Whaley Shunt (Shallcross Yard)

[Tortuga]

Last night, while T’missus and Chaos One were out at some football match and after tucking Chaos Two up in bed, I screwed up my courage and fired up the soldering iron.

 

Since the original means of fixing the blades to the rest of the point was dodgy (at best, absent at worst), my solution was to solder fine brass (hand rail) wire into the fold of each blade to make fine wire “tails”:

 

I also cut off the “tab” at the toe end of the blade and soldered on an ‘L’ shaped bit of handrail wire:

 

Holes that were a tight fit for lengths of 30 Thou (0.75mm) diameter brass tube were drilled through the baseboard in the centres of the point’s blade pivot holes:

Thus the wire “tail” fits inside the brass tubes to form secure pivots for the blades while the ‘L’ shape will fit into shorter lengths of 30 Thou tube and form pivots in the stretcher bar.

 

Under the baseboard, the “tails” from the blade pivots will be bent at 90 degrees to secure the blades and I’ll solder feeds for the blades to them when I get round to doing the electrickery.

 

I ran out of time last night to sort out the stretcher bar, but initial tests were promising! At least with these bits in place I can get the blade spacing on the stretcher bar right!

[Tortuga]

The opportunity for a bit more progress presented itself tonight and was duly seized with both hands.

 

With the point and its blades in place, a trial and error approach was adopted to get the spacing of the toe end of the blades correct. Several attempts later and this was the result:

 

This is a variation on what I aim to use on Alsop where the point blades are operated by thin wires passing from the tip of each blade, through the baseboard, to the operating mechanism underneath, with the stretcher bar keeping the blades to gauge. I want to avoid soldering the wires directly to copper strip, hence the pivot arrangement to eliminate stress between the blades and the stretcher bar.

With Whaley Shunt I also need the stretcher bar to operate the point, so, apart from the operating bar being on the upper surface of the baseboard, I need a similar pivot between the blades and the stretcher bar. The “tab” at the left-hand end will take the operating wire from the solenoid point motor, but I didn’t think plain strip would be rigid enough hence the extra deep stretcher bar forming a partial T-section on the top of the operating bar.

 

Just to show how it all looks:

Set for the straight road and…

…set for the diverging road.

 

Despite careful measuring and drilling, I’ve ended up with about 1mm clearance between the blade and the stock rail, rather than the 2mm of an unmodified point. Trials involving pushing a wagon and a couple of locos over it didn’t result in any derailments, but I guess I won’t really know until I get the whole thing wired up and running properly…

 

First I’ve got to repeat the whole exercise with the other set of blades!

 

 

[Tortuga]

Right, I need some advice.

 

1) Having dispensed with the PECO spring mechanism, should I be using a self latching solenoid or would this one do the job?

 

2) If this one will do the job, will the auxiliary switch do for switching frog polarity?

 

3) If I need a self latching one, does anyone know if it’s possible to adapt what I have to be self latching? (I’d like to make use of it if possible…)

 

Cheers in advance!

[JustinDean]

4 hours ago, Tortuga said:

Right, I need some advice.

 

1) Having dispensed with the PECO spring mechanism, should I be using a self latching solenoid or would this one do the job?

 

2) If this one will do the job, will the auxiliary switch do for switching frog polarity?

 

3) If I need a self latching one, does anyone know if it’s possible to adapt what I have to be self latching? (I’d like to make use of it if possible…)

 

Cheers in advance!

The auxiliary switch is for polarity but I’m not sure about using non-latching if you’ve removed the PECO mechanism. Your point blades will essentially be floating and not locked in place. 
 

Jay
 

[dasatcopthorne]

11 hours ago, Tortuga said:

Right, I need some advice.

 

1) Having dispensed with the PECO spring mechanism, should I be using a self latching solenoid or would this one do the job?

 

2) If this one will do the job, will the auxiliary switch do for switching frog polarity?

 

3) If I need a self latching one, does anyone know if it’s possible to adapt what I have to be self latching? (I’d like to make use of it if possible…)

 

Cheers in advance!

 

I've never found the crude switch on those to be very reliable.

 

Sorry.

 

Dave.

[MarshLane]

11 hours ago, Tortuga said:

Right, I need some advice.

 

1) Having dispensed with the PECO spring mechanism, should I be using a self latching solenoid or would this one do the job?

 

2) If this one will do the job, will the auxiliary switch do for switching frog polarity?

 

3) If I need a self latching one, does anyone know if it’s possible to adapt what I have to be self latching? (I’d like to make use of it if possible…)

 

Cheers in advance!

 

No personal experience of SEEP, but I know a few people who have had problems ... having said that I know quite a few are used on exhibition layouts, so maybe it could be more quality issues, not sure?  I think I'd go with switching polarity from the switch tho if you could? Perhaps some form of momentary relay wired from the switch to actually trigger the point motor?

