coachmann Posted December 6, 2012 Author Share Posted December 6, 2012 Save your money at Coral and read post #490. You'de be on a safer bet for Ed Miliband as head of Intelligence... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted December 6, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 6, 2012 Save your money at Coral and read post #490. You'de be on a safer bet for Ed Miliband as head of Intelligence... Evening Larry. I've just gone through the last couple of pages on Greenfield and the way your thread has gone has restored my sanity in KL. I was beginning to worry about too many people having their say and whether my thread was making any progress. But it's great to see your thread running along similar lines with the usual tons of helpful contributions and plenty of humour. I suspect you are sticking with the Peco. Just be aware of the limitations on virtually all forms of modelling and think of the strengths of your layout - of which there are many - rather than a couple of (apparent) weaknesses. You have a lovely flow to the trackwork and the reproduction of the 50s Greenfield is, at times, exquisite. And remember - if you want more Peco, I've a stash of it... cheap! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted December 6, 2012 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! nah putting an outside bet on tt3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Dr Gerbil-Fritters is wishing he hadn't taken all his old Peco track to the tip. Apparently it's much in demand in certain parts of the country... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted December 10, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 10, 2012 Nice work Larry. I really admire your tenacity. You'll feel much better for doing this and it should finally reap rewards with a permanent "permanent way". :-) Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNER4479 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Bread 'n butter work completed, it was time to ponder points at 45mm track centres instead of the more usual 50mm centres. I first carried out an experiment to see if a coach coming off a Peco 43" radius Code 83 point would clash with one on an adjacent straight track. There was sufficient clearance between the vehicles so I made a start...... Two Peco 60" radius points were cut as shown to form a crossover.... The RH and LH crossovers proved successful so a start was made on the double junction. This is all Peco Code 83 No.6 points and matching diamond... All the points have been converted ready for tracklaying day. Although not readily apparant in the photos, the crossovers are on a subtle curve, but the double junction is straight (for the moment!).... That's the spirit Coach! The crossovers look great and I'm sure you'll be putting the most gentlest of curves in the double junction before long(!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Rowsley17D Posted December 11, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 11, 2012 Those code 83s turnouts look much better than the code 75s. Cannot wait to see these laid (again) Larry. It's a bit cool here for setting PVA, hope you've got that heater on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Jason T Posted December 11, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 11, 2012 If you are mulling it over Larry, then I presume that it is along the lines of 'is it worth it?' and if so, then yes it is worth it. It really does look so much better, despite the hassles with the height difference. You know that you'll end up laying it at some point anyway, even if you do put the Peco flexi down first Am I correct in thinking that C&L flexi sits slightly higher? If so, although it wouldn't be the same height as the Peco, it may require less packing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merfyn Jones Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Too cold to work outdoors I think, so I'm off for a brisk walk. Close-encounters of the 45mm kind will continue today with a single-slip and a point. The old brain cells are working overtime at the minute wondering whether to go for SMP again....And all the associated bother.. My vote , the SMP or the C&L, I prefer the C&L. Bin the Peco stuff for the plain line. Merf. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share Posted December 11, 2012 If you are mulling it over Larry, then I presume that it is along the lines of 'is it worth it?' and if so, then yes it is worth it. It really does look so much better, despite the hassles with the height difference. You know that you'll end up laying it at some point anyway, even if you do put the Peco flexi down first Am I correct in thinking that C&L flexi sits slightly higher? If so, although it wouldn't be the same height as the Peco, it may require less packing? An interesting question, which I hope someone can answer. Anyone got an inch or two off-cut of C&L they could spare.....? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve fay Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Go for SMP or C & L the results are far better. It made a huge difference on the parts you relaid before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 C Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 An interesting question, which I hope someone can answer. Anyone got an inch or two off-cut of C&L they could spare.....? Larry, PM me your address and I'll stick a piece in the post to you today. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNER4479 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 The old brain cells are working overtime at the minute wondering whether to go for SMP again....And all the associated bother.. If I may add a comment (well, more of a thought actually)? There's no doubt that SMP or C&L is better looking track in its own right. But can you live with the visual discontinuity between that for plain line and the Peco points? Afterall, if 'perfect' looking track were your aim you wouldn't be messing about with Peco points but handbuilding (or having someone do it for you) the points to the precise geometry of the actual location If the overall 'sweep' of the curve and the mainline feel to the alignment/spacing is more the aim then it might not make that much difference, particularly when painted/weathered. Just a thought Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 11, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 11, 2012 There's no doubt that SMP or C&L is better looking track in its own right. But can you live with the visual discontinuity between that for plain line and the Peco points? My rationale for that is the pointwork has been relaid in flat bottom rail. Now the interesting step forward from that is to start looking at contemporaneous prototype pics - from in my case the early '60s - and lo & behold you could find relatively new flat bottom pointwork in all sorts of unlikely places. Sometimes truth is even more helpful than fiction Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share Posted December 11, 2012 My rationale for that is the pointwork has been relaid in flat bottom rail. Now the interesting step forward from that is to start looking at contemporaneous prototype pics - from in my case the early '60s - and lo & behold you could find relatively new flat bottom pointwork in all sorts of unlikely places. Sometimes truth is even more helpful than fiction How true.....Delph Junction a mile down the line from Greenfield was flat bottom while the mainline and Delph branch were bullhead, and this was in the early 1950s. There's no doubt that SMP or C&L is better looking track in its own right. But can you live with the visual discontinuity between that for plain line and the Peco points? Afterall, if 'perfect' looking track were your aim you wouldn't be messing about with Peco points but handbuilding (or having someone do it for you) the points to the precise geometry of the actual location If the overall 'sweep' of the curve and the mainline feel to the alignment/spacing is more the aim then it might not make that much difference, particularly when painted/weathered. Just a thought This has been put into words far better than I could express... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Perhaps get rid of the silly bent/joined sleepers Peco chose to put at the end of their turnouts? They look very toy like.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted December 14, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 14, 2012 Larry, you must be exhausted after the goings-on of the last 3 months! I hope, for your sake, that you've finally settled on a solution that you're happy with. It'll be good to see the final play in the tracklaying - no doubt you'll be posting plenty of pics. I wonder how many more quips you'll get before the whole project is completed? Best wishes, Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Hi Larry, That's an excellent set of images - I can see why you were so impressed with the C&L track. I've been having a go with your technique for laying and ballasting track, but I've ended up with a fairly inconsistent coverage of ballast. In places it's stuck quite thickly, in others there is only a bare minimum, and the cork is showing through. How do you ensure you get a thickish coverage? Have you had to go back over it to add more at any point? If so, how did you do it? Thanks, Michael ps. Now now Jeff, be nice, and don't pick on Larry. Pick up his track for him instead Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 14, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 14, 2012 Larry did you find the flange depth ok on C&L track? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Larry did you find the flange depth ok on C&L track? Glad you picked up on that Mike. I agree the C & L has a more substantial sleeper base but have heard of flanges hitting the chairs... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy C Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 And just when Larry felt it was safe to go back in the water again....... Its a weird phoenomenon it only does it on some wheels and some track - there was a length of track on Spotland Bridge where the dubdee rattled the tops of the chairs all the time, yet other locos would pass through no problem. Similarly theres one or two spots on New hey ditto and similar. Ive never been able to get to the bottom of it - but the passing of a needle file over the tops of the inside chairs at the offending spot can cure the problem! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 Larry did you find the flange depth ok on C&L track? Yes. I tested various wheels from Romford to Bachmann, then the ultimate test was with my Bachmann LMS 'Crab' which for some reason has rather deep flanges. It's the loco in the pictures. My other 'Crab' had its flanges reduced on a lathe because of the Peco Code 83 flangeways, but an easier method was later found.......Increase the depth of the flangeways with a narrow file! Jeff Physicsman, not exhaused one bit, as I doubt if modelling will cease to be relaxing and 'fun' until I'm six foot under. I waited patiently for two years to get started, but it's my nature to mess about until things suit me. Rest assured, this C&L really fits the bill, but there is no hurry now. I'll go in the shed one day and by the end of the week the track will be finished, wired and platforms back in place. Then I'll return to pondering on hillsides and backscenes. Andy C.....It sounds if there is a little inconsistency with the chairs but as you say, a file will sort things. I consider the appearance of the track is worth a bit of effort. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Aha, I see a cunning plan here... if we all chip in a small sample of track, Larry will have enough to complete Greenfield and make a start on the garden extension and all for free! Of course, it'll all be different rail heights, and sleeper depths and possibly gauge too. nothing a bit of fettling with cork shouldn't manage to sort out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekEm8 Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Larry, I don't know if you have seen this (ref RCTS locos of the LNER Part 3B pp96-97) But if you want a reason for a D11/1 on Greenfield in the mid 50s here it is "Perhaps the most interesting use of Directors was on the "Pennine Pullman" promoted by Ian Allan Ltd., on 12th May 1956, starting from Marylebone and finishing at King's Cross. The ten-coach train, of which nine were Pullman cars, was hauled by Nos. 62664 and 62662 between Midland Junction, Ardwick where they relieved D.C. electric locomotiveNo. 27002 and ran via the Brewery curve at Miles Platting, Rochdale, Sowerby Bridge, Horbury, Barnsley, the west curve at Mex-borough and the Darnall curve to Rotherwood sidings where they handed over to class A4 No. 60014. To introduce the Directors to Newton Heath men who were rostered to crew them on this occasion, the engines were sent there some days beforehand and worked the 8-35 a.m. Manchester Victoria-Blackburn, the 6-2 a.m. Greenfield-Leeds returning on the 9-15 a.m. (SX), 9-20 a.m. (SO) Leeds-Manchester Victoria, and the 5-35 p.m. Manchester Victoria-Todmorden as well as several local freight and parcels trains on certain of the intervening days." HTH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I am not a chicken anymore and so to my naked eye the Peco track sufficed and actually looked rather good. It would have saved me messing about with differing sleeper rail heights, but I am also aware that things look very different under the scrutiny of a track level digital camera and that close encounters of this kind focus on the trackwork. Through the kind offices of Andy (5C), a sample of C&L flexitrack arrived this afternoon. Where else could one obtain this kind of assistance? I am ever so gratful Andy and an order was promptly placed for 25 yards. So thats the track sorted for the final incarnation of Greenfield. I thought the following might be of interest. Now I am thinking about laying a bet at the bookies that Coachman now he is going to use C&L track either starts building his own turnouts or re sleepers the Peco ones by the summer. Must be worth ten bob each way. I must admit the C&L track will realy complement Coachmans beautiful stock and scenic work Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.