Foulounoux Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Similar but more valuable experience which taught me to start filing better Wrote off Wifes merc r class... Insurance claim paid out under loss etc then few weeks later realise I had paid for GAP insurance Again expected to be turned down on a technicality but nope a substantial cheque (>20k)was received I was very lucky the insurance was due to run out 3 weeks after I found the paperwork From now on one file with all the details on the front cover I case I need to quickly check something Colin 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 You may have thought I was joking..... I don't have the nerve to tell her her filing drawer needs a tidy up..... 13 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 A perfect example today. We had a Miele vacuum cleaner that suddenly refused to rewind a couple of days ago. Out came all the Torx drivers and within 15 minutes it was in pieces. Turns out the spring on the rewind mechanism had broken and there's was nothing that could be done. Trawled the web etc and a new one was quoted at over £100. Daft, as a new machine was only £180, so a new one was ordered and the old one left outside for the next dump run. New one arrives and a new file was set up detailing the date purchased, price etc. The old file was pulled out and there was a chuckle. How long have we had the vacuum? I guessed around 4-5 years. She then goes onto tell me it was 7 years old and more to the point there was a 10 year guarantee certificate, bought as a special offer at the time. Of course I had no idea we had that warranty, so on the phone to Miele expecting all the excuses under the sun, but no, they're collecting it on Tuesday and it will be repaired and given a full service with all worn parts replaced free of charge. The turbo head is knackered and they're £40 plus the rewind at £100, so I won't be surprised that they just give us a new one....:-) None of that would have happened if my dear wife hadn't been so organised and kept all the relevant paperwork....and there's more. We have a calendar on the wall with the 'birthdays' of all our domestic appliances updated every year, so she knows whether or not we've had good value when one breaks down and goes to the tip..... Don't you just love 'em..... Any electrical item I buy, I put the receipt into the box then the box goes into the loft. If it breaks then I just get the box and if its still under guarantee return it to the shop, surprising how many times they just swap it. Just bought a SDS drill from Wicks at half price as I have a brick shed (with a concrete roof to demolish) and a lot of concrete to break up, expecting it to break under the strain, should under normal circumstances be £40 well spent, if it either survives the work or gets replaced will be even better value 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 2, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 2, 2017 The other day we had a bulb blow in one of the picture lights in the study so I duly informed herself that it had gone and could she please supply me a replacement from her lighting stock cupboard (yes, she has one) and the receipt as the vendor had offered a free replacement for any which lasted less than a year. She duly appears with replacement and the receipt - only for me to find on changing the bulb that the one which had gone was an older halogen one and not one of the LED ones, so no free replacement. But still - she found, quickly, the receipt for the LED bulbs which was quite impressive I thought. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 We have a calendar on the wall with the 'birthdays' of all our domestic appliances updated every year, so she knows whether or not we've had good value when one breaks down and goes to the tip..... Don't you just love 'em..... Mine stores all the info in her head. "We've had it years....we need a new one! " I check up and its only 4 years old. "Well you changed your car last year". Here-we-go..... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Barry O Posted February 2, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 2, 2017 my other half has a filing system for everything.. every room has its own file sub filed with the items in it.....me.. I have a big file and all of my bills and receipts go in it ready for my tax return.... Baz 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3, 2017 But is it too late to return the new Miele for a refund? You can buy quite a lot of rail for the cost of a Miele But not quite so much copperclad.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 3, 2017 Thomas Telford didn't have a vacuum cleaner. George Stephenson didn't have a vacuum cleaner. Isambard Kingdom Brunel didn't have a vacuum cleaner. If you are following in their footsteps, why do you need one? Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted February 3, 2017 Author Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Ah, but then they all pre dated the vacuum cleaner by 42-67 years. They would have have loved one had they'd lived long enough.... Second vacuum will be recycled to the railway room as that one is held together by duct tape right now. 'Tis Friday, so once I've completed my hoovering duties, it will be back to ET and playing with girder bridges again..... Edited February 3, 2017 by gordon s 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted February 3, 2017 Author Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Well, this is what I was kicking around last night. The entry to the main shed is via a down gradient and then under the main lines. All of these were on curves, which is fine in the planning stage, until you start to look at the mechanics of the bridge construction, both in model and engineering form. I'm sure there may be exceptions, but bridges of this type are constructed from lengths of steel beams which by their nature are straight. These are supported either end by pillars. Simple and fairly obvious, but once you start looking at plans, particularly with curved tracks a whole raft of challenges emerge. We've touched on these before and it might be interesting to look at an overhead plan. Here are the three main lines above and the shed entry road beneath. The first mistake