Manchester Central, CLC & GN Warehouses & Castlefield Viaducts

[jamie92208]

Hi, Guy

 

Thanks for your interest and comments. There is still some photographic info. outstanding for buildings which were demolished prior to the Great Northern and Beetham Tower constructions which I would guess were before your photographic forays started, say prior to 1970. Archives both Local and National have been searched without any photographic evidence (aerial or otherwise) coming to light 

 

I suppose the little I can remember of the structures may have to be sufficient. There cannot be many people around now who are likely to comment adversely on my recreations of long gone buildings

 

Cheers

 

Ron

There is one sure fire way to get the evidence out in the open.   Make your best guess of the building and then post photos of the layout and some smart alec is bound to say "You got that wrong" and then produce a photo.  We took Long Preston to their village hall and were told that the stationmasters washing was hung out in the wrong place.

 

Jamie

[Ron Heggs]

The junction trackwork is underway -

 

Timbers cut and fixed to template - to be stained before chairs & rails fixed

 

The first few rails fixed. Whilst the template can still be seen through the stain, the next batch of timbers will be stained before fixing on the template, much less messy

 

Still waiting on the 'urgent' delivery of the etches for the viaduct

 

Will post the progress on the re-build of the Collier & Beaufort Street corner and bridge girders later

[phixer64]

Looking good Ron, keep up the good work

 

Jeff

[Ron Heggs]

A few pictures of the re-build of Collier Street/Beaufort Street bridges carrying the GN Junction track to the Deansgate GN Goods Warehouse & Yards -

 

Collier Street to the left running under the GN lines (White bricks) and the CLC Castlefield Viaduct (Blue bricks). Beaufort Street runs left to right 

 

Beaufort Street

 

Collier Street

 

Looking back along Collier Street with Beaufort Street to the left

 

View of wall joint detail between the GN & CLC viaducts 

 

Existing viaduct arch - Beaufort Street/Ivy Street. Needs re-building as it is 10.5mm too short in height, and should be in blue brick

 

Wall along Ivy Street - Needs re-building (height & blue brick)

 

Enclosure boundary walls - Need re-building in blue brick

 

The two plate bridge girders require re-construction

 

Stone paving slabs and curbstones, and cobblestone roadway need adding 

[Siberian Snooper]

Ron

 

Your attention to detail goes above and beyond the call of duty, I'm sure that if this was an exhibition train set that no one would notice a few mil plus or minus in structures of the size that you're modelling.

 

You have my upmost respect. How much of this is now down to using the silhouette cutter?

 

SS

[hayfield]

The junction trackwork is underway -

 

IMG_0865.JPG

Timbers cut and fixed to template - to be stained before chairs & rails fixed

 

IMG_0866.JPG

The first few rails fixed. Whilst the template can still be seen through the stain, the next batch of timbers will be stained before fixing on the template, much less messy

 

Still waiting on the 'urgent' delivery of the etches for the viaduct

 

Will post the progress on the re-build of the Collier & Beaufort Street corner and bridge girders later

 

 

Ron

 

Never ceases to amaze me the differing methods we use to build out track and how our methods evolve and I certainly think I will enjoy your future posts. I prefer to stain the timbers first, as I don't have to wait for them to dry before attaching chairs, but the ends have to be touched up with my method. A couple of questions please as I see you have built and fitted the Vee and one half of the stock rail on the diamond crossing

 

With the wing and crossing rails, how do you keep them in gauge with the Vee please. With regard to the K crossing I assume you build the stock rails in 2 pieces and you will use the same method in gauging the stock, crossing and check rails as you do on the common crossing

[Ron Heggs]

Ron

 

Your attention to detail goes above and beyond the call of duty, I'm sure that if this was an exhibition train set that no one would notice a few mil plus or minus in structures of the size that you're modelling.

 

You have my upmost respect. How much of this is now down to using the silhouette cutter?

