RMweb Gold 57xx Posted December 10, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 10, 2009 I've been going round in circles wondering how to start off this topic, but I guess the easiest place is at the beginning! I'm normally an 00 gauge modeller with a passion for the GWR, but my plans to build a new layout got more and more ambitious and soon outgrew the space I currently have. So I decided I'd put that on hold and get back into modelling by having a dabble with N gauge. I also decided to move out of another comfort zone and change periods from my normal 1930's to BR era in the 1950's. I soon found a track plan I thought looked interesting enough for me and spend many hours in Xtrkcad tweaking and refining (and no doubt will receive a bit more before track laying commences) with the following result... The eagle eyed among you will soon realise where the name of the layout is derived from! But as this is not meant to be a quark level replica of a real station, I choose not to use the prototype's name. The layout's name represents what this is really about - having some fun in reviving my modelling skills after a very long break (20 years!) and playing with the various new techniques that have appeared in that time. There will be three 4' x 2' scenic boards running into a 4 road traverser. This should give plenty of space for scenery for the railway to be immersed in. Track will be Peco code 55. Now I've started the thread I'll have to get on and do some work on the layout!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Mikkel Posted December 10, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 10, 2009 Great choice of station. I really like the trackplan, and the use of traverser and loco release. Now I've started the thread I'll have to get on and do some work on the layout!! Yep, now you've gone and done it! We're already drumming our fingers waiting for the next update Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinkmouse Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 What's the function of the diamond crossover? I admit I'm not an expert on operation, but from purely an engineering point of view it seems redundant. Surely the yard would be simpler served by just a normal RH turnout from the running line? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted December 10, 2009 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 10, 2009 Pinkmouse, It's because of the practice of avoiding facing points on running lines where ever possible. Mikkel, next update already huh? Let's see what pics I can download off my camera... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinkmouse Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Pinkmouse, It's because of the practice of avoiding facing points on running lines where ever possible. Fair enough, but do they count as running lines if they're going into a terminus? Just curious, not trying to be argumentative. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted December 10, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 10, 2009 Fair enough, but do they count as running lines if they're going into a terminus? Just curious, not trying to be argumentative. Think its passenger lines in particular, the point is still a 'facing point' in the loop but it would be much less likely to be traversed by a passenger train. MR had a similar policy, but others used 'facing point locks' where a facing point had to be traversed by passenger trains? Its defintely prototypical, by contrast the MR used single slips to reverse goods trains into yards, these can be seen often in old pics of the Settle carlisle route, but thats a different kettle of fish! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted December 10, 2009 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 10, 2009 After comparing the track diagram in Karau's GW BLT book with a 1958 OS map, the book diagram seems to be more of a "sketch" than an accurate drawing. You can see a few discrepencies just by looking at the pictures in the book, but the map confirms them. It looks like I've managed to retain most of the proportions of the original with minimal compression to fit it into the 8' of the two main boards. I've got a pile of wood, time to get a bit of carpentry done... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Pannier Tank Posted December 11, 2009 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 11, 2009 Fair enough, but do they count as running lines if they're going into a terminus? Just curious, not trying to be argumentative. Yes it would, take a look at Moretonhampstead. I don't think this set up was wide spread although several locations used such a design. I assume the facing point leading to the goods loop would require a facing point lock as would the point leading to the goods siding if it were located on the 'running line'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted December 12, 2009 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 12, 2009 When is 2ft not 2ft? When it's the nominal width of some plywood from Wickes!! More of this in a bit... I got the ply for my baseboards from the timber merchants a couple of weeks ago. 12mm for the ends and 9mm for the sides. I got them to cut to size as I've seen their rip saw before and knew it would a lot more accurate than me trying to cut up a 4'x2' sheet!! I did however cut the cross brace pieces from a sheets of 4'x2' 9mm ply I already had floating about. So I went from from this... to this... ...in a morning's graft! Back to that question I posed earlier. After screwing in the centre struts, I noticed a bow in one side of the frame. On checking the width at this point I found the "2ft" sheet of ply I'd used was actually 23-7/8". Not a lot you might think, but the end plates are bang on 24" and that 1/8" is enough to put the bend in the side. Luckily I have another sheet of ply that measures up the exactly right width so one of this afternoon's tasks is to cut new cross braces and maybe get the 2nd board done. You can see the C&L locating pins in the one frame I've done and I'm using pronged T nuts with bolts to secure the boards together. The frame is just screwed together at the moment but I'll pull it apart again and glue the joints in a bid to make it stronger. There's a bit of flex in it at the moment but hopefully once the decking is in placing it'll become rigid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Mikkel Posted December 13, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2009 Well that looks pretty good to me, but must be annoying with that bow in the frame. Hope you got it fixed ok. I wasn't aware C+L had locating pins in their catalogue, that's very good to know, thanks. I asume you'll be using ply for the decking - if so how how thick? