Camden Shed

[jukebox]

"Originally I had thought this would be a layout where all the pointwork was controlled through traditional means, and the locos would be DCC. Now I'm not so sure. Expense, metal kits, complexity and seeing LB function perfectly on DC have changed my mind a bit."

 

 

Thanks Mike. The layout is almost 4 separate circuits, segregating trains up, down, fast and slow. Maybe I do need more flexibility. Given my loco-hauled stock is unidirectional using TW's method, I won't need that for many trains, but I could use some sort of crossover between the up and down slow yards for the electrics.

I'm not going to be able to replicate easily the move where the up loco banked the stock ECS out of Euston and up the bank, detaching and crossing over to the shed. I'll just pretend it detached halfway up the bank!

Thanks,

Iain

 

Hi Iain

 

I would certainly use your own words here to counsel you to continue down the DCC road.  If you compare the operation of LB to what you have in mind, you should see that electrically and operationally, having the flexibility in DCC to drive a train anywhere (compared to DC) is a major bonus.

 

Isolating kit built metal locos so they perform reliably on DCC should be no harder for you than building a DC model - insulated wheels all around being, IMHO, the best place to start.

 

Good luck with the post-op recuperation, and the move.  Looking forward to seeing you back in the saddle on the layout front.

 

Regards

 

Scott

[Brocp]

Isn't Tony making his next layout DCC (besides points etc) DCC?

[millerhillboy]

Iain

I seem to recall you are a keen golfer, if so I presume your back has put that all on hold. Dare I ask was it the golf that caused it.

 

Good luck with your layout project, looks like you've got yourself a great space for the layout.

[92220]

Hi Iain hope your feeling better after the op. As I am thinking of a similar layout in the end. Once i finish collage and university. Though nothing so grandiose as Camden, but rather sticking to Leicester Midland. I was thinking of using good old fashioned Brassmaster fittings for Coaches for the train. With kade couplers between locomotives and train to make things easier. Which gives a realistic feel on the main. And the option to run the train in both directions. I was wondering if you had tried this approach considering your layout is more advanced then main

  

 

Hi Farren,

Never tried the Brassmasters couplings, though I have looked at them before at shows: they look quite realistic though I don't know how well the stock runs when coupled like that. But at £6 a throw, they don't beat the TW option - I've got 60-65 carriages already.

 

"Originally I had thought this would be a layout where all the pointwork was controlled through traditional means, and the locos would be DCC. Now I'm not so sure. Expense, metal kits, complexity and seeing LB function perfectly on DC have changed my mind a bit."

 

 

Hi Iain

 

I would certainly use your own words here to counsel you to continue down the DCC road.  If you compare the operation of LB to what you have in mind, you should see that electrically and operationally, having the flexibility in DCC to drive a train anywhere (compared to DC) is a major bonus.

 

Isolating kit built metal locos so they perform reliably on DCC should be no harder for you than building a DC model - insulated wheels all around being, IMHO, the best place to start.

 

Good luck with the post-op recuperation, and the move.  Looking forward to seeing you back in the saddle on the layout front.

 

Regards

 

Scott

Hi Scott,

Thanks. I can see the reasoning, for sure. The shed area will certainly be better suited to DCC and I may well go that way in the end. I think I will build and wire it in sections so it can be run as DC, which will help for fault finding if and when I do go DCC.

Hope all well in Perth.

 

  

Isn't Tony making his next layout DCC (besides points etc) DCC?

Really? Hadn't spotted that!

 

Iain

I seem to recall you are a keen golfer, if so I presume your back has put that all on hold. Dare I ask was it the golf that caused it.

Good luck with your layout project, looks like you've got yourself a great space for the layout.

Thanks. Yes, golf has been on hold for a few months but I'm optimistic for the future. Without going into detailed medical stuff, it wasn't golf that caused it.

 

Iain

[Pete the Elaner]

I had missed this until now & since I am modelling South Hampstead, also in 00, I am very interested.