 

SS

 

I haven't used the cutter for any card modelling. I use the Stanley knife and compass cutters for cutting card, after marking all cut lines with the knife. Make adjustments to allow for wrapping the brickpaper around corners, etc. to ensure the brick edges align correctly. In reality I work from the printed brickpaper back to adjust the card edges appropriately. This is just one of the elements that have to be taken care of when building scale structures to fit into a scale urban landscape. You can't have one building smaller or bigger, as the knock-on effect would be disastrous. Even affecting that trackwork which runs over and through this landscape, which also has to be built to scale (although it is in 00 gauge), which is a problem in itself

 

Cheers

 

Ron 

Edited October 24, 2014 by Ron Heggs

[Ron Heggs]

Ron

 

Never ceases to amaze me the differing methods we use to build out track and how our methods evolve and I certainly think I will enjoy your future posts. I prefer to stain the timbers first, as I don't have to wait for them to dry before attaching chairs, but the ends have to be touched up with my method. A couple of questions please as I see you have built and fitted the Vee and one half of the stock rail on the diamond crossing

 

With the wing and crossing rails, how do you keep them in gauge with the Vee please. With regard to the K crossing I assume you build the stock rails in 2 pieces and you will use the same method in gauging the stock, crossing and check rails as you do on the common crossing

 

Hi, John

 

The 'staining' was an error on my part, I should have kept with the 'beer glass' method - stain all timbers/sleepers before fixing

 

Gauging to & from the Vee is a little bit of a temporary trial. Fitted the vee, lining it up with the approach rail by mirror and eye (it is on a slight curve). Gauged off the vee to fit the stock rail, checking alignment with approach rail. Only have standard roller gauges for the track - 16.5mm with 1mm check rail gap

 

Temporarily fitted wing rail at K crossing end, aligning with vee, and used 1mm shim to gauge the gap. Re-checked alignment and fixed

 

Generally, fix the chairs at either end of the rail first, then one at the middle, after re-checking alignment, and subsequently the remainder of the chairs. Re-check alignment before the chair fixings harden

 

Always check running/tracking after with a BR 3 plank wagon and a Mk1.Restaurant Car for roughness, tightness and lifting

 

All the track curvature is transitional, the handbuilt vees on this section are between 1:10.5 and 1:11.5

 

Definitely, my method is different from others, but it works ok for me

 

Cheers

 

Ron

Edited October 24, 2014 by Ron Heggs

[martin_wynne]

16.5mm with 1mm check rail gap

 

Hi Ron,

 

Have you made a conscious decision to use the DOGA-Fine standard rather than 00-SF? Or did you just fall into it because those are the gauges which C&L sell?

 

The disadvantage with DOGA-Fine is that it requires all RTR wheels to be widened to 14.7mm Back-to-Back. Whereas with 00-SF wheels are left as supplied at 14.4mm Back-to-Back. Both provide the same smooth running with 1mm flangeways. DOGA-Fine is 16.5mm gauge, 00-SF is 16.2mm gauge.

 

00-SF gauge tools are now also available from C&L -- see: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=49

 

Several layouts on RMweb are being built to the 00-SF standard, most notably Gordon's Eastwood Town: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/3422-eastwood-town-update/page-12&do=findComment&comment=240832

 

Most 00-SF users continue to use 16.5mm flexi-track for plain track, as it provides some gauge-widening for sharp curves.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Ron Heggs]

 

Hi Ron,

 

Have you made a conscious decision to use the DOGA-Fine standard rather than 00-SF? Or did you just fall into it because those are the gauges which C&L sell?

 

The disadvantage with DOGA-Fine is that it requires all RTR wheels to be widened to 14.7mm Back-to-Back. Whereas with 00-SF wheels are left as supplied at 14.4mm Back-to-Back. Both provide the same smooth running with 1mm flangeways. DOGA-Fine is 16.5mm gauge, 00-SF is 16.2mm gauge.

