A garage, O scale and the Ploughley Hundred Light Railway (was Gawcott & Westbury Light Railway)

[Ray H]

So far my gradient calculations have been taken from the lengths of individual relevant track sections on the Templot plan. I must have miscalculated because what I thought was a need for a 1:50 gradient in reality is looking nearer to 1:60 or even shallower.

 

On the basis of measure twice, cut once, I think I'll check it again before I make a start.

[Nearholmer]

Top and bottom transitions? They always eat length.

[Ray H]

10 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Top and bottom transitions? They always eat length.

 

Excuse my ignorance but on paper at least the 1:50 grade doesn't look that severe. How do I determine how long the transition should be? Is it so long at one gradient, so long at the next? I would have thought that it wouldn't need much more than a loco length at each value. Is that correct?

[5BarVT]

3 hours ago, Ray H said:

 

Excuse my ignorance but on paper at least the 1:50 grade doesn't look that severe. How do I determine how long the transition should be? Is it so long at one gradient, so long at the next? I would have thought that it wouldn't need much more than a loco length at each value. Is that correct?

I think mine is about 2 loco lengths in OO, though I had plenty of space at the bottom.  Once I get to the top I may be more constrained.

Trial and error should be fairly easy using unsupported track for the vertical transition just to see what works.

Paul.

[Ray H]

I've not been too happy with the long crossing and one of the tracks leading from it during the ongoing testing so I've spent some time this morning titivating the Templot plan of the area and intend to rebuild the crossing.

 

The crossing is largely in a corner and will be under the upper level boards so there's no point in risking something that is likely to cause derailments, no matter how infrequent.

[Ray H]

My intention over the last few days has been to charge up a mini camera's integral battery, plonk it on the front of a loco and take it for a trip around what is basically the layout's BR track.

 

Despite having the battery on and off charge during that time and it eventually indicating that it was fully charged, I found that the battery would only hold enough power to work for just a few second. Bah!

 

One of the reasons for wanting the video was to give me some idea of which of the not easily reached parts of the layout still need a bit of work doing to them alignment wise. Alas, that's not meant to be for the time being at least.

 

Instead I used the mobile phone to take this video. It should give viewers an idea of what my thinking is and how far I've got.

 

The train rolls off the traverser in what will actually be the truly hidden sidings (because it will have Gawcott station over it) and soon joins the BR "continuous loop" track via the (currently) only planned hand operated point the layout will have.

 

The point's frog juicer is surfaced mounted because it won't normally be visible so I don't need to hide/disguise it. The same applies to the long crossing's juicers as will be seen later.

 

The track/train soon nears the garage wall where it comes alongside what will eventually be the Light Railway's gradient to lift the LR track from Westbury Crossing up to Gawcott. Ignore one of the club's control panels against the wall. Instead look in the corner.

 

Here's the intended site of Tingewick's halt and factory served by a single siding. Gawcott's baseboard will have ended just before the halt is reached so both the BR & LR tracks will have emerged from the doom and gloom under/behind Gawcott by now.

 

I'm undecided about the gradient here. Part of me wants to keep the gradient continuous throughout but I can foresee a problem with the siding's point alignment if it's on a gradient, so I'm now minded to at least have the point and siding level even if the halt's platform remains on the gradient.

 

I've also come round to thinking about the gradient. The traverser will only accommodate a small tank loco, 6 wagons/vans and a Brake Van and not all of the consist will be destined for the LR. And so . . . . 

 

In what I perceive to be true light railway fashion, the inclination of the gradient could probably be quite steep and, if the LR's loco can't shift more than a couple of wagons up it, then it'll need to come back for more later if necessary.

 

A steeper gradient (at least to start with) would increase the level difference between the LR & BR tracks and would allow Tingewick's track, siding and halt to stay level. Anyway, that's for the future.

 

Continuing past Tingewick we're soon on the lift-in/out (for access) flap The stub of track to the left of the train is the end of exchange siding whilst, to its right the gradient continues, probably more gently.

 

I've adjusted the visible area as the train leaves the removable board and enters the station area. The LR tracks continue to climb on the extreme left - only to divert around the domestic gas pipe at the far end of the station area. There are two further sidings - in addition to the exchange siding - at our approach end of the station.

 

The two running lines diverge beyond the pointwork to accommodate the intended island platform before they come together again to take the left hand curve at the far end of the garage. There's a further LR siding at the far end of the garage which will be used as the station's goods yard.

