Kirkby Luneside (Original): End of the line....

[Physicsman]

Jeff, it's really coming on well.

 

Quick question. Are you planning to add some more cross bracing under the ply track board? It appears from the last pic, there's quite a span of unsupported ply above the main supports. Are you waiting until all the motors are in place before you add additional bracing, or is it rigid enough?

 

To be honest, it's pretty well supported on all sides. However, I'm going to add a 44mm x 44mm brace from front to back, passing between the motors - as you surmised. I couldn't build it in at the start as I'd no idea of the exact position of the Cobalts. I don't think it's necessary, but you know me...

 

Jeff

Edited October 22, 2012 by Physicsman

[gordon s]

Smart move. Sorry Jeff, I knew you had had a good day so was a little wary of asking the question, but have had a mm or two sag between supports in earlier versions of ET, even with a 12mm ply top.

 

Sometimes I wonder if thinner ply is actually better. The Brilliant Baseboards I'm using are only 6mm ply, but their egg crate design seems to work well and they achieve a lot of support in quite a lightweight package.

[aberdare]

Nice work Jeff

 

You are obviously pleased with what you have done and it does look good, at least the straight parts will be easier to lay and quickly make it look complete. The track is very good and better than the Peco I use but it would have been too big a change for me, it would have been something that would have swallowed up a lot of my budget as I already had a Peco supply from my previous versions.

 

Keep the postings coming it makes for interesting reading.

[The Stationmaster]

Jeff,

 

Looking good. How wide will the platform be between the mainline and the branch as a matter of interest?

[peach james]

better 1-2mm than 12mm...which I had on the "temporary" version of Long Marton, built on 1x4's. You'd think, that given the trees around here, I could get decent lumber. Nope...

 

(sorry, I don't have any photos of the stumps out back- suffice to say, in next door's yard, the largest stump is carved (with a chain saw) into a rather large chair, that comfy holds 2 people, and has had 5-6 on it in past)

 

I was very tempted to get made up Aluminum frames for LM v3, because of the long term stability of metal being rather greater than wood. In the end, I went with 4" deep (~100mm) plywood, (3/4" / 16mm) with a 50mm (2") strip dado'd into the middle, to make T shaped framework. It seems to work quite well, with little sag over the 6' (1800mm) long baseboards.

 

If the foundations are not right, the rest is going to be bad too. Tracklaying, take the time to do it right, it's a pain to go back and lift and redo. I know, because I have several bits where I have had to relay track.

 

I like the look of the SMP, I could be very tempted to go that route if I was going to relay LM again.

 

James

[Physicsman]

Apologies for the delay in my reply. I haven't been doing train stuff - an unexpected visitor turned up and, as she's a very attractive lady, deservedly commandeered my attention!!

 

Back to reality!

 

Mike - I had to go out and check the measurement for you. The platform width will come out at near as dammit 6cm.

 

Jim - thanks for the comments and support.

 

Gordon - NEVER worry about making relevant (or even irrelevant!!) comments. I can't plan for every eventuality, or spot a glaring mistake. Others can! So please do draw things to my attention. I'd have loved to pre-build in a central support...I had a goodish idea of where the motors were going, but sod's law has a habit of mucking things up. As they say, "the path is now clear"... So thanks, again.

 

Time for food then it's back into the bunker to cut some SMP.

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

Hi James. I'm certainly taking my time...then after a few days it does look like I've done something!

 

Avoiding sag is a perennial problem for us all. I can walk on top of the baseboards with minimal flexure, but paranoia is a powerful motivator to reinforce everything! Adding extra bracing also give me an excuse to do some more woodwork, which is fine!

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

I thought this revised plan might be useful, for comparison with the track (eg. post 1098), as it's laid. The plan is only approximate (the left side of the fiddle yard - connection to viaduct isn't shown), but the geometry of the main - branch - branch loop is better shown that the previous plan in post 890.

 

Jeff

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Jeff,

Have you altered the trackplan, as I can only see one trailing crossover connecting the up and down mainlines?

 

Not sure how traffic is worked between the mainline and the branch with that layout.