 

00-SF gauge tools are now also available from C&L -- see: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=49

 

Several layouts on RMweb are being built to the 00-SF standard, most notably Gordon's Eastwood Town: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/3422-eastwood-town-update/page-12&do=findComment&comment=240832

 

Most 00-SF users continue to use 16.5mm flexi-track for plain track, as it provides some gauge-widening for sharp curves.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Hi, Martin

 

You could say that I am staying with 16.5mm as the majority of the trackwork is on a curve. But the truth is that although I am using C+L track gauges, which set the rail gauge at 16.5mm and gaps at 1mm (I don't use this feature, preferring to check gaps separately)

 

Checking with a digital caliper and various shims, the actual measured gauge between rails is working out at 16.4mm/16.45mm and the gaps at 1.1mm, which gives 14.2mm/14.25mm against a rtr wheel back to back of 14.4mm. Which is probably why the wagon and carriage run freely through the turnouts and crossings

 

Cheers

 

Ron

[hayfield]

 

 

 

Hi, Martin

 

You could say that I am staying with 16.5mm as the majority of the trackwork is on a curve. But the truth is that although I am using C+L track gauges, which set the rail gauge at 16.5mm and gaps at 1mm (I don't use this feature, preferring to check gaps separately)

 

Checking with a digital caliper and various shims, the actual measured gauge between rails is working out at 16.4mm/16.45mm and the gaps at 1.1mm, which gives 14.2mm/14.25mm against a rtr wheel back to back of 14.4mm. Which is probably why the wagon and carriage run freely through the turnouts and crossings

 

Cheers

 

Ron

 

Ron

 

The reason behind the gauge narrowing may lie with the C&L roller gauges. The chairs are designed to hold the rail at a slight inward angle (cant). Where the groves in gauges are a bit deep they hold the rail vertical and not at an angle. When the chairs relax back into the required position (angle) this narrows the gauge. In 00 gauge not too much of a problem especially with large radius turnouts. Gauges with shallower groves allow the rail head to rotate in the groove

[hayfield]

Ron

 

I think my question was badly written, however your reply was both interesting and useful to have in ones memory for building processes.

 

With the common crossing, I build mine as a separate unit with the wing rails (similar to the C&L units) before fitting to the sleepers. I see from the photo you have fitted the Vee to the sleepers, how do you attach the wing rail to the sleepers/Vee please. You talk about using a piece of shim, is that as a gauge or to solder the rails to

 

As for the Obtuse (K) crossing, do you build the bent stock rail using 2 pieces of rail making a sharp bend of one piece which you bend

 

Regarding the gauge narrowing, as you have said its a benefit for modern RTR wheelsets

 

What chairs are you using C&L or Exactoscale ?

[Ron Heggs]

Ron

 

I think my question was badly written, however your reply was both interesting and useful to have in ones memory for building processes.

 

With the common crossing, I build mine as a separate unit with the wing rails (similar to the C&L units) before fitting to the sleepers. I see from the photo you have fitted the Vee to the sleepers, how do you attach the wing rail to the sleepers/Vee please. You talk about using a piece of shim, is that as a gauge or to solder the rails to

 

As for the Obtuse (K) crossing, do you build the bent stock rail using 2 pieces of rail making a sharp bend of one piece which you bend

 

Regarding the gauge narrowing, as you have said its a benefit for modern RTR wheelsets

 

What chairs are you using C&L or Exactoscale ?

 

Hi, John

 

I haven't yet taken to building the vee and wing rails as a single unit. I have collected plenty of brass scrap from etches to enable the component parts to be fixed. It would certainly be a better method than building all in-situ and rely on the partial chairs to hold the correct gaps

 

For the K crossing stock rails - for very shallow angles 1:10 or less I have bent the rail, whereas for sharper angles two pieces of rail are cut, and the joint faces filed and soldered to each other. I think for further work I will take the 2 rail cut and solder approach and be consistent in the build

 

The standard and slide chairs are C+L with Exactoscale chairs for the check and wing rails. As the Exactoscale chairs only give a gap of 0.8mm, I soften the chair with a little extra MEK whilst placing the 1.0mm shim in the gap, and leave to harden. So far this works ok

 

Trying to build scale prototype trackwork gauged to 16.5mm is always going to be a bit of trail and error

 

Ron

[Grovenor]

 

For the K crossing stock rails - for very shallow angles 1:10 or less I have bent the rail, whereas for sharper angles two pieces of rail are cut, and the joint faces filed and soldered to each other. I think for further work I will take the 2 rail cut and solder approach and be consistent in the build

Better to follow the real thing and bend the rail except for crossings getting close to 90 degrees.

