Wright writes.....

[Dominion]

I started track building by reading John’s thread “Hayfields turnout workbench”, watching the Norman Solomon DVD Tony mentions, and reading Gordon’s Eastwood Town thread.

 

I then started using Martin Wynne’s fabulous Templot software. This allowed me to configure and print build templates that exactly matched the geometry I wanted. I am also learning a lot about real track as I use Martin’s software as he has built a vast amount of knowledge into the software and notes.

I build in OO-SF with mostly plastic chairs and both plastic and ply timbers and the techniques I think are applicable to EM. I have built dozens of turnouts and slips now and one 3 way so far. They work much better than I thought they would when I started. 

Then British Finescale started producing kits in 4mm scale in the gauge I wanted and they are really excellent. I now use those whenever they suit the geometry I want and handbuild only the items not yet available from Wayne.

I encourage you to try. My first turnout from individual components was okish but not used, the second one was quite useable, and all subsequent ones run better than ready to lay commercial track.

Good luck, Tom

Edited August 28, 2023 by Dominion
Added “ready to lay”

[Mark Laidlay]

On 26/08/2023 at 10:57, Craigw said:

Mark, 

I think you are mistaken here. While it is not used on a heritage line. NSW has the only VR steam power running on the correct gauge :)

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

We would all be on Broad Gauge if the colonial government of NSW hadn't broken the inter-colonial agreement and built Stephenson's Gauge....

 

[Barclay]

13 hours ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Hi everyone,

 

Don't suppose we have any EM Gauge modellers on here that are willing to offer some advice? I'm really struggling with getting the ball rolling with Track Construction, and any advice on articles, videos, shopping lists or any hints and tips would be massively appreciated!

 

I'm a member of the EMGS and haven't found any articles that seem to help me with my construction method (Ply sleepers and Plastic Chairs) unfortunately!

Hi Dylan, the members' area of the EMGS website contains the manual, which contains a lot of info on track construction, including using functional chairs on ply sleepers.

[MJI]

8 hours ago, lezz01 said:

Well not so much anymore. We have plain track and B6 turnouts made by Peco through the EMGS stores. You also have British Finescale turnout kits that are about as easy as falling off a log to build you don't even need a set of gauges anymore. As long as you don't need a diamond or slips/tandems you can do it just as easily as you can do 00 gauge now. All you really need to do differently is change the wheel sets of your stock. You can even buy EM and P4 wheelsets from some loco manufacturers, SLW even fit them for you. So it's nowhere near as difficult as it used to be. I would be a little careful with the method advocated in Rice's book though as it's a hybrid system. As for sticking plastic chairs to ply sleeper don't worry about that at all as they stick just fine although you do need something a little stronger than Slaters MEKPAC as it is quite weak and whilst it's fine for hard plastic it's not too good on ABS or whatever C&L et al make their chairs out of.  Plasweld works fine as it's stronger. I get my solvent from eBay at 100% strength 2 litres at a time and let it down with water. I do the same with phosphoric acid as it's way way cheaper.  

Regards Lez.  

Not even EM but OO, 40 quid a point is rather a lot and one has to be custom built do may as well do all the steam section.

 

80s getting track from my stocks and lifting from a will not get used layout in garage

[PMP]

9 hours ago, lezz01 said:

I would be a little careful with the method advocated in Rice's book though as it's a hybrid system.

It isn’t a hybrid system, he recommends a few locations where a rivet can be used and rail soldered to it. The rest he glued plastic to ply sleepers so it’s pretty much exactly as @Dylan Sandersonwants to do. I used it as my primary instruction source when starting from exactly the same place Dylan is and built my layout using it. I wasn’t a member of any society or club at the time either.

It covers the prototype things like super elevation, special chairs, physical control mechanisms, electrical elements and wiring configuration too, for a one stop reference manual I’ve not seen anything better. As it was written 30 years ago it doesn’t cover DCC but that’s not really a issue. 

Edited August 28, 2023 by PMP
Add

[Bernard Lamb]

Going back even further there is MRJ No 8, which has an excellent article by Ian Pusey, using what at that time was a new system being produced by/for Alan Gibson. This might be better known these days as C & L. It was the first finescale track that I built, after moving on from copper clad soldered construction. With various choices of rtl track available today I still find the chairs and sleepers handy for the odd situation. Bostick rather than solvent anybody?