[92220]

The time has come to start dismantling Camden Shed mk1 in preparation for building mk2. Slightly tinged with sadness in that I put in a lot of time and effort to build this, and I suppose I am quite proud of some of it. But it never quite worked as it could or should have done and I have learned a lot about doing things better in the loft room of the new house.

 

 

I've built some bespoke foam board boxes for the buildings with inner bolsters to ensure they are kept safe in storage and the move.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gradually taking things apart and carefully storing them - boxes of tortoises and plug-in wiring connectors. I'll recycle as much of the peco track in the fiddle yard as I can too.

 

Iain

[Pete the Elaner]

I know how you feel. There comes a time in the life cycle of many layouts where we 'would do that different with the next one' for enough aspects of a layout that deep down, we know that starting from scratch would be more rewarding.

The first thing you do differently will hopefully justify the rebuild.

 

What was it were you disappointed with?

[Michael Delamar]

Have you seen this shot? From the British ideas corporation Facebook page. 1962.

 

[Liam]

Just been reading through your thread Iain. There seems to be a theme recently with dismantling layouts - Camden mk 1, Trecarne, Boscarne Junction to name but a few.

[92220]

I know how you feel. There comes a time in the life cycle of many layouts where we 'would do that different with the next one' for enough aspects of a layout that deep down, we know that starting from scratch would be more rewarding.

The first thing you do differently will hopefully justify the rebuild.

 

What was it were you disappointed with?

  

 

Sorry not to reply sooner.

 

Not so much disappointed, because I really enjoyed building this, and I'm pleased with what I managed. It's my first layout to reach anything like this stage, and the first one with any buildings, ballast or hand-made track. I can see greater possibilities in a new build than trying to dismantle, transport and rebuild this one.

 

Specifically:

 

The new loft space will be quite a lot bigger than my shed, so I have the opportunity to build the same scene without compression.

 

I was never quite happy with omitting the 3rd/4th rail on the two slow lines, nor the beginning of the dive-under.

 

There will be a lot more room in the storage yard, which means more trains and more locos

 

Some of my carpentry was not quite accurate enough for faultless running, so I'd like to do that better.

 

I should have enough space to add a representation of some of the goods yard sidings, which will almost be another mini-layout on its own.

 

Have you seen this shot? From the British ideas corporation Facebook page. 1962.

IMG_3018.JPG

  

 

Hi Mike,

I've seen that, yes, though not on Facebook. It will help with internal shed details. I've not worked out what I'm going to do about diesels yet though. The basic premise is 1959-61 but imagining that steam held sway for longer than it did.

 

Just been reading through your thread Iain. There seems to be a theme recently with dismantling layouts - Camden mk 1, Trecarne, Boscarne Junction to name but a few.

Thanks for reading and hope you enjoyed it.

 

Iain

[cornish trains jez]

Hi Iain,

 

Just been catching up on your thread. Sounds like you have exciting times ahead with the new build and also your new version of Camden shed. Looking forward to seeing the updates as and when you start the rebuild.

Good luck with everything.

 

Best regards,

 

Jeremy

[Jamiel]

Hi Iain


Not sure if you are currently working on the new Camden layout, but the below photo was just shared by Paul Strathdee on the Facebook group 'Rail Thing - REAL Trainspotting (1945-1968)' and I thought it might be useful for reference.

I have linked the image, but if it doesn't show, let me know and I will upload it directly.

All the best.

Jamie

Edited June 7, 2017 by Jamiel

[92220]

Thanks, Jamie. That brilliant photo is a wider version of one of the series in this wonderful little book:

 

 

published by Douglas Docherty. Must be the best value book I've seen at 4'6! I've had it a while - it's mainly a compilation of photos on two dates in 1959 and 1960. It includes 44687 on the Midlander, 46145 (not a regular on the WCML but one I'm glad to have an excuse to model), and several more, plus 10 or so views of the north end of the yard and turntable.