Keith

[HAB]

Hi, John

 

For the K crossing stock rails - for very shallow angles 1:10 or less I have bent the rail, whereas for sharper angles two pieces of rail are cut, and the joint faces filed and soldered to each other. I think for further work I will take the 2 rail cut and solder approach and be consistent in the build

 

Ron

 

Hello Ron,

 

I wonder why you specifically mention 1:10?  I presume that you are aware that (on the real thing) there is no such thing as a 1:10 K crossing in as much as they were always switched diamonds.  Given that much of your track is on a curve, the prototype would always provide switched diamonds even at lesser angles - otherwise there is too great risk of flanges going the wrong way.

 

Perhaps also worth mentioning that for angles less that 1:10 the stock rails were not bent to a sharp angle - they were bent to a radius "roughly" equal in feet to the number of the crossing. The GW was different (!) but for SRE track for example, a 1:9 crossing had a radius of 10'8"  (which is a pretty gentle curve even in 4mm!) whilst a 1:1 3/4 was bent to 15" radius.  The same is true of the knuckles in the wing rails - at both K and V crossings.  I think many people cause themselves a lot of grief by overlooking this aspect of prototype design.

 

Many thanks for continuing to update us on your excellent work.

 

Looking forward to seeing piles of shiny etches...

 

Best wishes,

[Ron Heggs]

Hello Ron,

 

I wonder why you specifically mention 1:10?  I presume that you are aware that (on the real thing) there is no such thing as a 1:10 K crossing in as much as they were always switched diamonds.  Given that much of your track is on a curve, the prototype would always provide switched diamonds even at lesser angles - otherwise there is too great risk of flanges going the wrong way.

 

Perhaps also worth mentioning that for angles less that 1:10 the stock rails were not bent to a sharp angle - they were bent to a radius "roughly" equal in feet to the number of the crossing. The GW was different (!) but for SRE track for example, a 1:9 crossing had a radius of 10'8"  (which is a pretty gentle curve even in 4mm!) whilst a 1:1 3/4 was bent to 15" radius.  The same is true of the knuckles in the wing rails - at both K and V crossings.  I think many people cause themselves a lot of grief by overlooking this aspect of prototype design.

 

Many thanks for continuing to update us on your excellent work.

 

Looking forward to seeing piles of shiny etches...

 

Best wishes,

 

Hi, Howard

 

I am only constructing the crossings as they were built prior to 1958. None of the crossings were switched, and there were three crossings over 1:8.8. Granted all the track was replaced/re-built in 1958 with a less complex arrangement

 

Understand your comments, and confirm that building the crossings is very difficult to get right

 

Cheers

 

Ron

[Mike Riley]

Ron,

 

When I built my current layout I used C&L components and gauges.  While a 1mm flangeway may work with short wheelbase and small wheels without adjusting the btb I found it din't work with a 6-coupled loco chassis.  I have a lot of Romford/Markits wheels and it is difficult to reset the btb with these.  So I compromised on a 1.25mm flangeway with 14.5mm btb.  It doesn't look as nice but it works.  I wouldn't like to you build all that trackwork and then find you rolling stock won't run smoothly through it.  And I presume you will have lots of steam locos, some with large wheels (Jubilees?).

 

One trick I missed but my son-in-law found; use slide chairs on the outside of the wing rails.  They will support both the wing rail and the vee at the correct height.  And a piece of plastic strip between wing rail and vee to give the correct flangeway.