Bernard 

[Tony Wright]

Showing pictures of the J6 built by Tony Weber for Gilbert Barnatt reminded me of the J6s which run permanently on Little Bytham. There are currently five; there used to be more, but one went to Retford (re-gauged) and a Graeme King resin-bodied one went to a friend. 

 

I quite liked the 'shunting' views of Tony's J6, so thought I'd try a few similar ones with three of my own J6s. One advantage of a non-'flat earth' layout is it allows 'looking upward' views.

 

 

Like this.

 

 

Or this.

 

 

As well as 'eye-level' shots.

 

This is a London Road Ivatt J6, built/painted/weathered by me. 

 

Other J6s were built from Nu-Cast kits...........

 

 

 

Such as this one; built/painted by me and weathered by Geoff Haynes. 

 

 

And this one (alongside my LRM one), which tows a London Road tender (everything built/painted/weathered by me). 

 

Aren't J6s attractive locos? Attractive enough to ever be made available RTR, I wonder? I'm told the class polls consistently highly on various wish-lists.

 

My apologies for the wonky loading gauge seen in some of the above shots. It was built from etched brass and brass section and was true and straight. Then, I had the lights replaced in Bytham's home with LEDs, and covered the layout in dust sheets to prevent contamination during the process. Everything was fine until I removed the sheet covering the loading gauge, without thinking! Yes, you've guessed it - it all got tangled up and uprooted. I'll have to remake it, I think. 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Tony Wright
to add something

[BMacdermott]

51 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Aren't J6s attractive locos?

 

Attractive enough to ever be made available RTR, I wonder? I'm told the class polls consistently highly on various wish-lists.

 

Hello Tony

 

Very much agree there!

 

The J6 hovered in the upper echelons of Middle Polling for many years but went into High Polling in 2019 and then the Top 50 in 2022. It was actually in position =37 overall.

 

The Poll didn't run in 2017, 2020 or 2021. The next Poll to  run will be December 2024.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[MikeTrice]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

One advantage of a non-'flat earth' layout is it allows 'looking upward' views.

 

 

Like this.

 

Always good but out of interest how many prototype photos do you know of that replicate this view?

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, MikeTrice said:

Always good but out of interest how many prototype photos do you know of that replicate this view?

 

To my mind, it replicates what would have been a common angle of view to passers-by on the road or footpath at the level of the bottom of the embankment. So, an everyday view, if not one often photographed. Does model photography have to recreate prototype photography?

[DaveF]

39 minutes ago, MikeTrice said:

Always good but out of interest how many prototype photos do you know of that replicate this view?

 

How about this one?

 

Stanton Gate Beyer Garratt shunting c1952 JVol2181  Taken by Dad (John Ford)

 

David

[johndon]

I'll offer up this one:

 

[Northmoor]

One of my first published photos (I'm sure many will recognise the location):

 

Looking up at the train isn't a common viewpoint, but then about 95% of train photos are three-quarter views of locomotives, taken from platform ends.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

To my mind, it replicates what would have been a common angle of view to passers-by on the road or footpath at the level of the bottom of the embankment. So, an everyday view, if not one often photographed. Does model photography have to recreate prototype photography?

Good evening Stephen,

 

'Does model photography have to recreate prototype photography?'

 

A very interesting question; to which my answer is a qualified 'yes'. It's very much what I try to do, and it's one of the reasons why I always advocate modelling an actual prototype (whether that be a whole scene or individual items in it). That way, at least to me, is the ultimate 'acid-test', especially when modelling a real location. The model can be compared with the real thing, checked whether it's accurate and, if so, judged accordingly. Made-up/fictitious locations never have the same 'accuracy' to me, no matter how good the standard of modelling might be.

 

The 'qualification' of my 'yes' is with regard to studio photography of models, where the background is entirely neutral, with no attempt to site a model in a depiction of an actual location.

 

Of course, in some ways taking 'realistic' model photographs is more difficult than taking prototype pictures, not least the specialised (and very expensive) camera/lighting equipment which I need to obtain the results I seek. Then there's the post-processing - the real things have natural backgrounds and skies, which, for most of the time have to be added in the digital darkroom - it used to be Frisk film, a scalpel, designer's gouache, an airbrush and extremely bad language! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, MikeTrice said:

Always good but out of interest how many prototype photos do you know of that replicate this view?