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted December 13, 2009 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2009 Yes, it'll be ply decking, probably go for 12mm. After seeing how the 9mm sides could flex, hopefully the 12mm stuff will be more stable. The bow is sorted out now thankfully, but I need some more ply to make some full height cross braces on board #2, I just reused the "short" ones I took off #1 board for now. Only the right hand board (#3) to make now. I'm debating whether to move the two fixing bolts to the outside of the locating pins and add a 3rd central bolt for more rigidity. It might all be all right though once the decking is on had stiffening the whole structure up. I've made the sides 6" high to allow for cutting down to 4" in the embankment area leaving the station, but I think this is going to cross the join between #2 and #3 so I'll have to get my thinking hat on once the initial construction is completed! And I thought this was going to be the easy part... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 13, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2009 What's the function of the diamond crossover? I admit I'm not an expert on operation, but from purely an engineering point of view it seems redundant. Surely the yard would be simpler served by just a normal RH turnout from the running line? Having not looked in for a few days I do apologise for coming to this one a bit late. As already explained by others the purpose of the diamond was to avoid having a facing point in the passenger running line. Even in a layout as simple as that at Moretonhampstead one facing point was unavoidable as a runround was needed but the diamond avoided providing a second one. Interestingly quite a lot of 'old-fashioned' track layout features seem to have survived on some GW West Country branches - more so than elsewhere on former GW lines judging by photographs. Quite why this should have been so I'm not entirely sure but I suspect it was because there simply wasn't the necessary changes in traffic circumstances to warrant any major changes, unlike many other places on the Company's network. Some particularly complicated features did go but simple ones, such as the Moretonhampstead arrangement survived, thus avoiding the cost of expensive signalling alterations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted December 15, 2009 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 15, 2009 I've not looked, but it struck me that as at least some of the buildings are still extant, the Planning Portal site may be worth a look if the real dimensions of the station area are of interest.... Sorry Mickey, I overlooked your reply from before. I'm not really into getting every bang on, a fair representation is all I'm after. I sometimes struggle with accuracy in my 304.8mm/ft projects so don't really stand much chance in 2mm! That said I will take a look as even though I know I've got compression to get the main station area into 8' it'll be interesting to find out what the real thing measures up to. I have got an OS map from 1958 which I used to make my XtrkCAD plan from and get rough lengths for the platform etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted January 31, 2010 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 31, 2010 Slow progress, but after finally getting to the timber merchant the other week, the tops are now finally on the baseboards. Also given the amount of flex still present in the frame, the number of cross braces was increased to 3 which seem to help matters more than I expected. However even with the 12mm top on, the boards can still be twisted slightly. I could add some diagonal bracing but I'd soon loose the supposed weight advantage of using ply. Never mind, it's not supposed to be a portable layout! When the legs are on it'll probably be sturdy enough. Next job was start to get a feel for space so down went a couple of bits of track, some rolling stock and a couple of buildings. Judging by the space available, this is hopefully going to get the "train in countryside" look. Finally, whilst delays on the baseboards were in progress, a few building kits have been started. I can't say I'm that enamoured with Ratio's suggestion that the station and train shed are supposed to go together. The instructions certainly don't mention having to cut the roof of the station to get the two to fit together! However perseverance paid off and they now fit, I just have to glue one of the shed's legs back on after dropping it during a trial fitting with the station. The roof is made from Ratio slate plastic sheet as the kit only provides a felt roof. Unfortunatley I've managed to put a small bow in it with too much solvent after it split in the middle when cutting to fit to the shed. It should be fixable when the roof is glued to the main shell. Chimneys and coping are still to be added. Weathering is still to applied to the freshly painted shed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Mikkel Posted February 1, 2010 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 1, 2010 Congratulations on getting the first trial bits down on the layout, always a special feeling Thanks for such a good shot of the Ratio trainshed, Ive often wondered how it looked in close-up. Looks pretty good to me, even without one leg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted February 1, 2010 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 1, 2010 Thanks Mikkel, It is a good feeling. I've