 

Regards,

Peter

[Physicsman]

Jeff,

Have you altered the trackplan, as I can only see one trailing crossover connecting the up and down mainlines?

 

Not sure how traffic is worked between the mainline and the branch with that layout.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

You are eagle-eyed, Peter. Yes, the trailing crossover near the viaduct has gone from the plan above. I suspect primarily because of the version of the Anyrail plan I used to update the branch/branch-loop. It may make a reappearance!!

 

Jeff

[Andrew P]

Such meticulous planning is the thing that I admire with your work Jeff, as with Gordon S, and Tetleys and many many more RM ussers is pays dividens in the long run and will re pay you time and time again with a layout that should give years of enjoyment and excelent running. Now how about a hole in the wall and a loop around the garden, ha ha haheheheheheh Andy.

[The Stationmaster]

Jeff,

Have you altered the trackplan, as I can only see one trailing crossover connecting the up and down mainlines?

Not sure how traffic is worked between the mainline and the branch with that layout.

Regards,

Peter

I have just sent Jeff a fairly lengthy PM (he is quite at liberty to copy the relevant part into this thread if he so wishes). Losing that crossover doesn't really make any difference to moves to/from the branch - although it would be useful if it were to reappear on the curve at the other end between the station and the last connection from the yard.

 

However what is lost is the ability to run round on the mainlines which is why I originally suggested to Jeff that he should put the crossover there - even tho' it was not an ideal site. But the mainlines to branch is still perfectly workable at that end - in fact the crossover would not really have had any role to play in that as the normal move would in any case be through the crossover made by the single slip.

[Physicsman]

Hi Mike, just read your message. Very comprehensive it is, too! Much appreciated - and I won't clutter up the thread with what you said. I'm quite happy with the consequences and workings you suggested.

 

Cheers,

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

Afternoon Andy. Sorry for the delay in replying. I've had more visitors today and haven't managed a minute in the bunker - yet. Quick snack then off we go.

 

The planning has it's pros and cons. I've tried to retain S&C features but there are always practical limitations and unseen consequences - details not needed at this point! However, the planning is fun and, hopefully, there may be some operational interest beyond just "watching the trains go by". As a shunting fan, you'd hope that I'd be doing some of that, too!

 

Jeff

[The Stationmaster]

The whole matter of 'planning' is an interesting one and I'm just starting to look at part of a possible plan for 'the room'. My approach is perhaps a little different from other folk because I start by thinking what I want to do on a track layout then considering what prototypical ways there of doing it, then dimensioning it for what I want to do then seeing if it will fit the space available (16ft along one wall minus the allowance for curvature at each end giving roughly 10 feet of 'straightish' space).

 

The last bit might sound daft but I seem to have a reasonably good 'inbuilt' estimate of what will fit into what space although admittedly in model terms it is probably based more around Peco Code 75 largest radius geometry rather than something more puissant (in other words I might encounter the same problem as Jeff if I tread the Marcway route). But when I have used the same approach on the real thing it has always worked and usually with at least a few yards to spare at the ends so I must have been doing something right.

 

So yes - as Andy so righty made the point - planning right from the start is important and thinking things out carefully at that stage will avoid heartache later, hopefully. So it is really a model railway equivalent of 'measure twice and cut once'.

[coachmann]

Watch out, there's a coachmann about Jeff! I've had the platelayers, tampers and teaboys out this afternoon but at the moment I am keeping my fingers crossed that the weights are in the right places for cambered track and non-cambered track. Are you going to introduce super-elevation?

[Physicsman]

Watch out, there's a coachmann about Jeff! I've had the platelayers, tampers and teaboys out this afternoon but at the moment I am keeping my fingers crossed that the weights are in the right places for cambered track and non-cambered track. Are you going to introduce super-elevation?

 

Hi Larry. A coachmann about, indeed!! I'm not doing anything out of the ordinary with regard to track elevation. I've got some of the mainline straight section fixing itself in place at the moment with regular dabs of PVA to secure it. Sorry to say, I'm fairly unadventurous when it comes to tracklaying!

 

Andy Peters, in post 1111, suggested I put a hole in the wall and take the track round the garden. I immediately thought of you, as that's exactly what you are doing!

