 1. Easy to create a lift off section to access the nice and simple hidden track. 2. A nice and potentiality attractive scenic area. There is no need to have visible track everywhere. Sometimes less is more. Some of the most attractive layouts have small areas where there is no sign of the railway. We are, after all, creating a miniture world.

[The Stationmaster]

Personally i think the way the branch runs will look very attractive. And the other side has 2 big advantages. 1. Easy to create a lift off section to access the nice and simple hidden track. 2. A nice and potentiality attractive scenic area. There is no need to have visible track everywhere. Sometimes less is more. Some of the most attractive layouts have small areas where there is no sign of the railway. We are, after all, creating a miniture world.

 

I think the big advantage of the layout at Post No.72 is that it is simpler in carpentry terms and track layout terms than various others and will be more operationally sound and manageable as a result although it would definitely benefit considerably from the minor tweak I suggested.  In my view any model railway plan depends on the combination of various elements as follows (and these are my views, not necessarily a rigid set of rules) -

 

1. It should offer prototypical realism in the track layout and gradients etc which in turn would give prototypical patterns of operation in so far as they can be reproduced in a small scale. (many modellers do not necessarily subscribe to this view)

2. It should be achievable in constructional terms and methodology which the builder can manage or afford to buy in in whatever timescale the builder considers meets their aims.

3. It should be capable of being operated ('played with' if you wish to use that term) single handed in a meaningful way if you have any doubt at all about being able to rope in a regular group of operators. (This will also probably influence the control system which is chosen for the layout as well as the basic form of the layout.)

4. Some operation should be possible in order to maintain interest before all construction is complete

5. The basic form (e.g roundy, out-&-back, terminus-to-fiddle yard) needs to be very carefully thought through, ideally against the above criteria, at the earliest stage of planning.  (Maybe this should be No.1 but i've put it here because such a decision needs to be informed by the previous items.)

6.  The overall size and what you intend to put into it should be carefully considered not only against the above list but against what is required scenery wise outside the railway fence plus - most importantly - the ability of the plan to offer constructional interest fduring the whole development process of building the layout. In other words are you a builder with diverse interests or do you just want to run trains?

[Harlequin]

I agree with the Stationmaster's 6 point plan.

 

In design #72 I worry about the constructional simplicity of the contrasting gradients needed in full scenic view to get the branch to cross the main line. And I also worry about the proximity of branch and main lines. This may look very attractive in a model sort of way but the scenic tricks needed to disguise that proximity and especially the second bridge or viaduct behind Ledbury viaduct will not look very realistic, IMHO.

 

I realise it's all down to personal judgement and where to make difficult compromises but if it were my layout, I would want Ledbury viaduct to be the undeniable star of it's own scene in reasonably representative landscape - and I'd be prepared to make some compromises elsewhere to achieve that! (Ahh, if only... If only I had the space, time, money, commitment, etc... ;-) )

 

Having said all that, maybe Philou has another cunning plan that will resolve all of this, because we haven't seen his tweaked #72 yet.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Harlequin

[Denbridge]

I agree with the Stationmaster's 6 point plan.

 

In design #72 I worry about the constructional simplicity of the contrasting gradients needed in full scenic view to get the branch to cross the main line. And I also worry about the proximity of branch and main lines. This may look very attractive in a model sort of way but the scenic tricks needed to disguise that proximity and especially the second bridge or viaduct behind Ledbury viaduct will not look very realistic, IMHO.

 

I realise it's all down to personal judgement and where to make difficult compromises but if it were my layout, I would want Ledbury viaduct to be the undeniable star of it's own scene in reasonably representative landscape - and I'd be prepared to make some compromises elsewhere to achieve that! (Ahh, if only... If only I had the space, time, money, commitment, etc... ;-) )

 

Having said all that, maybe Philou has another cunning plan that will resolve all of this, because we haven't seen his tweaked #72 yet.

But Phil in #72 the branch goes under the mainline then crosses a smaller viaduct behind ledbury viaduct which dominates. In fact scenically this promises to be the most attractive part of the layout. Also with part of the branch in tunnel it breaks it up nicely.

[Denbridge]

Having an enforced idle morning ive spent it reading through this thread and looking at all the iterations of this plan and the accompanying suggestions. Ive again come to the conclusion that no.72 is the only one that really sets out to achieve what your stated requirements are, for the following reasons. Not in any real order.

1.operationally interesting

2. Relative ease of construction.

3. Scenically interesting.

4. Having part of the mainline hidden loses the roundy roundy feel that would otherwise be present.

4.ease of access to the hidden areas by removable scenic boards.