 

The LR is still climbing and by now should be at least six inches above the lower tracks.

 

All to soon the two lower tracks (will) enter a tunnel through separate arches where they soon encounter the long crossing. The LR tack, the left-hand one entering the tunnel crosses the (soon to be rebuilt) long crossing whence it will soon start to climb up towards Tingewick. The BR (right-hand) track entering the tunnel crosses the LR track on the crossing to continue past the back of the traverser and towards the aforementioned hand-worked point where, due to a subsequently noted track fault, the train came to an abrupt stop which seemed an appropriate time to end the video!

 

The LR track will still be climbing as it crosses the "tunnelised" lower tracks below and enters Gawcott's station area.

 

Enjoy.

Edited April 12, 2022 by Ray H

[Nearholmer]

Impressively smooth across that very long curved crossing!

[Ray H]

5 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Impressively smooth across that very long curved crossing!

 

That's the only stock and loco I've run across it so far but I'm not happy with it as I still get occasional unintended detours.

 

I want to stop that if at all possible as the crossing will eventually be under Gawcott station and partly behind the traverser.

[Ray H]

I've bitten the bullet and ordered a replacement micro camera (and SD card) which should allow me to make the video that I originally intended. Both are due to arrive by the weekend and should allow me to make some further "Views from the track" videos as the layout progresses.

 

I bought a couple of 1200mm x 450mm x 100mm pieces of Kingspan this morning which I plan to use these to support the inclined track. I have yet to decide whether I'll glue the cork direct to the Kingspan or have a strip of plywood between the underside of the cork and the Kingspan. Said plywood strip is only intended to provide somewhere the accept the track pins.

 

Tingewick is tucked into a corner and will be an undecided height above the track affixed to the baseboard top. Its track will emerge at the end of the Gawcott boards. Below it, on the inside of the curve, and at baseboard top level will be the BR track exiting the hidden fiddle yard.

 

As previously mentioned, BR goods trains will only be 6 wagons long and I would imagine that it will be very rare for all six wagons to be destined for the LR and more specifically Gawcott.

 

I'm trying to decide whether to have a fairly steep (circa 1:30) hidden gradient from the long crossing to Tingewick which will allow the halt & siding to be around 120mm above the baseboard top. The subsequent gradient would then be less than the overall 1:60 that I originally intended. However, this does provide for the (baseboard top affixed) BR track to remain hidden below and in front of the (halt's) platform and burst into the open just before the access flap.

 

All other options for shallower gradients from the baseboard top would not get the LR track high enough by the time it reaches Tingewick, requiring the (baseboard affixed) BR track to emerge at the end of the Gawcott boards in the same way that the slightly higher LR will.

 

Writing this has got me thinking though. Could I have something  like a 1:40 for the LR and have Tingewick in a slight cutting that is shallow enough for Tingewick to still be seen and yet deep enough to leave room for the BR track to pass beneath the cutting's wall (on the inside of the curve).

 

We'll overlook the fact that in reality there's little to warrant a "tunnel" anywhere near Tingewick although the relatively recent bypass around Tingewick is in a cutting.

 

Decisions, decisions.

[Ray H]

The new camera has arrived.

 

My first attempt used it clipped to the front of a 4-wheeled wagon and push by the loco. That generally showed more of the outer side of the layout except when on the generally straighter track.

 

This is the second attempt which is slightly better but still not perfect. I took this with the camera positioned roughly in the middle of the wagon but facing straight ahead. I might try that again but this time have the camera angled slightly to the left.

 

I must admit that I don't recall the quality of the previous (same model) camera being so grainy. They both use API format and an attempt to convert it to MP4 was a disaster.

 

One of the reasons why I bought the camera was for it to highlight any areas of the layout that it might be possible to improve. It has certainly done that with some sections of track where what should be a continuous curve has a short length of straighter track part way through. I'll have to watch the video again to remind me where the straight bits are 🙄

[delticman]

May I ask which camera you have as I need a new one for a drivers eye view of my railway, the one I have just bought doesnt work, I switch it on, the light flashes 3 times then it switches off☹️.

Regards,

Geoff

[Ray H]

Geoff

 

This was the one.

 

I'm not sure why it appears so grainy though.

 

 

[Ray H]

I've managed some more trackwork today.