 

Mike

[Ron Heggs]

Ron,

 

When I built my current layout I used C&L components and gauges.  While a 1mm flangeway may work with short wheelbase and small wheels without adjusting the btb I found it din't work with a 6-coupled loco chassis.  I have a lot of Romford/Markits wheels and it is difficult to reset the btb with these.  So I compromised on a 1.25mm flangeway with 14.5mm btb.  It doesn't look as nice but it works.  I wouldn't like to you build all that trackwork and then find you rolling stock won't run smoothly through it.  And I presume you will have lots of steam locos, some with large wheels (Jubilees?).

 

One trick I missed but my son-in-law found; use slide chairs on the outside of the wing rails.  They will support both the wing rail and the vee at the correct height.  And a piece of plastic strip between wing rail and vee to give the correct flangeway.

 

Mike

 

Hi, Mike

 

Thanks for comments

 

Have just finished a trial run on the latest track build with a Black 5, and with the exception of the second axle on the front bogie it passed through without any problems. Checking the bogie as it passed through the various check/wing rails, and one of the wheels on the second axle was definitely lifting over the check/wing rails. Decided to check all the BTB on the loco and tender. With the exception of the second axle, all measured 14.41-14.42mm. The exception was measured at 14.21mm. Re-spaced the BTB to 14.40mm, and ran the loco through again, and all is well. Will try it with a 2-10-0 later, but shouldn't be any worse as the track curvatures are very slight - tightest is just under 4.0m radial centre

 

Cheers

 

Ron

[martin_wynne]

I have a lot of Romford/Markits wheels and it is difficult to reset the btb with these. So I compromised on a 1.25mm flangeway with 14.5mm btb.  It doesn't look as nice but it works.

 

Hi Mike,

 

The solution to using 1mm flangeways without needing to change the Back-to-Back is to use 16.2mm track gauge instead of 16.5mm. This is now well established as the 00-SF standard (also known as "EM minus 2"). There are several layouts on RMweb using 00-SF and almost everyone who has tried it has reported being delighted with the results.

 

1mm flangeways will give smoother running through the crossings (frogs) with Romford/Markits wheels because they are then fully supported on the wing rails and can't drop into the gap. The narrower flangeways also look much better.

 

You can use Romford/Markits at 14.5mm BTB, and RTR models with 14.4mm BTB, exactly as supplied. There is no need to change them for 00-SF. (Don't use the C&L BTB gauge, which is 14.8mm)

 

The track gauges for 00-SF which were formerly being supplied by Brian Tulley are now available from C&L, see:

 

 http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=346_375_376&product_id=8776

 

 http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=346_375_376&product_id=8775

 

 http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=346_375_376&product_id=8777

 

00-SF has been around for over 40 years now, but has only become popular since the commercial track gauges have been available.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Hi, John

 

I haven't yet taken to building the vee and wing rails as a single unit. I have collected plenty of brass scrap from etches to enable the component parts to be fixed. It would certainly be a better method than building all in-situ and rely on the partial chairs to hold the correct gaps

 

For the K crossing stock rails - for very shallow angles 1:10 or less I have bent the rail, whereas for sharper angles two pieces of rail are cut, and the joint faces filed and soldered to each other. I think for further work I will take the 2 rail cut and solder approach and be consistent in the build

 

The standard and slide chairs are C+L with Exactoscale chairs for the check and wing rails. As the Exactoscale chairs only give a gap of 0.8mm, I soften the chair with a little extra MEK whilst placing the 1.0mm shim in the gap, and leave to harden. So far this works ok

 

Trying to build scale prototype trackwork gauged to 16.5mm is always going to be a bit of trail and error

 

Ron

 

 

Ron

 

I build my own common crossings as an independent unit (similar to C&L ready made ones) using 0,5 mm copperclad but metal shim is fine if not better.

 

 

Rubbish photo, but as you can see I use copperclad/shim on the crossing nose and the sleepers before and after, Once these are cut back they are more or less invisible and you can then use the Exactoscale chairs as normal.