 

My most recent purchase was a bit more than 4'6 but well worth it anyway. A fascinating book:

 

 

Among many useful pieces of info, I discovered the WCML equivalent of the "Scotch (sic) goods" - Camden Goods. Up until now, I didn't have much clue about the types of working into and out of the goods yard, but this means I have an almost named fast fitted freight working that leaves the yard for the north. I've not finished the book yet and I hope that I'll unearth more details.

 

Land purchase and house build have been astonishingly frustrating. If and when it's all done, I might relate the story in case anyone is interested. But Camden mk2 isn't taking shape quite yet.

 

Iain

[92220]

Wondering whether I could ask for some assistance with designing the baseboards for Camden Shed mk2?

 

The screenshot of the scenic side plan is here:

 

 

The overall width of the boards will include about 12" of buildings on the Dumpton place side, and about 9" of goods yard on the other. So the boards will be almost 5' wide at their widest point.

 

Trying to work out where to divide the baseboards so that I don't have tortoises in the wrong place, and I get the divisions where track alignment is simple. I could then build it while the house is being built - and I will have some time over the summer I hope.

I've thought about splitting the boards lengthwise as well, so having the shed area on one set of boards and the mainlines and goods yard on the other set.

Or build the mainlines on one set of boards and the rest on two other sets.

Or just find the right spots to divide the boards transversely.

 

The alternative is to be patient and built it all in situ when the house is built, that way the baseboards might be more solid.

 

Many of you have considerable wisdom and experience - what do you think?

 

Thanks,

 

Iain

[Pete the Elaner]

5' boards sounds very big & awkward. My scenic is 3'6" deep & I struggle to reach the far side, which is against a wall.

You really don't want any board joins lengthwise. With your gently curving track, some of this will pass over the join at a very shallow angle, which is likely to cause problems. Board also comes in 8'x4' so using 5' boards is likely to be very wasteful.

Could you build the trackwork on 1 set of boards & have another set front & back for scenery? You could make these quickly removable. This would be particularly useful when laying/ballasting the track etc.

It sounds like you are asking these things well in advance. That's good because the problem will probably be dealt with by your sub-conscious which will return an answer in a few days/weeks when you are doing something completely un-related.

[92220]

Thanks Pete. I know what you mean about the subconscious solving things.

 

I should have been clearer that the scenic side is accessible from both sides due to the T shaped loft design. So hopefully my just-under-5' wide boards are effectively only 2'6" ish. As can be seen from my model model:

 

 

By lengthwise board divisions, I meant to follow the trackbed, not in straight lines. So I hope I'd avoid the shallow angles to which you rightly draw attention.

 

The more I think about it though, the more my mind is drawn to the most level and solid baseboards I've seen, those on Little Bytham. Tony Wright enlisted the help of a friend who is an excellent carpenter to build the boards in situ. If I go that way, I can't start building until the house is completed. I could build some of the track in modules, but probably not the mainline track as that ought to draw some lessons from Norman Solomon's DVD. But most of the shed s&c work could be built in isolation I guess?

 

I'll let the subconscious continue to turn up ideas. In the meantime, anything useful is welcome.

 

Thanks,

 

Iain

[jrg1]

I like the model model-it helps to see and solve problems before they arise.  My thoughts echo Iain Rice-the baseboards should be higher rather than lower-say around 4'6" or so.  One idea for stability and rigidity that I have seen is to use kitchen units as the base, and anchor the, say, customwood base to the tops.   

[92220]

Thanks jrg. I can't have them as high as I would like due to the roof slope. It's a trade-off between baseboard height and impingement.

Iain

[Michael Edge]

The middle boards of Herculaneum Dock are about 4ft wide, at home against the side of the shed I can't quite reach over (and I've got long arms). At exhibitions it's no problem as I can get to both sides, if you can do this you won't have any trouble with 5ft. In places the Carlisle layout I'm working on is well over 8ft wide - but the boards are strong enough to climb on.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I can't see any easy way to divide up that area to make portable boards. And by comparison with Little Bytham you have a lot of point motors to take into consideration.