Good evening Mike,

 

A low (perceived) view is very common (for instance, there must be just as many underbridges as there are overbridges on our railway system), but there certainly does not seem to be as many images taken. 

 

Looking through my books where my photographs of prototype railways have been published, they're certainly in a minority. They're mainly (as with most others) three-quarter front views of locos and trains at eye level or elevated. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

One of my first published photos (I'm sure many will recognise the location):

 

Looking up at the train isn't a common viewpoint, but then about 95% of train photos are three-quarter views of locomotives, taken from platform ends.

Great shot, Rob!

 

Shap, I assume?

 

Graham Nicholas' fantastic rendition of Shap in OO allowed me to get some 'upward-looking' shots.........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compared with 'most' model railway shots, these are quite 'dramatic' in a way. Indeed, it was not many years ago when just about all model railway photographs were taken from a 'helicopter', looking down!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

The main difficulty in getting 'upward-looking' model railway photographs is that most layouts are 'flat-earth'; that is to say, in the main, the track-bed is the lowest datum, and everything is then built above it. Which is easier, I suppose, though how many layouts does one see based in the Fens? And, even then, lots of watercourses should be modelled. 

 

A few examples where the trackbed (at least in part) is above the general topography, enabling my taking of these 'upward' shots. 

 

 

I had to lie down to get this picture on Alan Brackenborough's outside O Gauge line. 

 

 

A fair bit of Barrie Walls' wonderful Wallsea in O Gauge was outside, and elevated.

 

 

The formation to the north of Grantham station is above 'ground' level on Graham Nicholas' OO Gauge splendid recreation (Graham is definitely not a flat-earth advocate!).

 

 

I was standing in the 'sea' to get this picture on Kingstorre in EM! 

 

 

Part of Gilbert Barnatt's original OO loft layout could be photographed from below, but not so on his current Peterborough North (which is correct).

 

 

Looking up at impressive bridges can be effective, as here on Scarlington in N Gauge.

 

 

I was in a boat on the Ouse when taking this shot of a B1 (OO) coming into York from Scarborough. 

 

Does anyone else have model 'upward-looking' views? I'll try and find some more..............

 

 

[Bucoops]

They aren't my photos, but near where I live it is hard to get a photo when on the same level as the railway (and these days it is hard to SEE the railway)...

 

[Izzy]

 

I've always built my P4 track using plastic chairs on ply sleepers since the chairs first arrived. Previous to this I used whitemetal chairs glued to the ply sleepers with evo-stick. I have also always used a few rivets at the crossings and closure/stock rails both to give positive location for these items and provide electrical connections to the rails/crossings. A few chairs cut in half are fitted around these once the track has been laid, wired, and tested to ensure it works okay. I've used both Mek-pak and Butonone to fix the chairs in place. The latter provides a stronger joint but the chairs cannot be lifted by sliding a scalpel underneath and re-positioned as can be done with the former.  I've never had any track fail in any way on layouts built for myself or others due to lifting chairs etc. After a short while it takes quite some force to pull the rail away from the track. Usually the chairs will disintergrate with the bases remaining on the sleepers, the bond being that strong as the plastic tends to seep into the grain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The track is laid down on Templot templates with thin strips (3mm wide) of double-sided tape to be made and can be easily removed by using a bit of turps to break the glue joint.

 

 

 

These days I lay the track down using two 10mm wide strips of d/s tape - under the rail position - and ballasting once all is found to work okay.

 

Bob

[coronach]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

The main difficulty in getting 'upward-looking' model railway photographs is that most layouts are 'flat-earth'; that is to say, in the main, the track-bed is the lowest datum, and everything is then built above it. Which is easier, I suppose, though how many layouts does one see based in the Fens? And, even then, lots of watercourses should be modelled. 

 

A few examples where the trackbed (at least in part) is above the general topography, enabling my taking of these 'upward' shots. 

 

 

I had to lie down to get this picture on Alan Brackenborough's outside O Gauge line. 

 

 

A fair bit of Barrie Walls' wonderful Wallsea in O Gauge was outside, and elevated.