 

Unfortunately the 100mm thick Kingspan that I bought for use as the support for the gradient took an instant dislike to my hot wire cutter. I'm hoping to be able to use it to support Tingewick but I'll need to take the top 20mm or so off the thickness for that.

 

Luckily I had a small piece of extruded polystyrene (XPS) that the cutter is quite happy with but its only 50mm thick. I was going to cut two identical pieces so that I could lay them side by side (to give 100mm wide in total) but having done that for the first piece(s), I decided that one piece would be wide enough where the track isn't visible.

 

I ordered some extra plywood when I bought the baseboards. There were two 1200mm x 75mm wide strips and three 1200mm x 450mm pieces. I've so far used the two strips which I have occasionally cut at right angles and then trimmed the mating edge to a bit of an angle to butt up to the previous piece. That's got the inclined track to about 600mm short of the start of Tingewick.

 

Nothing's fixed down yet but I have run my test train - 2-4-0T + 6 wagons + brake - to the head of nickel silver (🙂) several times trying different speeds. The first few attempts on track not fully supported found the loco frequently slipping. However, once I'd trimmed the plywood, cork and the XPS the loco was quite happy at several different speeds.

 

I now need to glue the XPS to the baseboard, the plywood strip to the XPS and the cork to the plywood and, finally, pin the track to through the cork into the plywood.

 

Try as I may I haven't managed to locate a local supplier of more XPS in 1200mm x 600mm sheets of any thickness. Ideally I'd like it 75mm or, better still, 100mm thick but I can always stick two thickness together if necessary to get the desired thickness.

 

I've currently settled on a gradient of 1:45 but the grade will only be that steep until it reaches Tingewick where I then aim to then ease the rest of the gradient to 1:60.

 

[delticman]

On 16/04/2022 at 11:34, Ray H said:

Geoff

 

This was the one.

 

I'm not sure why it appears so grainy though.

 

 

I have had a look at that camera but its a bit too big for me, I realised afterwards that you model in 7mm and I am 4mm doh!! Many thanks though for taking the trouble to reply to my query.

Regards,

Geoff

[Ray H]

Tingewick's board is now in situ some 50+mm higher than the base level and will hopefully have track on it tomorrow. There'll then be a short intermission until the hinges that I ordered today arrive so that I can experiment with fitting the access flap in place.

 

I spent a goodly amount of time whilst I was out over the weekend trying to work out how to fix said flap to no avail.

 

I continued said thoughts this afternoon and came upon a possible solution quite quickly. The hinges should be here before the weekend so watch this space.

 

I try to visit The Railway Conductor near Weedon whenever I can although with the current fuel price that won't be too frequent. However I wasn't too far away from their shop yesterday so it would have been rude not to drop in as I wanted some Peco buffer stops. A few packs of buffer stops don't do their takings much good so I just had to buy a Dapol open wagon as well didn't I?

 

I have now got a replacement camera and hope to experiment with it over the next few days.

[Ray H]

Today's intention was to lay the track at Tingewick but . . . 

 

The point needed a servo fitting close by. ✔️ (done)

 

The cork that will be under the platform and building needed removing ✔️ (done - none of the cork is stuck down, I'm relying on the track pins and, ultimately, the ballast to stop it moving).

 

I needed to open a new box of track to gain access to a piece to fill the gap between the current end of track and the siding's point. ❌

 

The track from baseboard level to Tingewick needed pinning down. ❌

 

Instead I decided that replacing the long crossing might be more complicated if all the track from it and up the incline was pinned down. I lifted the crossing instead.

 

My original (misguided) thinking was to bin the existing crossing and make a new one. Why? The PCB sleepers were likely to be largely re-usable as was a goodly amount of the rail - the closure rails were the ones I was concerned about so they're being replaced (or at least, so far, two have - they're shorter at one end than at the other so the two long ones have been replaced and I'm hoping to re trim the original long ones to the smaller size for the other end).

 

The crossing's re-build is now around 60% finished and I'm a lot happier with it - largely because I revamped the Templot plan for the crossing and made a new and more precise template to work from.

 

I'm hoping to finish it tomorrow and then give it a good trial before I move further on up the incline. 

[jcarta]

15 minutes ago, Ray H said:

Today's intention was to lay the track at Tingewick but . . . 

 

The point needed a servo fitting close by. ✔️ (done)

 

The cork that will be under the platform and building needed removing ✔️ (done - none of the cork is stuck down, I'm relying on the track pins and, ultimately, the ballast to stop it moving).