 

For me, this says L-girder. That would allow you to make up some areas of trackwork on ply sub-bases and then fix the ply sub-bases to risers off the L-girder. Joy of this is that you can easily shift the risers slightly to get round the point motors.

 

The L-girder base can be constructed very rapidly once the loft is finished.

[LNER4479]

Hi Iain,

 

If it helps, three of the boards on Grantham have length-way divisions, where the depot in situated (I call them boards 2 & 2a, 3 & 3a, 4 & 4a). Maximum width across is about 4 and a half feet but, as Mike says, that's no problem at an exhibition - as you know, the depot operating position is from the front anyway.

 

What I did was to set out the track plan as accurately as I could on the boards before cutting then simply marked the line that separated the shed from the adjacent tracks. The board shapes end up slightly irregular but that hasn't really caused a problem.

 

If you separate twixt shed and the rest of the lines then, looking at that trackplan, you only have one place where you have pointwork that crosses that line (scissors crossover towards the left hand end). To accommodate that, I would go at right angles across the adjacent running line then continue the lengthways join round the side of the scissors then back across to resume the original lengthways line. I'm sure that could be made to work but I'd need to sketch it out in more detail.

[Buhar]

Hi Iain,

You seem to be looking at a foundation that can be dismantled (or assembled) a limited number of times rather than something that is fully portable.  I like the L-girder idea, there are a lot of point and presumably signal mechanisms to work round and this system is flexible for that.  As you want to get going, you could build boards on their own to an accurate cutting plan, maybe including the irregular shapes Graham suggests, with a view to assembling them solidly in place when the time comes.  This would probably help with under-baseboard work too.

 

Lime Street has a jigsaw of boards and a few pages back in their thread John has a plan of how they all fit together.

 

You could decide to sacrifice a point or two if it ever came to taking it apart and so lay those over joints.

[92220]

Thanks everyone, very useful thoughts.

 

It won't be portable, I don't think. Some time ago, I did think that it might be fun to make it exhibitable, but realistically, that's madness. A club might achieve it, but I wouldn't. The main idea of building the boards as units that could be assembled was so I could start building it before we move. It may even be that the best way is to forget that and just build really solid permanent boards in the loft when we move in.

 

Graham - I was thinking exactly the same regarding the scissors and possible board joins.

 

Keep the ideas coming, if you have any - I'll come to a conclusion at some point!

 

Thanks,

 

Iain

[Jamiel]

Hi Iain.

In support of your idea of movable boards, a somber note from an experience I had a few years ago.

 

A friend asked me to take down their late father's layout from his converted loft before they sold the house. He had been a carpenter, and had built the layout boards really well, but built them into the loft's structure.

I spent a couple of days trying to get behind the boards to free them from their surroundings. We were hoping to sell the layout in tact, not for financial reasons, but because so much love and work had been put into it.

In the end we realised that we simply could not break it down into small enough sections to go down the stairs, but also it was so solidly built into the woodwork of the room that it had to be smashed up to simply remove. We did strip off all the buildings and track (as best we could), and obviously the rolling stock we valued ready for sale.

It was quite heartbreaking to destroy something that I could see had been crafted by someone. From that experience, no matter how young someone building a layout is, I would urge modellers to build their layout on boards that although they may not be as portable as exhibition layouts, they are at least capable of being moved a couple of times, perhaps with a little re-soldering of track joins, but certainly so that neither the modeller or their family have to at any point break up the work that has been put into it.

Jamie

[Pete the Elaner]

My layout is also built in sections, but I never intend to exhibit it.

As well as being able to move with me into a new house, sections allows me to work on the wiring more easily, whether this is to add something or fix a fault such as a failed point motor.

I have wired a layout from below before. It was very awkward & uncomfortable.

I also plan to have 2 alternative front sections: same station but different eras. This is only achievable with removable sections.