 

With the check chairs (0.8 mm) I thread 2 chairs on to the stock rail and three on a check rail, cut through the part of the chairs and then offer the check rail to the stock rail and it virtually gives a 1 mm gap (and is so much easier to thread) the remaining half chairs are just stuck back in place.

 

The K crossings I build in situ using a similar method, but cut back the shim (I use 0.5mm copperclad) and super glue it to the sleepers then add the remaining chairs.

 

I would echo Martins comments for 00sf for ready to run 00 gauge, especially on curved crossings which are a pain to do in 00 (universal). I like the idea about the rail being in 2 pieces rather than bent (it can be rounded off a bit with a file, looks are very important but faultless running is more important.  

Edited October 26, 2014 by hayfield

[jamie92208]

I've also used the method of buiding the crossing units as a separate item using copperclad.  I space these between the sleepers so that the units just drop in to their correct position after the sleepers have been laid.  I always start with one stock rail first, then the crossing then the other stock rail.  The C & L gauges are very good (I presume they are the same in 00).  I have filed a flat on the outside of two of them so that they can be used for gauging the crossing vee's.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

Jamie

[Ron Heggs]

In the process of creating an adjustable jig for holding the vee rails in position whilst soldering the vee and fixing the straps for the wing rails. Saves having to grow another pair of hands, and smaller fingers

 

Ron

[Ron Heggs]

Picture of the adjustable jig for the assembly of Vees (Components were all I had to hand) -

 

A piece of 'veroboard' fitted with three LED pin connectors soldered on the reverse, and one loose connector which is placed in the appropriate position for the vee angle

 

The two bottom and one right hand connectors are fixed. The top left connector is located as follows -

 

Vee Angle     Relative position of adjustable connector

 

1:5              1 hole up and 5 holes left of bottom pin of RH connector

1:5.5           2 holes up and 11 holes left of bottom pin of RH connector

1:6              1 hole up and 6 holes left of bottom pin of RH connector

1:6.5           2 holes up and 13 holes left of bottom pin of RH connector

1:7              1 hole up and 7 holes left of bottom pin of RH connector

1:7.5           2 holes up and 15 holes left of bottom pin of RH connector

1:8              1 hole up and 8 holes left of bottom pin of RH connector

1:8.5           2 holes up and 17 holes left of bottom pin of RH connector

1:9              1 hole up and 9 holes left of bottom pin of RH connector

1:9.5           2 holes up and 19 holes left of bottom pin of RH connector

1:10            1 hole up and 10 holes left of bottom pin of RH connector

1:10.5         2 holes up and 21 holes left of bottom pin of RH connector

1:11            1 hole up and 11 holes left of bottom pin of RH connector

 

The photo shows the adjustable connector set for a 1:8 Vee at 1 hole up and 8 holes left - could also have been set to 2 holes up and 16 holes left

[ozzyo]

Picture of the adjustable jig for the assembly of Vees (Components were all I had to hand) -

 

IMG_0878.JPG

A piece of 'veroboard' fitted with three LED pin connectors soldered on the reverse, and one loose connector which is placed in the appropriate position for the vee angle

 

The two bottom and one right hand connectors are fixed. The top left connector is located as follows -

 

The photo shows the adjustable connector set for a 1:8 Vee at 1 hole up and 8 holes left - could also have been set to 2 holes up and 16 holes left

 

Hello Ron,

 

a nice idea for the vee jig, about the only thing that I would think about adding would be a stop at the nose end of the vee.

 

Keep up the good work,

 

OzzyO.

[Ron Heggs]

Hello Ron,

 

a nice idea for the vee jig, about the only thing that I would think about adding would be a stop at the nose end of the vee.

 

Keep up the good work,

 

OzzyO.

 

Hi, Ozzy

 

Yes. That could be done, but would need to be adjustable, as the geometry could not make it a fixed stop. Will check it out

 

Cheers

 

Ron