 

I needed to open a new box of track to gain access to a piece to fill the gap between the current end of track and the siding's point. ❌

 

The track from baseboard level to Tingewick needed pinning down. ❌

 

Instead I decided that replacing the long crossing might be more complicated if all the track from it and up the incline was pinned down. I lifted the crossing instead.

 

My original (misguided) thinking was to bin the existing crossing and make a new one. Why? The PCB sleepers were likely to be largely re-usable as was a goodly amount of the rail - the closure rails were the ones I was concerned about so they're being replaced (or at least, so far, two have - they're shorter at one end than at the other so the two long ones have been replaced and I'm hoping to re trim the original long ones to the smaller size for the other end).

 

The crossing's re-build is now around 60% finished and I'm a lot happier with it - largely because I revamped the Templot plan for the crossing and made a new and more precise template to work from.

 

I'm hoping to finish it tomorrow and then give it a good trial before I move further on up the incline. 

 

Sounds like you've been an extremely busy boy 

[Ray H]

Much of Wednesday was spent on the crossing.

 

One of its previous problems had been a tendency for the randomly selected test wagon (at least) to want to transfer from one route to the other - i.e. turn left. It only happened in one direction.

 

I took a lot more trouble yesterday but without immediate success,

 

The original outer running rail was re-used because I hadn't notice that the bend in the centre of the crossing was more of a curve than a corner. I cut out about two inches either side of the centre and replaced it with a rail section that definitely had a corner. Still no success.

 

The half a dozen or so sleepers in the middle of the crossing had by now seen the hot soldering iron too often so they were all replaced.

 

The problem still persisted. No matter what I did, the flanges of the wagon's leading wheels both seemed to strike the toe end of the closure rails of both (facing) routes almost simultaneously. I didn't think I could move these rail ends too much or I'd upset the back to back on the proper route.

 

That said I did try one such tweak and beyond my wildest dreams the wagon repeatedly behaved itself. I should add that at this stage the check rails in the middle if the crossing still had to be added. Added they were and all still seemed good.

 

The geography of the crossing had changed a bit so fitting it back in place involved moving a couple of adjoining pieces of track. I reconnected the various wires and set the 2-4-0T in motion.

 

It was not happy! I think the back of one wheel was rubbing against the centre checkrail whilst the front of the other wheel on the same side was rubbing against the running rail. I decided that the check rail positioning needed slight adjustment. This was done and I had a happy loco again.

 

Alas, at some stage I seemed to have upset the equilibrium because one of the train's wagons now took the same dislike to the centre of the crossing the test wagon did. 😐 

 

Fortunately it was by then meal time and the end of time on the layout.

 

I did spend some time subsequently pondering numerous solutions. One option was to effectively move the crossing by dint of changing the radius of one curve. That was cast aside because the present position was determined by the position of the traverser.

 

In the end I decided that I need to look at further adjustments to the check rails in an effort to force the flanges more to one side.

 

I wonder how today will pan out?

 

Will I get the track on the incline fixed down?

 

Will Tingewick finally see a train?

 

Will the hinges for the access flap arrive?

 

Will they get fitted?

 

Who knows?

[Nearholmer]

That crossing was always going to be deeply challenging because of the shallow angle. I reckon that the check-rails on the insides of the curves will be the key.

 

The flangeways will need to be as small as you can permit, but my worry is that the inherent “under-gaugeness” and unprototypically narrow b-t-b of G0G ‘fine’ wheel-sets might make it unworkable.

 

May sound daft, but what about narrowing the track gauge slightly, to 31.5mm maybe, so 0-MF standards, through this crossing?

Edited April 28, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Ray H]

26 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

That crossing was always going to be deeply challenging because of the shallow angle. I reckon that the check-rails on the insides of the curves will be the key.

 

The flangeways will need to be as small as you can permit, but my worry is that the inherent “under-gaugeness” and unprototypically narrow b-t-b of G0G ‘fine’ wheel-sets might make it unworkable.

 

May sound daft, but what about narrowing the track gauge slightly, to 31.5mm maybe, so 0-MF standards, through this crossing?

 

Thanks. I did wonder if it was bordering on the "don't try this at home" situation.

 

The frustrating thing is that I did manage eventually to get somewhere near reliable operation with the Mk 1 version but only by attacking it with a slitting disc in the Proxxon. Admittedly it will be hidden by Gawcott station above it but I wanted to minimise the possibility of derailments/mis-routing as it is in the corner of the garage and not easy to access even when it has nothing above it.