 

 

The formation to the north of Grantham station is above 'ground' level on Graham Nicholas' OO Gauge splendid recreation (Graham is definitely not a flat-earth advocate!).

 

 

I was standing in the 'sea' to get this picture on Kingstorre in EM! 

 

 

Part of Gilbert Barnatt's original OO loft layout could be photographed from below, but not so on his current Peterborough North (which is correct).

 

 

Looking up at impressive bridges can be effective, as here on Scarlington in N Gauge.

 

 

I was in a boat on the Ouse when taking this shot of a B1 (OO) coming into York from Scarborough. 

 

Does anyone else have model 'upward-looking' views? I'll try and find some more..............

 

 

I have deliberately incorporated embankments and cuttings into the layout with the intention of enabling a range of cameos and viewpoints. I haven’t taken any ‘up skirt’ photos such as those on Shap but here are a couple from me. 
 

 

[coronach]

Here are a couple more. A challenge of an upward shot is of course absence of background, which can be overcome by a backscene, which I haven’t created yet, or by photoshopping, which I am not able to do. 
 

This angle of view is one that is typical of visits to the lineside. It reminds me of several occasions in the late 1960s and early 1970s when dad would take us out (in his Panther 650 motorcycle and sidecar!!) after tea to Naburn to watch passing trains on the ECML south of York. He would park in a lay-by on the approach to the rail over bridge and I would stand in the sidecar watching a procession of Deltics and Type 4s pass by on the embankment and cross Naburn river bridge in the distance. 
 

 

[Tony Wright]

6 minutes ago, coronach said:

Here are a couple more. A challenge of an upward shot is of course absence of background, which can be overcome by a backscene, which I haven’t created yet, or by photoshopping, which I am not able to do. 
 

This angle of view is one that is typical of visits to the lineside. It reminds me of several occasions in the late 1960s and early 1970s when dad would take us out (in his Panther 650 motorcycle and sidecar!!) after tea to Naburn to watch passing trains on the ECML south of York. He would park in a lay-by on the approach to the rail over bridge and I would stand in the sidecar watching a procession of Deltics and Type 4s pass by on the embankment and cross Naburn river bridge in the distance. 
 

 

Good morning,

 

Very evocative; thanks for posting. 

 

Also, some splendid examples of weathering.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[melmoth]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Stephen,

 

'Does model photography have to recreate prototype photography?'

 

A very interesting question; to which my answer is a qualified 'yes'. It's very much what I try to do, and it's one of the reasons why I always advocate modelling an actual prototype (whether that be a whole scene or individual items in it). That way, at least to me, is the ultimate 'acid-test', especially when modelling a real location. The model can be compared with the real thing, checked whether it's accurate and, if so, judged accordingly. Made-up/fictitious locations never have the same 'accuracy' to me, no matter how good the standard of modelling might be.

 

The 'qualification' of my 'yes' is with regard to studio photography of models, where the background is entirely neutral, with no attempt to site a model in a depiction of an actual location.

 

Of course, in some ways taking 'realistic' model photographs is more difficult than taking prototype pictures, not least the specialised (and very expensive) camera/lighting equipment which I need to obtain the results I seek. Then there's the post-processing - the real things have natural backgrounds and skies, which, for most of the time have to be added in the digital darkroom - it used to be Frisk film, a scalpel, designer's gouache, an airbrush and extremely bad language! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

While agreeing with you Tony, I would suggest a slightly different caveat - that it depends on the purpose of the photograph.  A helicopter view of a layout out in a magazine article instead of/as well as a track plan, or the sort of photographs which you take to illustrate reviews. Helpful and informative, but not necessarily prototypical views of the subject.

 

The question itself is only a short step from 'Does (a) model photography have to recreate (a) prototype photography?' , but that's no doubt been done to death already.

[dibateg]

There was always that excitement of 'going to see the trains' and often the approach could be at  a lower level, with the anxiety increasing with each step that you might miss something. 63639 is about to cross Veron Road at the top of a rather verdant embankment.... it's been toned down since!

 

I always prefer natural view point pictures, even though there is plenty of work to be completed on this layout.

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by dibateg
spelling

[PMP]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Does anyone else have model 'upward-looking' views? I'll try and find some more..............

This one’s looking up from a boat..