 

Rich

[Tortuga]

Thanks for the advice gents.

 

I’ve a feeling I already have a self latching SEEP motor floating around somewhere in the railway room, so I’ll dig that out and invest in another to use on the tandem point @JustinDean.

 

I might as well try using the inbuilt switch for frog polarity. If it turns out to be unreliable as you both suggest @dasatcopthorne and @MarshLane, I can always look into an alternative method.

[Tortuga]

Sunday just gone saw me head to Stafford for this year’s Model Railway Exhibition (last year I shared my experience on the Alsop thread, so it’s Whaley Shunt’s turn).

 

As promised there were loads of layouts to see and I spotted a couple I recognised from smaller local events earlier in the year. This time I felt the balance was slightly in favour of steam rather than diesel layouts although there was still a good representation of different scales. I also thought it was busier this year, though not to its detriment, and I still managed to see just about everything.

 

It was great to see Bleat Wharf on its last outing and meet its operating team. I kept circling back for repeated chats with Rob and Jay and both gentlemen made me feel most welcome. I was surprised how small Bleat Wharf is - Rob’s photos make it appear so much bigger than it really is.

 

As with last year there were a lot of traders. I purchased Volume 5 of ‘The Acquired Wagons of British Railways’ (which I’ve been promising myself since it was published), but aside from that and one, alright, three, impulse purchases (more of which later), I think my wallet got off lightly!

 

By the time I got home I was exhausted - I narrowly avoided falling asleep on the train! - but I enjoyed myself immensely and once again, I’m looking forward to going again next year.

[NHY 581]

It was lovely to meet you, Nick. Glad you liked the cut of Bleat's jib though describing myself and Jay as the operating team is pushing it a bit ! We always seemed to be chatting to visitors to the layout.........

 

I think key to Bleat's open look, in fact any small layout, is choosing those buildings which don't dominate what you rightly say is a small space. Buildings which are small in footprint and low in height. This, coupled with keeping the front of the layout free from buildings etc makes for the open look. 

 

I also think boxing in the scenic section and reducing the viewing 'slot' helps. 

 

Rob

Edited September 27, 2023 by NHY 581

[Tortuga]

Aaaaand progress! 

 

For which I blame Jay. And possibly Rob, but the majority of blame is definitely on Jay.

 

I’ll explain. During one of our chats at Stafford, the subject of Shallcross came up and, long story short, I’ve decided to scrap reusing my mangled PECO 3-way point.

I could carry on with modifying it, but since it’s the key point (no pun intended) on the layout and I’ve no real way of knowing if it’ll work reliably until it’s a complete PITA to remove, I took the plunge and purchased a new one from one of the traders. Which is entirely Jay’s fault for (quite rightly) putting doubt in my mind!

 

I decided there was no reason to modify the new point: after all if Bleat Wharf gets mistaken for an EM gauge layout, why should I risk damaging the replacement point in order to make visual improvements that most people aren’t going to pick up on? The exercise with the stretcher bar has given me a solution to use for the hand built points on Alsop (which was one reason for building this layout), but was making this project more long winded than I wanted.

 

Having said that, I did add feeds to the point blades: previous experience has left me reluctant to rely on contact between blades and stock rails for electrical continuity. 

The first one I had no problem with, but I struggled with the other three: although the wire got hot enough to toast my fingers, the solder refused to melt unless in direct contact with the soldering iron. Good job no-one’s going to see the underside of this point! Any ideas why I encountered this issue?

 

With feeds attached, holes to accommodate them drilled in the baseboard, correct fishplates added and holes drilled for the two SEEP point motors (another two purchase from Stafford) the first track was finally laid on Whaley Shunt, quickly followed by two shortish lengths forming two of the three sidings.

 

 

The two point motors for the 3-way point were screwed into place on the underside of the trackbed.

I need to (carefully!) open up the hole in the baseboard under the right hand one as it doesn’t quite switch the point fully in one direction, despite my careful drilling. Oh well.

 

Once that was done, I weighed down the track in position using the time honoured method of tins raided from the pantry together with MDF offcuts to prevent damage and left everything to dry overnight.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Tortuga
Photo issues

[JustinDean]

Progress! 
Nice one Nick. 

[NHY 581]

Spiffing. 

[Tortuga]

Many thanks gentlemen! Certainly feels like I’m finally getting somewhere!

 

Tuesday night saw work on the left hand point that will eventually lead to the goods shed siding and more track laying in the form of the approach track (or headshunt when in inglenook layout form).

 

The point needed a minor modification as the sidings curve gently, so I followed the helpful “how to” that @LNER4479 posted on his ‘Hills of the North’ thread back in March 2023 (on the 27th: I’ve bookmarked it for useful reference) and ended up with this:

A nice slightly curved point. The eagle-eyed amongst you will notice that I took the opportunity to remove the angled sleeper from the heel end (which I also did with the 3-way point).

