Derwent Spa

[martin_wynne]

11 minutes ago, Tortuga said:

What is the origin of the ‘Flatiron’ nickname please?

 

The tanks look like the handle on an old-fashioned smoothing iron:

 

 

Martin.

[Rowsley17D]

Martin beat me to it. Flatiron because that what it looked like to the crews with the cut-outs above the drivers.

 

They were also known as Pom poms and Hole in the Wall tanks. I doubt any got to Buxton and my excuse is that one will be on a running in turn following repairs at Derby. That's the excuse I use for my Compounds too.

 

[MrWolf]

It looks even more like the coal fired flat irons.

 

[Rowsley17D]

No modelling today as I come down with the wretched Covid. I don't know where I picked it up from but I guess many people don't. My scan has had to be put back but another appointment has come though and in plenty of time before I see the oncologist. So far it's like a bad head cold. I'm glad I've had all my jabs. I reported it on the NHS website and I may be eligible for some Covid treatment due to my ongoing  condition. I'm awaiting a phone call.

[Buhar]

8 hours ago, Tortuga said:

It’s a lovely model, though the prototype looks… odd… to my eye - the smoke box is far forward, those tanks are enormous, the drivers are widely spaced and the bunker is huge! 

The wheelbase 8' + 8'6" is the one used on all Midland six coupled locos starting back in the days of Kirtley and continuing through to the Stanier era on the LMS (see the 2-6-4Ts).  It actually gives a decent space for the firebox. 

 

The smokebox is extended, originally they had a round topped firebox and the smokebox door was flush with the front of the tanks but rebuilding with superheating required a longer smokebox. 

 

A large bunker means you don't have to fill it so often so a longer run is possible.  Big tanks are useful too, they hold more water and extending them to the front on a loco without a front pony truck means that adhesive weight remains evenly distributed over the drivers.  That said, these weren't the good fast runners that was hoped, they really could have done with a pony truck.  In theory a large tank engine would have been ideal for Buxton to Manchester trains (the LNWR style 0-8-4Ts were also trialled on that route and painted crimson accordingly) but 'twas not to be.

 

Alan

[Rowsley17D]

Got the NHS phone call and am going on anti-virals which have to be picked up from one of our local hospitals. Also had a call from the GP who suggested I use an oxygen monitor as this will give the first indication of problems. Feeling a bit better today and my temperature has returned to normal. Fingers crossed for continuing improvement.9

[lezz01]

Sounds good Jonathan. Both my wife and myself were very fortunate to have a very mild version of the effing plague in April 2020. However the symptoms did linger in fact we still have one or two of them. My wife's skin became very thin on her arms and she marks very easily, also her sense of taste still hasn't returned to normal. For myself the worst was a shortness of breath and headaches. The former lasted around 18 months to two years although of reducing severity but I still do have occasional headaches which isn't something I really suffered from before. Here's hoping you will be lucky in that it will affect you only mildly.

Regards Lez.    

[Rowsley17D]

4 minutes ago, lezz01 said:

 Here's hoping you will be lucky in that it will affect you only mildly.

Regards Lez.    

 

I think that will be the case, Lez. The docs say with being up to date with jabs I shouldn't have any severe symptoms and the anti-virals will speed up recovery. I've not had headaches, loss of taste or smell or shortness of breath.

[Rowsley17D]

Nearly clear of the dreaded Covid. The line can hardly be seen on the self-test kit, which is just as well as my rearranged scan is on Friday.

 

Since I finished, for now, the 1P and Flatiron I've been running trains. The double slip has been causing problems for some engines preferring the slip roads to the ones across the diamond. So I've decided to have another go at it. As I have a new laptop I have to download Templot again but Norton wasn't having any of it. It had to be uninstalled before I could download. Next was the fact that my previous Templot files were on the laptop that failed. I had to guess the radius of the mainline formation at this point and I don't think things have worked out badly.

 

 

 

Here's the final template on which to start building.

 

[Rowsley17D]

The timbers have been laid.

 

 

and the vees put in place. The extra lengths of rail will be supported by existing timbers on the approaches to the slip.

 

[Rowsley17D]

Slow progress continues on the replacement double slip. One side is now finished save for adding slide chairs and the odd half chair.

 

 

The gaps in the timbers are for copper-clad ones to get power to the four non-moving rails coming off the crossings.

[Tortuga]

(Probably a daft question, but…)

Does the copper wrap around the ends or sides of the sleepers so the top and bottom would be electrically live?

 

I’ve read it’s an idea to gap the top and bottom surface so as not to introduce a short, but as I’ve only cut sleepers from copper clad sheet, I can’t see how the top and bottom surfaces would be electrically connected to each other.

 

(I had an idea to potentially feed the rails via brass chairs soldered to the top of a copper clad sleeper with droppers soldered to the bottom)

[lezz01]

24 minutes ago, Tortuga said:

(Probably a daft question, but…)

Does the copper wrap around the ends or sides of the sleepers so the top and bottom would be electrically live?

 

I’ve read it’s an idea to gap the top and bottom surface so as not to introduce a short, but as I’ve only cut sleepers from copper clad sheet, I can’t see how the top and bottom surfaces would be electrically connected to each other.

