Mark Pelham Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 With regards to your bridges, how about modelling one as if it was originally double tracks, the "scenario" being: 1) original double track main line over double track bridge. 2) a loop was required for say the "up" line. To allow this the "down" line was slewed and crossed a new single track bridge, with the "up" and "up loop" on the double bridge. 3) the loop became redundant and was subsequently lifted leaving a double track bridge with just the "up" line and a single track bridge with the down line. It could give you a scenic feature in the disused track bed. Just a thought, feel free to disregard! Cheers, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted August 8, 2014 Author Share Posted August 8, 2014 High level loops are now in place and everything's wired up. That's pretty much it for behind the backscene. I still need to wire up the point motors and switches for the low level loops and create a little mimic panel which will include a push-button momentary switch for a Dapol semaphore signal planned for the branch line. I had considered surface mounted point motors for the high level loops but nah... 12 point motors, adaptor bases, switches and another mimic panel - the cost of all that will more than pay for a DMU for the branch line and you can never have too much stock... Bearing in mind the controller's mounted behind the backscene, the high level loops will be switched by the big hand from the sky... I certainly would have motorised everything if there had been any points on the scenic side or if I'd been planning to use a Walkabout-type controller. The option is there to retro-fit at a later date. Pete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted August 8, 2014 Author Share Posted August 8, 2014 Mark, I do quite like that idea... not sure if I've left myself enough room for a disused track bed... if not, that's definitely a missed opportunity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Pelham Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 Hi Pete, I'm glad you like the idea, how about on the inside of the inner track with a redundant single tunnel mouth at one end and the removed loop entry/exit turnout at the other (no physical turnout, just the hint of a removed one)? Cheers, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted August 9, 2014 Author Share Posted August 9, 2014 After careful thought and plenty of head scratching. it looks like I may have to give the double track bridge idea a miss. As much as I like the idea, the problem can be seen below. If I place a double track bridge (with one track disused) on the inner circle. there's a major problem with clearance. The low level branch line passes under at such an angle that there would be severely limited clearance of one of the bridge piers which would just look wrong. With two single track bridges, it works but throw a double into the equation it just doesn't. With Kato Unitrack following a set geometry, it's not possible simply to "adjust" the branch line. Nice thought though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky-CRS Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Just found this thread, looks really interesting design and build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted August 9, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 9, 2014 After careful thought and plenty of head scratching. it looks like I may have to give the double track bridge idea a miss. As much as I like the idea, the problem can be seen below. If I place a double track bridge (with one track disused) on the inner circle. there's a major problem with clearance. The low level branch line passes under at such an angle that there would be severely limited clearance of one of the bridge piers which would just look wrong. Sorry if I'm missing something but wouldn't the bridge abutments be skew to avoid just that problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted August 9, 2014 Author Share Posted August 9, 2014 Just spotted my local (decent) model shop in Aylsham are selling the last of their Farish Virgin-liveried Class 87s for £49.99. I've heard it's a sweet runner and I'm picturing it hauling a rake of Mk2s and Mk3s in a mix of Virgin and InterCity "Swallow" livery. Hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted August 9, 2014 Author Share Posted August 9, 2014 Sorry if I'm missing something but wouldn't the bridge abutments be skew to avoid just that problem? skew.png Having decided to use Unitrack (again), if I were to go for a double bridge, it would make sense to use one from the Unitrack range. They are actually very highly detailed and the high girder bridge (for example) has plenty of clearance for catenary. These aren't designed for skewed piers and although I'm not averse to a little plastic surgey, I'm still worried it might look contrived. I haven't ruled it out, the whole idea's still swimming about in my head... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sheep Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Just spotted my local (decent) model shop in Aylsham are selling the last of their Farish Virgin-liveried Class 87s for £49.99. I've heard it's a sweet runner and I'm picturing it hauling a rake of Mk2s and Mk3s in a mix of Virgin and InterCity "Swallow" livery. Hmm. Don't miss out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted August 9, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 9, 2014 Having decided to use Unitrack (again), if I were to go for a double bridge, it would make sense to use one from the Unitrack range. Fair enough - I was thinking in terms of a pair of plate girders which would be easy enough to stagger, used with standard ballasted track, which TBH I think might be more appropriate for the WCML. I do like the idea of a single line occupying a double trackbed, though, as it's characteristic of the modern era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted August 9, 2014 Author Share Posted August 9, 2014 Don't miss out! I very nearly did. Just got back from Aylsham with the last one at that price. It had to be rescued from the display cabinet and then it took 10 minutes to find the box... they even volunteered another tenner off on account of "it might have some handling marks". It doesn't. Did I mention I like a bargain? Managed to get some Dapol Mk3s (with buffers) for an excellent price too, three in Virgin livery and one in InterCity "Swallow" livery for a bit of transition variety. I think a couple of air-con Mk2s mixed in with the Mk3s would work a treat. The BVR model shop in Aylsham quite often has prices to beat Hattons. Very well stocked and well worth a look if you're in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted August 9, 2014 Author Share Posted August 9, 2014 Fair enough - I was thinking in terms of a pair of plate girders which would be easy enough to stagger, used with standard ballasted track, which TBH I think might be more appropriate for the WCML. I do like the idea of a single line occupying a double trackbed, though, as it's characteristic of the modern era. I totally agree that the idea of a disused trackbed has loads of character. I'll figure something out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold colin penfold Posted August 9, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 9, 2014 Having made a stupid amount of trips in the van to Wickes in Norwich recently, I always seem to get stuck in traffic at exactly the same place. Sitting there listening to the SatNav... "At the roundabout, take the third exit: Mile Cross Road" I'm wondering if that might make a suitable name for the layout? Open to offers. Indeed Pete, and it's just round the corner from Fiddlewood Yard. Perhaps when you paint a big hill on the backscene you could call it Catton Bells. Apologies to all from outside Norwich who are now reaching for the indecipherable button! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted August 10, 2014 Author Share Posted August 10, 2014 Stop it Colin, or you'll have me repainting one of the Dapol 86s into "Anglia" livery... Now there's a thought, and with the Mk2 DBSO due soon... Having run in all the locos (grand total of only 4 so far and one of those is an un-motorised "dummy"), both the low-level and high-level loops can be considered working fine so I'm happy with that. I really must try to find a suitable DMU for the branch line. Attention now needs to shift to the scenic side. I've cut some paper templates and will mess around with some of the Knaufboard 50mm insulation to get a feel for the landscape. I really would like to try and include a hint of a disused trackbed so I'll no doubt stand looking at the layout for a while whilst scratching head... good excuse to hide from the kids for an hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted August 10, 2014 Author Share Posted August 10, 2014 After a little while making some sketches, I've mocked up a disused trackbed to see what it looks like alongside the layout as a whole. The premise is that the original sharply curved single line crossed the low level branch before passing under a road bridge (and conveniently disappearing behind the backscene). When the line was rebuilt to double track on a different alignment, the original single line became disused and the bridge over the low level branch was removed, just leaving the abutments and a hint of the original trackbed. The road bridge that this disused line passed under remains in place and now serves as road access to an industrial area. This is exactly what happened to a former rail bridge near to where I grew up (see photo below)... freight trains originally passed under the bridge but when the track was removed, the bridge was then used for road access to a new industrial estate. I may still revise this, but it's pretty obvious that the idea of disused line certainly caught my imagination. If I don't include it before the build goes any further, it will be too late. © Copyright Ian Capper and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted August 10, 2014 Author Share Posted August 10, 2014 Today's Darwin Award for complete ineptitude goes to me... The 50mm foil backed insulation sheets aren't quite deep enough for some of the scenic features, so I thought I'd save a little time by removing the foil, then breaking a sheet in half and laminating the two halves together. NEVER use a solvent-based contact adhesive with extruded foam. I knew that, I just forgot. When I nipped upstairs to check, there was a bubbling mess on the floor that looks like the result of a bizarre science experiment. Duh. PVA next time. I think I'll just watch some TV now - it's safer. I mean, what can possibly go wrong...??