I made was having the shed road on a curve beneath the main lines. This introduced various issues relating to the length of the spans, where one was much longer than the other and secondly, clearance around the supporting pillars where the track curved inwards. One fundamental question. Should a bridge such as this be a rhombus in plan view with both the girders and support pillars parallel to the opposing girder or pillar? If I recall my school geometry correctly, something like this. If that is the case, then clearance within the curve could be improved by taking the corners off the support pillars, but that leaves two angles, an obtuse one on the inside of the curve and an acute one on the outside. Does this matter or would the acute angle simply be incorporated into a wing wall or adjacent retaining wall? I love little nooks and crannies on layouts, particularly those that represent dark areas between bridges, tunnels and their associated cuttings that would often be found deep in urban areas, close to main line stations or goods facilities. The more observant of you may have noticed an additional track to the right of the shed line. This particular area of ET has the shed entry and also an overhead access to some goods facilities yet to be finalised. The triangles of track generated by these lines were too good an opportunity to miss and there was some vacant area between the main lines and the shed turntable, so I'm playing around with this area to see what is feasible. It might mean a second underbridge, but this offers a great opportunity for lots of stonework and steel where all the lines cross. The other question is one relating to the thickness of the track bed. These girders are perfect for 6-8mm thick trackbed, whereas I standardise on 12mm ply. I did think about inserting a short piece of 6mm mdf in the bridge area but was concerned about maintaining a flat trackbed across both materials. Maybe a better option is to use 6mm mdf throughout this whole section, but add additional bracing to stop it warping. I could even laminate the 6mm onto three pieces of 12mm cut away to allow a 6mm trackbed where the bridge is required. That should at least ensure a flat trackbed right across the whole section. Lots to consider, but hoovering awaits and I have a new toy to play with..... Edited February 3, 2017 by gordon s 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) I hoovered once....had to lie down after. Edited February 3, 2017 by PhilH 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 3, 2017 One fundamental question. Should a bridge such as this be rhomboid in plan view with both the girders and support pillars parallel to the opposing girder or pillar? Hi Gordon, The girders would normally be parallel. Otherwise it would make it difficult to build the jack arches between the out-of-square cross beams (which might also need to be different depths for the varying span). But the girders are not necessarily the same length, although that would be more common. The cross beams will be square to them, but not necessarily the full width between them. Didn't we go through all this once before? regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted February 3, 2017 Author Share Posted February 3, 2017 Yes we did Martin, but each build throws up differing challenges and I often need to be reminded in this information overload world we live in.... I'll get there...:-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandbridgejct Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Thomas Telford didn't have a vacuum cleaner. George Stephenson didn't have a vacuum cleaner. Isambard Kingdom Brunel didn't have a vacuum cleaner. If you are following in their footsteps, why do you need one? Martin. Well, whatever about Stephenson and nature, I KNOW Brunel didn't abhor a vacuum. Couldn't get enough, if I recall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted February 3, 2017 Author Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Well if you ever needed a pair of parallel rulers, today was the day, but I got by with a steel rule and two strips of mdf, originally cut as side cheeks for the trackbed..... With all the tracks curved, trying to get a compromise position for the girders, took a fair bit of patience as once you had the first side in an optimum position with the correct side clearance, it meant the second girder looked totally wrong against the track alignment on the other side. Eventually after much experimentation a compromise position was arrived at where both sides looked fine when compared to the running tracks. Once I had got that position, I managed to fabricate a pair of support walls from 12mm ply and cut them to length to suit the overhang of the girders. Looking at the rough fabrication I wasn't sure about the width of the underpass as it seemed quite wide for a single track to pass through. Here's a couple of pics with the US girders. The controlling element is the clearance of the left hand side support. As the width of the underpass is set by the length of the side plate, I tried the same exercise with a couple of Peco girders which are around 30mm shorter. The left hand side cannot be moved as you still need clearance on the corner, so the single track is then offset in the underpass. I'm mindful of how wide an underpass would be as clearly the wider the span, the more support would be needed to take the stresses involved. The jury is still out on this one. Any views? Edited February 3, 2017 by gordon s 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold teaky Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 3, 2017 The narrower one looks a little better but there's not that much in it. What if you introduced some vertical pillars or other 3D element to the support walls? That would narrow the gap without necessarily reducing the girder span. Perhaps the wider span is needed to accommodate some additional infrastructure (railway or non-railway) like piping and/or a water main, or a footpath (with a fence?) ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold phil_sutters Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Midland Walworth coal depot - again not sure of the route but one source suggests via the Widened Lines. Midland & LNW Jt Peckham Rye depot (seems to have been mainly coal but might also have been goods) - accessed by running powers over the LB&SCR probably over the Widened Lines. Having been unaware of the former Midland coal yard at Peckham Rye station, despite having lived a couple of miles from there for 40+/- years- I found this Railway Magazine from 1960, while grubbing about online - http://www.semgonline.com/RlyMag/ForeignDepotsofSthLondon.pdf - which also has photos and details of Walworth Road depot - which I knew about having worked in that area. By the time I came to London to work, in 1966, much of London had smokeless zones imposed on it, so the coal depots became redundant. Edited February 3, 2017 by phil_sutters 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 3, 2017 Well if you ever needed a pair of parallel rulers, today was the day, but I got by with a steel rule and two strips of mdf, originally cut as side cheeks for the trackbed..... With all the tracks curved, trying to get a compromise position for the girders, took a fair bit of patience as once you had the first side in an optimum position with the correct side clearance, it meant the second girder looked totally wrong against the track alignment on the other side. Eventually after much experimentation a compromise position was arrived at where both sides looked fine when compared to the running tracks. Once I had got that position, I managed to fabricate a pair of support walls from 12mm ply and cut them to length to suit the overhang of the girders. Looking at the rough fabrication I wasn't sure about the width of the underpass as it seemed quite wide for a single track to pass through. Here's a couple of pics with the US girders. The controlling element is the clearance of the left hand side support. DSCF8423.jpg DSCF8424.jpg As the width of the underpass is set by the length of the side plate, I tried the same exercise with a couple of Peco girders which are around 30mm shorter. The left hand side cannot be moved as you still need clearance on the corner, so the single track is then offset in the underpass. DSCF8418.jpg DSCF8419.jpg I'm mindful of how wide an underpass would be as clearly the wider the span, the more support would be needed to take the stresses involved. The jury is still out on this one. Any views? Generally I think it's fair to say that it could be as close to loading gauge as possible the only allowance for any extra (in the right places) being for a path for shunting etc purposes on one side of the line. Obviously this will change if there is a curve involved as that will require extra clearance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portchullin Tatty Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Bridges cost a lot of money to build relative to most other aspects of a railway. The cost of a bridge rises exponentially (crudely speaking) with its length. So the real railway would typically go for the narrower unless it believed the line would be doubled in the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml1983 Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 For the bridge structure, what were you planning on the underside of the track bed? If you were thinking girders could you not just use the 12mm board you normally use but route it down in places to make crude representations of said girders? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 I'm mindful of how wide an underpass would be as clearly the wider the span, the more support would be needed to take the stresses involved. The jury is still out on this one. Any views? Proof that I read your layout threads, we have been here before with skew over-bridges and mathematical thingamajigs....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted February 5, 2017 Author Share Posted February 5, 2017 Thanks for your input guys. I'm going with the Peco girders and the narrower span. It did look better and there are financial reasons why a railway company would have chosen to go that way, so been playing around Peco girders and track beds. One of the self imposed difficulties is that I use 12mm trackbed and the Peco side plates are designed for a 4mm trackbed. Spent most of yesterday experimenting with a laminated bed of 4mm mdf on top of 12mm ply with the ply cut away under the bridge span, which overcomes the track bed thickness issue, but I'm not convinced that the mdf wouldn't cause problems once water from ballasting was introduced. Looked at routing out bits or splitting it into three separate sections, but went for the standard 12mm trackbed right through. Looking through Bridges for Modellers there is a picture of a structure there that would solve the problem of the 12mm ply projecting under the girders. P21 shows a girder with a cantilevered parapet that would allow me to hide the 12mm trackbed beneath the girder side plates. Job done..... Apologies to all about revisiting skew bridges. I was aware we had covered similar structures before and didn't want to go over old ground, but somehow this seemed different to last year's discussion and I was still unclear about trackbed thickness and the parallel aspects of the construction. The curved bed of the main lines and the single track beneath made it very difficult to get both pairs of planes parallel to each other and eventually I've had to compromise, but it's unlikely anyone would notice there is a degree or two difference without prior knowledge. Family are here for lunch today, so a welcome break from cutting ply and sticking sheets of paper together...:-) 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 5, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 5, 2017 Gordon this might sound daft (and don't be afraid to say so if you think it is) but why not use plasticard for the bridge deck with suitable Plastruct 'girders' underneath it to spread the load? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesysmith Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Also, if you did do the bridge out of plastic, instead of a wood trackbed with the plastic sides, you would get a nice prototypical rumble as the trains go over it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 I enjoy the skewed bridges discussion.... Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now