5. The ability to get something running relatively quickly.

I feel all of the other plans fall short on at least one or two of these points. Often a lot more than 2.

[Philou]

Hello chums,

 

Just got back from 150 mile round trip to do some unsuccessful 'shopping'. That's how far it is to a town that has Ikea, B&Q and Homebase all in one location - none of whom had what I was after. Never mind, Google will be my friend.

 

I agree that the plan will cover all the points raised. I can see where Harlequin is coming from regarding both Ledbury viaduct and 'Dymented' taking the eye away from what is happening on the main line - a place where a bit of 'showing-off' of stock can occur. I don't for the moment have any cunning plan - I haven't had any 'bright' ideas at the moment!

 

I did think of making the mainline travel through a wooded area (could be just as easily be some rural buildings) - instead of that - why not put the mainline on a stone or brickfaced embankment with another raised stone or brick structure behind (a shelved track if you will) with 'Dymented' in the foreground (I simply can't think where I got that idea from!). It is a branch line and by its very nature will not be that busy - there must some prototype somewhere where a small branch station is overshadowed by a mainline (probably more urban than rural I expect).

 

With respect to Ledbury viaduct, the original is a very grand brick-built affair with 31 arches and about 5M bricks used in its construction - I shall only be doing around 16 arches. As the viaduct will be double track and is rising whereas the branch line bridge will be single line and on a falling grade and be probably a simple plate girder affair, I think the Ledbury viaduct will stand head and shoulders above the other one. In any case, the main viewing point will be from within the layout so Ledbury viaduct will be in the foreground anyway and will mask the tiddler behind it.

 

In turning to the opposite side, I agree that there will an area that, from a mainline running point of view, will be rather devoid of anything but scenery - but so is the real thing. When in Ledbury town, all you can see overshadowing the whole town are the Malvern Hills (not quite, because you see the townscape, it is at the station that hills become a serious matter).

 

In any case I have two thoughts about tunnels: Firstly, if you're going to do one and space permits, do a decent one (the one at Pontrilas is a really tiny affair probably not more than two coaches in length), and; secondly, Ledbury tunnel is the business end of operations, layout wise. It is no different than many other layouts (exhibitions ones included) that use a tunnel as a device to access the storage area.

 

I'm probably lucky that I can use it to advantage, to: Make it operationally interesting (double mainline into single bore tunnel), roundy roundy maintained (especially for running-in or testing stock) AND it can be used to gain access to the storage area 'out of sight'.

 

I'm still of a mind that #72 has got a lot going for it - subject to tweaks. One tweak that I shall endeavour to use is Phil's proposal for a big turntable - if not for the main storage area, one at 'Dymented' for turning whole branch trains around.

 

The Stationmaster, can I ask - have I done the right thing in ordering a Bachmann 'Super D' in LMS but without the tender half-cab? It seemed to me to more correct from early photos of LNWR ones that I could see. If it is OK, I shall attempt to give it an LNWR make-over, but I shall need guidance on that when the time comes.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

Edited March 9, 2018 by Philou

[Harlequin]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, honestly guys, but I just want to suggest comparing designs objectively because otherwise you may be plumping for something that's not as good as it could be (the original subject of this thread).

 

[Edit: We cross-posted. When this was written I had not seen Philou's post above.]

 

For example, applying Denbridge's criteria to my last suggestion (updated below):

1. Operationally interesting [TIck - in fact more so because of the double track circuit and passing loops]
2. Relative ease of construction. [Tick - all of the main circuit, the two stations, the viaduct and the fiddle yard can be on the same level if required and there's only one viaduct]
3. Scenically interesting. [Tick - Mostly Philou's doing - my small additions are the cleaner Ledbury viaduct and the uncluttered branch line station]
4. Having part of the mainline hidden loses the roundy roundy feel that would otherwise be present. [Tick - same method as #72: covering the access to the fiddle yard]
5. Ease of access to the hidden areas by removable scenic boards. [OK, well, I concede access is possibly a little more difficult than #72 but see * below]
6. The ability to get something running relatively quickly. [Tick - I can't see why it would be any more difficult to get one station, the main circuit and a dummy fiddle yard working than in #72]

 

* For the cost of slightly more difficult access to some track (and remember I designed my version to have good side access and to ensure that low level pointwork is also accessible through lift-out sections if required [see below]) you get in return: clearer Ledbury viaduct, clearer branch line station, better balanced model, branch not visibly intertwined with main.

 

If design #72 is superior based on other as yet unconsidered criteria then fair enough.

 

That's it. I'll shut up now and leave Philou to do whatever he wants.

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Harlequin