 

Btw, I bl***y well hope I don't have to do what you did - and remove some track. Now I'm in the middle of "it", I can appreciate what a pain that must be!

 

Jeff

[Rowsley17D]

Hi Jeff, will we get some more pics any time soon? I totally agree with Mike the Stationmaster and his approach to planning as to what we want our layouts to do then incorporate prototype details to make it all work. I too am in the early days of planning but don't even have access to the loft I want the layout in, but do have rough measurements. So I am not planning the nth degree as things will no doubt change once I have access. I have about 26' in length but even then as Mike says the end curves eat into the "straight bit".

Edited October 24, 2012 by Rowsley17D

[Physicsman]

Hi Jeff, will we get some more pics any time soon? I totally agree with Mike the Stationmaster and his approach to planning as to what we want our layouts to do then incorporate prototype details to make it all work. I too am in the early days of planning but don't even have access to the loft I want the layout in, but do have rough measurements. So I am not planning the nth degree as things will no doubt change once I have access. I have about 26' in length but even then as Mike says the end curves eat into the "straight bit".

 

Hee, hee! Getting withdrawal symptoms and need a fix of new pics!! I will oblige around lunchtime. I've done a fair bit more since the last photos, though progress has been hindered by unannounced guests appearing at my door. Very nice socially, but it doesn't help get the track down!

 

It will be good to see your initial track plan. If you want a second opinion - unless your plan is very close to the prototype - ask Mike (Stationmaster). Does he love his railways!?

 

Anyway, good to hear from you after an intermission - I guess you've been busy. Don't blame you - enjoy your time with the future SWMBO. Remember, once you're married, she controls the purse strings!! Lol!

 

Will try and get pics up later.

 

Best wishes,

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

As requested, here are a couple of pics. Difficult to get decent angles on all of this!

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

Here are two slightly lower angle views. Hopefully of interest!

 

Jeff

['CHARD]

Jeff, what's your minimum radius (apologies if this is clear earlier in the thread), and more importantly, how happy is the SMP at that radius? ie. does it look like it's got a wee bit left to give?

 

I've a tunnel section that's an unforgiving radius, and am contemplating leaving it as Peco with a transition joint either end, just inside the portal.

[Physicsman]

Jeff, what's your minimum radius (apologies if this is clear earlier in the thread), and more importantly, how happy is the SMP at that radius? ie. does it look like it's got a wee bit left to give?

 

I've a tunnel section that's an unforgiving radius, and am contemplating leaving it as Peco with a transition joint either end, just inside the portal.

 

I've got one bend, bottom right hand corner of the plan (post 1108) at 24". I've tried to keep to greater than 40" everywhere, but that part is "tight". I've not tried fitting the SMP down there yet, but playing around with a 24" Tracksetta, with the outer web cut, the SMP doesn't seem to mind the curve.

 

Hope that helps! Btw, good to hear you are "on the go" again. Vive le Waverley!

 

Jeff

Edited October 28, 2012 by Physicsman

[Rowsley17D]

On lunch. Thanks for the pics Jeff, seems to be coming along very nicely now that you have some of the turnouts connected by plain track. I thought while I had no useful comments to make I would just observe progress, although was away on a three-day course last week. I assume you still remember what those are? As to comments about future SWMBO holding the purse-strings, given that we met in the NRM she has slightly less interest in things railway than me. Also we are planning to have the new house garage converted to a music room for her and and have agreed that I will be spending a proportional amount on converting the loft and installing a layout - a prenuptual agreement I suppose.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Rowsley17D

['CHARD]

I've got one bend, bottom right hand corner of the plan (post 1108) at 24". I've tried to keep to greater than 40" everywhere, but that part is "tight". I've not tried fitting the SMP down there yet, but playing around with a 24" Tracksetta, with the outer web cut, the SMP doesn't seem to mind the curve.

 

Hope that helps! Btw, good to here you are "on the go" again. Vive le Waverley!

 

Jeff

 

Cheers Jeff, and yeah I'm looking forward to getting a few days off soon to really knuckle down and get things straight. I've a list of 'bright ideas' as long as my arm, now it's time to walk the walk!!!