RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 30, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 30, 2012 The Shunters in the Bristol Yard at Severn Tunnel Jcn were quite good at doing things like that to stop blocks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 It's the pesky track again! It's coming up again! In a spirit of trying to be helpful - what is it that's bothering you? Perhaps a little objective analysis will help you decide what you want. I'm suspecting that OO Peco Points are not doing it for you any more... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted December 2, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 2, 2012 It's coming up again! You've had money on this at Joe Coral, haven't you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 You had me going ... whereas actually I know you're going to convert it to O scale! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 The canopy support pillars have broke off so often.......Give me something I can solder anyday! Anyone know of any etched LNWR canopy edging....? Larry, I designed some LNWR etched brackets and valance for London Road, based on the drawings in Jack Nelson's LNWR Portrayed. The brackets are now available from London Road Models http://www.scalefour.org/LondonRoadModels/various/architectural-kits/ The valance is also available but as it is on an etch for another kit may not always be in stock so isn't listed on the website at present. You can contact John Redrup at LRM through lrmenquiries@hotmail.co.uk Goeff Taylor also does etched brackets and valances http://www.gtbuildingsmodels.co.uk/page8.html Jol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I'm buying shares in Peco and cork manufacturers.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNER4479 Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Dissatisfaction for a whole week(!) turned to hope when I read about closer track centres.....The perfect excuse!........Instead of playing silly beggars jacking up un-level trackwork, it looked far more attractive to start afresh but this time with closer spaced track. All-Peco trackwork for ease that will go down perfectly level has been settled on. Oops! As I feel partly responsible for this, I really do hope this provides the ellusive answer for you Coach. A couple of comments if I may: Be careful with the closer track centres around the double junction. The mainlines should be fine and their alignment should be the priority to capture the 'look'. but I would recommend that, for the curve of the Oldham lines going off, you don't set the centres at 45mm through the junction but let them merge to that dimension shortly afterwards. I say this from experience as, on the first junction I set out like this, when two trains passed on the curve, the overthrows were such that the corners of the coaches on the inner track caught the midriff of the coaches on the outer tracks a glancing blow. I'd hate to be responsible for knocking the door handles off your wonderful coaching stock! I was going to suggest a handbuilt double junction to the absolute correct dimensions (crossing angles, etc) to ensure your satisfaction with the look (the rest should be OK in Peco) - but it looks like you've already opted for the all Peco option. That should certainly give you the smooth running. I always find it a sobering thought that the Peco long radius point at approx 5 foot radius is equivalent to approx 6 chains of the prototype. That is in practice a severe radius. To put into context, I believe that the curve through York railway station is at 9 chains radius - not exactly a curve you could take at high speed! So it's perhaps not too surprising how we modellers sometimes struggle to make the Peco track 'fit'. Look forward to see how you get on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted December 4, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 4, 2012 Larry, just put a comment on KL re. track centres, in reply to your recent post there. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNER4479 Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Spreading the track centres will apply to the mainline so that a train joining it off the branch will not hit an Up train. ...or you could simply issue an operating instruction that trains off the branch cannot proceed unless Up main is clear?! Seems a shame to compromise the look to cater for what might only be an occasional conflict? What exactly will be the frequency of trains coming off the branch compared to the mainline?(!) For info, the main curve on my layout (north of Grantham station) is set out at 6 foot radius maintaining the 45mm track centres - nothing has hit yet! But I would agree with Physicsman's observations that once you get much down below 5 foot radius then time to start easing it out a bit. However your curve through Greenfield is so slight by comparison that it shouldn't be a worry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy C Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 That trackworks been on and off like a brides nightie! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Let's see, so far Coach hasn't yet tried EM, P4, O scale, S7 and since he's extending into the garden how about 1 scale? Plenty more lifting of the Bride's Nightie still to come... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted December 5, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 5, 2012 The (slightly) narrow gauge of OO means that a true 4mm scale 6-foot way is inadequate, even before we get to the common use of tight curves on most layouts - better described as bends, really - resulting in end- and centre-throw kinematic envelope problems. Peco has simply allowed for this in their design. Some of us find it easier to accept than others. Still others opt for a more scale-width gauge, with all the non-RTR issues that involves. Only you know how much this bothers you, Larry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JZ Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I think it looks fine, but then I live in former broad guage territory and our 6 foot often bigger than others. I think you would have a better impression if you were to look at it with trains on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 5, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 5, 2012 There are a whole series of visual problems with the 'narrow gauge' (16.5mm gauge) track many of us use but one way of altering the visual perception is to go for a more realistic 6ft (and 10ft) but the 6ft does require widening on curves as Jeff has found on Kirkby Luneside. What suits Larry suits Larry but I think in the Greenfield representation he is seeking a nearer to scale 6ft will make a big visual difference when he compares what he is achieving with the real place, which will also show up in the comparison with the various 10fts as well. I got round the problem on my last (portable) layout by developing a single line with adjacent sidings and thus made Peco's overscale spacing for running lines more exactly suit my purpose with sidings. When Cwmfellin (or Goytre) gets off the ground I will not have that choice as the main visual part will be double line although I can space the station platforms to reflect a once upon a time broad gauge line albeit stretching history somewhat but my liberties with that aren't anywhere near as bad as my attacks on South Walian geography; and fortunately I have more than a few handy comparative references for broad and 'narrow' (in the GWR sense) 6ft spacings as I live handily enough for stations with examples of both easily visible from the one footbridge. Decision time is in the future for me but I'm keeping a close eye on Grantham, Kirkby Luneside, and Greenfield to look and learn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNER4479 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 There are a whole series of visual problems with the 'narrow gauge' (16.5mm gauge) track many of us use but one way of altering the visual perception is to go for a more realistic 6ft (and 10ft) but the 6ft does require widening on curves as Jeff has found on Kirkby Luneside. What suits Larry suits Larry but I think in the Greenfield representation he is seeking a nearer to scale 6ft will make a big visual difference when he compares what he is achieving with the real place, which will also show up in the comparison with the various 10fts as well. Spot on, as far as I am concerned SM (although it's all down to personal preference at the end of the day - or at least what one is prepared to tolerate). The track centres thing I think is tied in with the whole pecularity of the British loading gauge, being far more restricted than just about anywhere else in the world(!) which gives it its distinctive 'look'. I guess as we were 'first on the scene' in terms of railway technology, we built our railways only as big as they appeared to need to be in the 1840's or so. That unfortunately and inadvertantly set the standards for the future (the former GW broad gauge lines being the big exception). You only have to think about all the 19th century tunnels and viaducts on the network that have effectively enshrined the basic '6 foot' track centres into virtual perpetuity. Only the largest and grandest re-building schemes (eg WCML Trent Valley renewal) stand a chance of 'breaking the mould'. I think Coach's Connundrum is encapsulated in posting #410 (19.11.12). This was after the change to the continuous curve through Greenfield and #410 showed both the model and prototype view from roughly the same spot (the footbridge). We all liked it at the time but if you're really hard-nosed about it and look beyond the train to the tracks in the area of the trailing crossover the track centres 'thing' is all too obvious. Fingers crossed Coach that the relaying job will lead to the elusive satisfaction you seek Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Us Wiganers are to blame !! From the book "The Wigan Branch Railway" (D Sweeney). At a meeting of the board of directors for the Wigan Branch Railway (Parkside - Liverpool & Manchester Rly to Wigan - now part of the West coast main line) in December 1830, the engineer, Vignoles was instructed to furnish an estimate for the New Springs branch - Ince Mill to New Springs (Wigan), and at this same meeting, the distance between running lines, the way, was fixed at 6 feet. However, at the next board meeting, perhaps with Huskisson's accident at Parkside in mind, it was decided to increase this to 6' 6". The board met again twice in April 1831, and after much debate, finally decided on the 6 foot "way". I suppose the best answer to Coaches problem is EM or P4. For me there's nowt wrong with what he has allready done. Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I think EM or P4 is probably too much effort and cost in respect to re-wheeling a large amount of stock, but I wonder if OO with handbuilt prototypical appearance turnouts and crossings is a good compromise for best visual effect? Would OO-FS require new wheel sets, so be almost as much effort/expense as EM/P4? Given that there are relatively few turnouts in such a large space, don't they warrant the same amount of attention that locos and coaches get? Whilst I wouldn't want to suggest I'm anywhere near Coach's stellar league, I've given up on trying to make anything of RTP turnouts and had mine built in P87 to prototype appearance. Not as expensive as I had feared, and once I've seen how they're put together I will feel confident in making (copying) my own. Mind you, my current scheme only requires four turnouts in fourteen linear feet - even Larry's has more than that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 An alternative is to widen the sleeper spacings on the Peco track, as in the photos on this thread on another forum. http://yourmodelrailway.net/view_topic.php?id=10283&forum_id=21 Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNER4479 Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 From the book "The Wigan Branch Railway" (D Sweeney). At a meeting of the board of directors for the Wigan Branch Railway (Parkside - Liverpool & Manchester Rly to Wigan - now part of the West coast main line) in December 1830, the engineer, Vignoles was instructed to furnish an estimate for the New Springs branch - Ince Mill to New Springs (Wigan), and at this same meeting, the distance between running lines, the way, was fixed at 6 feet. However, at the next board meeting, perhaps with Huskisson's accident at Parkside in mind, it was decided to increase this to 6' 6". The board met again twice in April 1831, and after much debate, finally decided on the 6 foot "way". That's a really great snippet 70015 which I haven't seen before. Thanks for posting. Somewhere I have a picture of a steam age track gang at work (in East Anglia somewhere I think?) and - sure enough - there is the foreman with a measuring bar, checking to make sure that the '6 foot' is being maintained. I'll see if I can find it. Great debate. Hope you don't mind your thread hosting this Coach? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I may not have the foresight to see my faults and I never allow hindsight to get in the way of a few good alterations. Regarding the real Greenfield Station and environs, tracks were squeezed together in a limited space after a ledge had been cut into the hillside. Squeezing the Oldham Branch in at a later date meant even more cutting into the hillside and more squeezing of tracks. This is why the Oldham bay had to be end-on to the mainline platforms. The goods yard had no meaningful headshunt and wagons were shifted about a few at a time unless the mainline was used as a headshunt under the watchful eye of the signalman. The same applied to the Royal George yard across the tracks. These and the carriage sidings, neither of which are included on my layout, were a lesson on how the LNWR squeezed a quart into a pint pot. The image below shows how widely spaced all the tracks are through using Peco geometry. They are almost toylike in appearance and only the yard sidings are about right to allow men to work between wagons.... Larry, I think the issue is not about the track spacing as I'm using 50mm on ET. I think it's more to do with the radius of the pointwork and the crossing angle. Apologies for posting this in your thread, but here's one of my double junctions on ET with the same spacing as your own. Others may disagree but having 8' radius and a shallow crossing angle takes away the 'toy like appearance'.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted December 6, 2012 Author Share Posted December 6, 2012 That is one b e a u t i f u l junction Gordon.....I have always admired your trackwork. I'm not sure if I have mentioned it before but I didn't like the replacement Peco Code 75 junction once it was finished. Taking it out and putting back a Code 83 junction with its shallower angle meant altering the tracks as well. Track is the bedrock of the model railway, so I decided that I may as well replace the whole lot and incorporate closer track centres at the same time. I realise it looks uneccesary to some people but it's how I work, plus track laying and ballasting is niether difficult nor a chore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I totally sympathise Larry. Lost count of the times I've ripped up stuff. It doesn't matter if it looks fine to others, it what it looks like to you that's the most important bit. I can't live with stuff that I'm not happy with, no matter what others say. Strangely the opposite is also true.... I keep looking at your pic and still trying to accept the tracks are on 50mm centres. It looks so much more than that.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted December 6, 2012 Author Share Posted December 6, 2012 Well, the Code 83 Insulfrog diamond crossing arrived today, so everything including cork and track are now in stock ready for weekend possesion! First job is to chisel up and remove old cork, clean up the plywood and glue down new 1/8" cork. Then the plotting begins! For those who prefer action, Greenfield will have caught up with Loony Kerbside and that little hamlet outside Rochdale by next weekend.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Olddudders, I've got a fiver on EM before New Years on at Coral's again, are you in? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted December 6, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 6, 2012 I think EM, while a major improvement upon OO, is not quite the whole nine yards. If Larry goes for it big time, P4 or nothing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.