 

The pointwork on the OO layout that preceded this build was built to OO-MF standards and worked well although I think the tightest curve was 36 inches.

 

I'm not sure that O-MF would work because the plain track parts of the crossing needed to be eased out slightly because the 2-4-0T was finding the 32mm gauge tight and I understand that it is customary to ease the gauge on sharper curves anyway.

 

One idea I've had this morning is to see if I can move the crossing so that the tracks through it are much straighter. The gradient start will need to be pushed back although I might be able to start the gradient before the crossing (on both tracks), having the crossing level and then drop the BR line back to the baseboard top.

[Ray H]

I've been doodling.

The first idea (above) is to move the crossing round to the back of the traverser where it can basically be two straight tracks crossing each other. The main disadvantage is not so much that it will lose more of the rear corner of the traverser - the back two sidings were only ever planned to hold railcars - more that it requires even more of an unsupported length of the inner curve's track across the traverser's corner. It might be possible to increase the radius of the inner curve slightly to reduce the intrusion.

 

The second idea does away with a crossing as such and uses two separate points almost back to back - the crossing angle of the curved point is 1:20 which maintains a minimum radius of 39". It narrows the distance between the two tracks around the curve which will help to reduce the width of the bridge/tunnel mouth where the track above crosses them.

 

An unintentional by-product is that it would become possible to leave Westbury Crossing station on either track and access a continuous run by staying on the baseboard floor rather then climbing up towards Tingewick.

 

This option does reduce the intrusion onto traverser but does have the disadvantage that it introduces two further points with all the risks of derailments at the back of the traverser.

 

There's no noticeable difference in the gradient start point in either option.

 

At the moment I'm favouring the first option.

 

On the baseboards themselves I think I can push the outer curve even further out  and  with a small reduction in the distance between the tracks, I think I can reduce the traverser intrusion.

 

I have no intention of having moving trains on both curves at the same time so I don't really need to worry too much about the track spacing.

 

Back to the doodling.

[Ray H]

 

Option 3. There's less intrusion onto the traverser, a kind of halfway house between the previous two options. I shall now print the relevant part out and see what it looks like on the baseboard.

 

The straight crossing has an additional benefit. It moves the crossing more centrally and, thus, making it easier to access although I'd hope that removing its curves makes the crossing less of a potential problem area.

[Ray H]

Option 3 above looks to be a winner.

 

 

Here's the long crossing. The tracks don't quite line up with the existing ones just off the bottom of the picture but it doesn't really matter as they're plain track anyway. The bottom left track is the LR track to Tingewick (and the curve just visible on the plan is curved to get around the garage's brick pillar).

 

The LR track needs to by about 10mm off the baseboard top by the time it has cleared the crossing to match with the present gradient's height, either that or I need to make the gradient steeper.

 

My current thinking is for the two tracks to start to climb as they leave Westbury Siding station until they're at the level that matches that of the crossing. The incline will re-commence climbing once clear of the crossing whilst the BR track will drop back down to the baseboard top.

 

 

The pink shaded area just visible in the above picture is the corner of the traverser. The infringement is about the same size as present. However, the new scheme, where both tracks will climb gracefully out of Westbury Sidings station to obtain the height of the crossing, means that instead of a piece of thin steel plate to support the tracks I should now be able to get a piece of 6mm plywood (plus?) over the traverser's corner.

 

 

And just to complete the overall picture . . . .  This shows where I've pinched about an inch between the current track edge and the baseboard edge. This has kept the traverser infringement to no worse than now and, as a bonus, has allowed the radius of both curves to be increased by at least an inch. The two missing parts at the top of the plan are probably because Templot staggers adjacent sheets and doesn't seem to be able to print a page that starts before its left margin. It's no loss here because it's plain track that can be guided by the bits of the plan that have been printed.

 

Most if not all of the track shown in the above pictures will be under Gawcott or behind the bridge carrying the LR up the last of the grade into Gawcott.

[Nearholmer]

Looks a lot less likely to cause frustration.

[martin_wynne]

11 hours ago, Ray H said:

The two missing parts at the top of the plan are probably because Templot staggers adjacent sheets

 

Hi Ray,

 

You can change that in the output menu:

 

 

cheers,

 

Martin.