 

(I had an idea to potentially feed the rails via brass chairs soldered to the top of a copper clad sleeper with droppers soldered to the bottom)

No the copper shouldn't wrap around the end. There are two types of copper clad, single sided and double sided. There are other variations in composition but lets just go with two main types. The reason you would gap both sides if you were using double sided is if you put a pin through it the pin would short out on the reverse if you didn't. However I can see no reason to use double sided copper clads sleepers in the first place. I do use very thin pads of double sided copper clad with 1mm square N/S bar to make tie bars on hand built track but that's all.

Regards Lez 

[Rowsley17D]

My copper clad is single sided. I do have some double sided which is useful for attaching pick-up wipers to. The copper seems to glue better to the underside of kit locos.

[Rowsley17D]

Save for wiring up and a couple of dozen slide chairs, the double slip is finished. C&L are at York over Easter so I'll pick some up then. I tried to get the rails in the right places using a digital vernier caliper but it wasn't easy where the adjacent rails are so close together. It's not possible to test it properly either until it's in place. It'll go the other way round from the photo on the layout.

 

[lezz01]

It looks very good Jonathan.

Regards Lez.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Looks good, Jonathan.

 

I have built P4 single and double slips, following the guidance by Tony Wilkins on the S4 forum;

 

https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5727

 

The single slip build appears right at the end of the article.  I found it quite straightforward, but have a good selection of track and checkrail acquired over the years. Some of the roller type have narrow rail "guides" that fit between rails that are close together which helps considerably.

 

 

[lezz01]

I've built all manner of different types of turnouts, slips and 3 way turnouts in 00, EM and P4. I have found that it's easier in P4 than the other two gauges because the gaps and clearances are closer to scale and therefore need less space between rails. I find slips easier to build than 3 way turnouts. The build order suggested by both the S4 and EM gauge socs. for 3 ways seems wrong to me as there are certain rails that you just can't get an iron onto the rivets if you follow the accepted build order. I have had to remove rails already in place to be able to fit other rails and it would have been easier to fit those in a different order to mitigate that problem.

Regards Lez.  

[Rowsley17D]

57 minutes ago, lezz01 said:

I've built all manner of different types of turnouts, slips and 3 way turnouts in 00, EM and P4. I have found that it's easier in P4 than the other two gauges because the gaps and clearances are closer to scale and therefore need less space between rails. I find slips easier to build than 3 way turnouts. The build order suggested by both the S4 and EM gauge socs. for 3 ways seems wrong to me as there are certain rails that you just can't get an iron onto the rivets if you follow the accepted build order. I have had to remove rails already in place to be able to fit other rails and it would have been easier to fit those in a different order to mitigate that problem.

Regards Lez.  

 

I had unsolder and resolder the second side several times before everything seemed "right". Test vehicles pushed through seem to run okay but whether powered stock will is another matter.

[hayfield]

I have found that when building diamonds and slips, if the crossing roads are straight, then inertia usually encourages stock to cross the crossing (providing its been built carefully. Build the crossing on a curve then it has to be built very carefully

 

Did you put 0.5mm risers between the rails and timbers ?

[Rowsley17D]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

I have found that when building diamonds and slips, if the crossing roads are straight, then inertia usually encourages stock to cross the crossing (providing its been built carefully. Build the crossing on a curve then it has to be built very carefully

 

Did you put 0.5mm risers between the rails and timbers ?

 

The main crossing road is very nearly straight 17m radius curve, the other is straight, so I hope what you say will happen! If all is not well I plan to get a FineTrax 4SF double slip.

 

0.5mm risers? The rails are in C&L chairs so I'm not with you. 

[lezz01]

On the copper clad timbers.

Regards Lez.

[lezz01]

Rail chairs, in the case of C&L or Exactoscale, hold the rail 0.5mm above the crossing timbers, it's the same with rivets. When you use copper clad crossing timbers you either have to use thicker timbers, add a small brass pad or drop in a track rivet to compensate for the fact that the rail is 0.5mm above the top of the crossing timbers when using chairs or rivets.

Regards Lez.   

[hayfield]

13 hours ago, Rowsley17D said:

 

The main crossing road is very nearly straight 17m radius curve, the other is straight, so I hope what you say will happen! If all is not well I plan to get a FineTrax 4SF double slip.

 

0.5mm risers? The rails are in C&L chairs so I'm not with you. 

 

Talking about the copperclad timbers which are soldered to the rails, as you said the chairs hold the rail 0.5mm above the timbers. It will not only look odd but will prevent chairs being fitted over these joints unless the following action is taken

1  Using brass chairs

2  Using 0.5mm metal or copperclad risers which are ground back to be level with the rail sides

[hayfield]

11 hours ago, lezz01 said:

Rail chairs, in the case of C&L or Exactoscale, hold the rail 0.5mm above the crossing timbers, it's the same with rivets. When you use copper clad crossing timbers you either have to use thicker timbers, add a small brass pad or drop in a track rivet to compensate for the fact that the rail is 0.5mm above the top of the crossing timbers when using chairs or rivets.

Regards Lez.   

 

Which method are you using ?  (sorry I missed it in the thread)