 

Although it’s not a great shot, I feel I’ve managed to achieve a nice “flow” to the track, despite using proprietary points.

[NHY 581]

Sinuous, look ewe. 

[Tortuga]

Looking at that overall view, I’m considering the early stages of scenery. I also think I’ve made the trackbed next to the point for the goods shed siding too narrow - from photos and maps, it looks like the brook curves away from there rather than running alongside, sort of like this:

(Green for the edges of the brook and a slope leading up to track level, blue for the brook itself)

 

Thoughts?

[Tortuga]

I’m also toying with widening the baseboard a smidge (50mm) to allow a little more room for the goods shed on the extension*. At this stage, I can get the ends of the frame off relatively easily and the two cross members can be extended - although they won’t look pretty, they won’t be visible so it doesn’t really matter!

 

* @JustinDean: I know, I know. You mentioned this back on Page 1…

[JustinDean]

6 hours ago, Tortuga said:

I’m also toying with widening the baseboard a smidge (50mm) to allow a little more room for the goods shed on the extension*. At this stage, I can get the ends of the frame off relatively easily and the two cross members can be extended - although they won’t look pretty, they won’t be visible so it doesn’t really matter!

 

* @JustinDean: I know, I know. You mentioned this back on Page 1…

You know it makes sense. 

[Tortuga]

3 hours ago, JustinDean said:

You know it makes sense. 

A bit more space always makes sense, but where do you stop?

 

Well in this case, I’ve got to make sure it fits on Klementine’s back seat because it isn’t going to fit under her bonnet!

 

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Tortuga
Words

[JustinDean]

2 hours ago, Tortuga said:

A bit more space always makes sense, but where do you stop?

 

Well in this case, I’ve got to make sure it fits on Klementine’s back seat because it isn’t going to fit under her bonnet!

 

 

I reckon wide enough so you don’t have to do a half relief version of the goods shed should be enough. That building forms the focus of the site. I understand the space constraints though; I should have considered them more when building MT!

 

Jay 

[NHY 581]

11 hours ago, Tortuga said:

A bit more space always makes sense, but where do you stop?

 

Well in this case, I’ve got to make sure it fits on Klementine’s back seat because it isn’t going to fit under her bonnet!

 

 

 

I have to apply the same restraint due to the capacity of Sheep One. Max length of 4ft ( 120cms )  The other limiting factor is getting the layout downstairs in particular, the bend in the stairs, hence max width of 16ins ( 40cms )

 

[Mallard60022]

On 28/09/2023 at 00:07, NHY 581 said:

Spiffing. 

 

Bless Ewe.

P

[Tortuga]

Well, Klementine’s back seat is 1200mm at its narrowest point and there’s 450mm between its seat back and the driver’s seat (if I crank that more vertical), so I can make the boards a bit wider.

[Tortuga]

Well that didn’t go quite as planned.

 

Having decided to build the extension board before laying any more track and to widen the boards from 400mm to 450mm, I ended up making a new frame altogether.

 

Fortunately I had some 12mm ply going spare and there was sufficient for frames for both the inglenook section and the extension. To reduce weight I’ve bored large diameter holes through all the pieces, except the ends between boards, as these need alignment dowels and holes for connecting bolts. The holes will be covered up by the ply facia / backscene at a later date.

 

Based on this photo

(from http://www.whaleybridge.net/forum/posts/t641-Lost-railway-lines-in-Whaley-Bridge--and-other-historical-railway-stuff) I also decided to rework the cut of Randall Carr Brook, which meant replacing the cross braces rather than modifying them. 

The closest one incorporates a support for the houses that back onto the yard and will be modified when I get started on the scenery proper. The furthest one dips below the bed of the brook, so needed cut-outs to clear the integral legs.

 

A third brace, set at an angle, crosses the full width, roughly in the centre, to support the middle of the trackbed, while two supports mark the outer ends of the bridge arch. I’ll need to leave the whole trackbed removable until I’ve done the scenic work under the bridge as it’s a bit tight to get in there!

The front end of the angled brace was shaped in situ using a belt sander, hopefully  giving the impression of the ground sloping toward the brook.

 

The extension was much simpler, comprising the frame and the top which has been recycled from the abandoned ‘Gibbs Sidings’ layout - hence the messy top!

 

Next job is to seal the top of the extension board with PVA then plot out the rest of the track plan prior to laying strips of 1.5mm cork: watch this space!

[NHY 581]

What a tremendous bit of carpentage, Nick. 

 

Top stuff ! 

 

Rob

[JustinDean]

This is going to be a much better model now Nick. Worth the effort for sure!

 

Jay