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted August 11, 2014 Author Share Posted August 11, 2014 Quick question, folks... I normally use a couple of cans of expanding foam to create the basic landscape. When this has cured, and has been "cut back" to the correct profile, there are numerous potholes and craters. What I normally do is cover the whole lot with a couple of layers of plaster bandage to create a hard shell. Then, a thin skim of coloured polyfilla is knifed and brushed over. However, this time I'm using 50mm Knaufboard insulation sheets. I'm finding that when sanded back to the correct profile, the landscape is already pretty rigid with a decent finish. Do you reckon it's worth covering with plaster bandage or could I skip this step (and the mess)? I'll still skim over with filler but I am tempted to skip the Mod-Roc stage. Has anyone used this stuff? I don't even know if the filler will adhere to the foam so maybe it's best to try a test piece? If anyone's "been there" and "done that", I'd be grateful for some tips. Pete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sheep Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 I'd test piece for both methods to be sure of adhesion. Any joins in the foam could cause cracks in the skin of plaster when being moved around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted August 11, 2014 Author Share Posted August 11, 2014 Any joins in the foam could cause cracks in the skin of plaster when being moved around Good point. I usually do the final skim with a fairly wet mix so I can brush it where a filler knife won't reach. Although it's quite a hard, closed cell foam, if it absorbs too much moisture from the filler, that will cause cracking too. Probably safer to create a hard shell over the foam with Mod-Roc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted August 15, 2014 Author Share Posted August 15, 2014 Spent some time mucking around with the building blocks of the scenery as a whole. Better to spend a little time now than end up with a hill that looks like an upturned ice cream tub... I always "line" the insides of bridges and tunnel mouths. I think nothing looks worse than peering into a tunnel in anticipation of the next train and seeing bare track and ply/MDF. The black strip alongside the track is some Woodland Scenics foam trackbed which has a chamfer on one edge and matches the overscale shoulder of the Unitrack ballast... a handy way to raise the surrounding ground level up to track height. Once ballasted etc, it will be invisible. One of the suitably massive concrete retaining walls on the main line is now in place. As always, there will be a little "tweak" here and a little "tweak" there before the plaster comes out. I'm very tempted not to add the cosmetic Dapol catenary posts until after the track is ballasted and weathered - if I add them now I'll no doubt snag a few. Apologies for the picture quality but all the natural light in the room is unfortunately behind the backscene! I should really turn the whole thing round but I'd need a deep breath and a stiff drink first - there is the usual spaghetti of wiring hanging down underneath. Pete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Steve Purves Posted August 15, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 15, 2014 Hi Pete, What do you use for retaining walls? it looks fab! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted August 15, 2014 Author Share Posted August 15, 2014 You'd laugh if I told you. No, really... you would. So I'm not gonna... I'll try and take a better picture and let you guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted August 15, 2014 Author Share Posted August 15, 2014 The concrete effect is oh so simple and cheap too. It looks better when weathered with Humbrol powders. This is too clean. The join lines are meant to represent poured concrete sections. If I was trying to represent stone blocks (for example), this would be overscale even for 7mm! If the premise is that the main line and infrastructure was upgraded in the 70s prior to electrification then that's my excuse for using more concrete than Victorian brick. The former Southern Region has a lot of concrete retaining walls and judging from pictures, the LMR does too. First, everything's sprayed with grey car primer. Then, each piece is given a quick blast of Plastikote Suede Touch paint in light tan to give some texture Finally, a quick blast of white primer gives a mottled effect. To my mind it seems to work. It needs staining with Humbrol powders but there's no point doing that just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Steve Purves Posted August 15, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 15, 2014 is that Lego? if it is, number 1 son better hide his set before daddy gets home!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.