now made a crude track cutting jig so I can get the track down on the boards and try it all out. Overall the train shed is not too bad a kit. There are however a few annoyances other than not fitting to the station as per the instructions. There is no stonework moulded on the ends of the stone arches, visible in the photo. Also the ornate mouldings visible in the inner corners are supposed to continue inside the shed on each rafter. Luckily you will never be able to see inside, because the parts supplied in the kit do not fit! It makes you wonder if they've ever tried to assemble one of their own kits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 What's the function of the diamond crossover? I admit I'm not an expert on operation, but from purely an engineering point of view it seems redundant. Surely the yard would be simpler served by just a normal RH turnout from the running line? There was a similar arrangement at Cranmore (on the now East Somerset Railway) into the Bitumen depot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted February 2, 2010 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 2, 2010 Grrrr Annoying set back time!!! I've just discovered the SL300FS flexitrack sent to me by Hattons last year is in fact normal code 80!! I'll have the fun task tomorrow of convincing them they have sent the wrong stuff on a 6 month old order and getting them to replace it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Pannier Tank Posted October 16, 2010 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 16, 2010 Sorry Mickey, I overlooked your reply from before. I'm not really into getting every bang on, a fair representation is all I'm after. I sometimes struggle with accuracy in my 304.8mm/ft projects so don't really stand much chance in 2mm! That said I will take a look as even though I know I've got compression to get the main station area into 8' it'll be interesting to find out what the real thing measures up to. I have got an OS map from 1958 which I used to make my XtrkCAD plan from and get rough lengths for the platform etc. Do you have a link to the 1958 OS Map or the Map number as I'd like to obtain a copy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted November 30, 2010 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 30, 2010 If I keep updating the thread at this current rate, I might finish the layout by the beginning of the next century!! My full size hobby occupies the summer months (and lots of the winter too....) and not having sorted proper room to build the layout have meant very slow progress. I have continued on with building construction and finally finished one completely. Well, apart from some final weathering. So I present to you the engine shed! After using an initial grey primer basecoat (Halfords grey acrylic) and trying to get a wash of acrylic in for the mortar, I gave up and sprayed on some white primer. The wash would not settle in the mortar courses without beading up. I tried screen wash and washing up liquid to break the surface tension, to no avail. Once dry, they white was rubbed back to reveal the grey primer on the stone work for the base colour. Using acrylics again (Railmatch "Roof Dirt" for the underlying dark grey), the stonework colour was gradually built up using a dry-brush technique so as not to fill in the mortar. Various Games Workshop colours were then used for the browns to finish off the stonework. The woodwork was painted using Phoenix Precision enamels, similarly for the slate roof. Things were then muckied up using gouache. I have to say I really liked using it.It is very easy to reactivate to remove any bits that are over done and the washes settle nicely in crevices. I used MicroSol as the thinning agent for the gouache, having seen the technique used on a weathering website. It works really well, now I just have to work out what generic fluid it really is. Having said that I've hardly touched the 1fl oz bottle so far. The walls could do with a final wash of gouache to dirty them up a bit more, although the mortar doesn't look as bright under normal lighting, the flash has exaggerated the whiteness of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted December 1, 2010 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 1, 2010 The shed has come out rather nicely but as you say it does need a little dirtying up so the the walls match the roof. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 Hi 57XX from a fellow GWR N Gauger. I really like the way you have detailed the loco shed. It does take time to do it properly but the end result is brilliant. Keep up the good work Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scanman Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Another GW-oriented thread I've just found! Nice engine-shed - but I will admit the one structure that attracted me to the prototype back in the dim'n distant past was the signal cabin on the side of the shed! Regs Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted January 15, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2011 Ian, this foray into N gauge was supposed to be a quick build to get me back into modelling. The glacial progress is far from quick though! If went as far as modelling everything accurately for this location (I too love the quirky little things like the signal cabin attached to the shed), I dread to think when I'd be finished by! Of course getting distracted with building wagon kits and having a chassis kit for my future quest back into OO doesn't help either! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted January 15, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 15, 2011 Ian, this foray into N gauge was supposed to be a quick build to get me back into modelling. The glacial progress is far from quick though! .... I dread to think when I'd be finished by! Are our trainsets ever finished?? Of course getting distracted with building wagon kits and having a chassis kit for my future quest back into OO doesn't help either! However wagon kits are a fun and generally quick fix to a modelling need. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.