Hector Lawn

Here's my N-gauge scratchbuilt stairwell for Charwelton in N. It's constructed from 1mm grey card, Scalescenes brick papers and Evergreen sytrene sheet and other shapes. Fire buckets are from P&D Marsh and the stairwell handrail is from N-Brass (loco handrail wire).

Hello, I'm back! For anyone still interested in following this, it's been a long time between updates and for good reason. Due to a change in domestic circumstances and a house move, I didn't have access to the layout for much of 2018. I have now retrieved my layout from the old house (good job I designed it from the start to be dismantleable!) but as I don't currently have the room to erect a 14ft model railway I have had to put it into storage for the time being. After a long hiatus in modelling involving other hobbies/pursuits, including building a 1,686 piece LEGO Routemaster bus that I received for Christmas last year, I managed to get my modelling mojo back. I thought I should make a start on the station buildings for Charwelton. These are of the typical London Extension design typical of many along the Great Central, such as Quorn and Rothley on the current preserved line. I did briefly consider the excellent Great Central building offerings from Graham Farish/Bachmann, but just plonking a few purchased buildings onto the layout, in my opinion, didn't constitute 'proper' modelling, and so I thought I'd give building my own a go, and if it was a complete failure I could always use the Bachmann offerings as a Plan B. However, having not done any card modelling for a long while I decided to ease myself back into it by building the Metcalfe N-gauge church first: There is actually nowhere on Charwelton to use this, I just needed the practice! Having what I thought was half-decent job of it and having had some recent practice in card modelling again, I felt confident enough to have a go at making a start on the Charwelton station buildings. I wanted to get as much detail in as possible if they were to be good enough to use over the commercial offerings. This has involved some extremely small parts, sometimes needing to cut pieces of styrene only a millimetre wide and a few millimetres long! For example, the window frames were constructed from individual 1mm strips of styrene, all cut with the correct mitres, and the gates at the bottom of the staircase were also put together using individual parts. I also decided late in the day to add interior lighting to the stairwell. I purchased some micro SMD's from Ebay for this and they are small enough to be stuck onto the head of a track pin, and this was used to make the 'lamp' and there are three of these - one each at the top of the stairwell, the middle landing and at the bottom: The wires are also extremely fine, so much so that I was also able to add lighting to the front of the station access without the wires being obtrusive. I also made lampshades from the waste paper out of my home-office hole punch! These having a slit cut in them and then made into a slight cone shape before pushing the track pin and wires through a hole in the middle. I'm afraid I don't have pictures of the progress of the construction but the completed efforts are below, I think it's good enough to use? It was constructed using 1mm grey card, Scalescenes brick papers and Evergreen styrene sheet and various shapes. The fire buckets are P&D Marsh: And with the obligatory penny for size comparison: And here's how it looks on the station platform with overbridge. Note the stairwell handrail, this was made from N-Brass loco handrail wire: Onto the booking office and platform canopy next. . . I'll try and take some pictures of its construction this time. Hopefully it won't be so long between updates! Hector

Hi Ben, Thank you your positive comments on my building abilities! Although I'm mainly building this layout for myself it's nice to know my efforts are appreciated by others, especially by those that have more experience than I! Yes, I agree it is a shame the Great Central closed and I sometimes wish the whole route could be compulsory purchased and re-opened but I don't think it would quite be the same without the Windcutter express freights thundering up and down the line headed by 9F's and a load of overhead electrics installed Into the bargain. It's probably better to keep the preserved sections of the GCR as is with steam and vintage diesel traction to demonstrate and let us see what once was. Regards Hector

I'm back again already! I completed bridge 490 over the Christmas holiday: Northern side: South side: The walls under the bridge currently have vertical gaps as this bridge sits on a baseboard join, so I've had to build the bridge in two halves. Like the station platform, it is yet to be glued down until I'm sure the platform needs no final alterations prior to ballasting. As usual my reference photo's are off the internet and copyrighted but you can view a picture of a similar bridge at Quorn station on the GCR here. The capping on the bridge and wing walls was a lot better than my last effort: The station entrance: (online reference photo here) The 'lamp' outside the station entrance is an appropriately bent Peco track pin, while the curly supporting bracket is a single strand of copper from a multi-strand 13amp cable flex! I wasn't sure I was going to be able to include this feature as trying to bend a single strand into the right shape was quite intricate and delicate operation but it seemed to come out ok. And just to demonstrate the scale I've been working at: Thanks for looking! Hector

Thanks Grahame. Those downpipes were particularly troublesome as I tried forming the bends by heating the plastic rod in hot water but I couldn't get the sharp bends I was after so then I tried heating the rod over a heat source (a candle), but the heat source proved to be too wide and just as I formed a nice bend at one end the previous bend would then go out of shape! Very difficult to get the bends in the right places and angles too, so in the end I resorted to cutting the rod into small pieces to form the bends which meant cutting at the correct angles with some pieces being only a couple of millimetres long. However, the final effect was a lot better. At least I'm learning from the experience! Hector

I hope I'm not hijacking Grahame's thread here, but I thought I'd show the build of my N-gauge signal box for Charwelton. It's not as awesome as Grahame's efforts above but please remember that this is 2mm/ft scale and the footprint of the box is a mere 63mm x 28mm! First up was the brick base, this was made from 1mm card using Scalescenes brick paper. The windows are from Brassmasters. On top of this I built an upper frame using Evergreen plasticard sheet: Window frames in and "weatherboarding" attached: Upper section now painted and windows installed. The windows were taken from the Metcalfe signal box kit. Interior installed. This was a ratio kit. The floorboarding was just a google image shrunk down to size: ...and the lever frame: Roof on using Scalescenes tiling and bargeboards attached: The finished article! and here it is sitting on the layout: Unfortunately I can't show the reference photo's I've used for the build as they're copyrighted but they are available to view on the Disused Stations Charwelton site. Grahame, I've taken the thread title to mean that anyone can display their scratchbuilt card/styrene structures but if you'd prefer me to open a separate thread then please let me know. Hector

Jeez, is it over a year since my last post! So what's been happening in that time? Well, progress is still being made, albeit at a snail's pace it would seem! The northern half of the scenic section has been ballasted. Some people complain about this being a rather mind-numbing task but I found it quite an interesting part of the layout build, probably because it's the first time I've tried to do it properly and it does make a significant difference to the look of that layout and makes it look as though something is being achieved to bring it to life! Before I could ballast the southern end though some buildings needed to be erected to enable me ballast around them. So to start off I built the southern portal to Catesby Tunnel. This was a Scalescenes tunnel portal but I modified the buttress and wing walls to make it more like the prototype. Here's the real thing: ...and here's my effort: I didn't think this was too bad an attempt for a first-time Scalescenes builder. As I've built more structures my techniques are gradually improving and the latest builds I've attempted have been so much better. Anyway, next item along the line was the platelayers hut on the down side of the line just before the entrance to the tunnel. This was a free download, but again modified to resemble the real thing: Next up was bridge 491. For this I used Scalescenes bridge abutment kit, with the girders being constructed from Evergreen plasticard. Here's some pictures of the real thing and my efforts for comparison: I'm happy with the majority of the bridge apart from the capping on the wing walls which looks diabolical! I'm currently in the process of building bridge 490 which goes over the end of the platform in typical GCR London Extension style and the wing wall capping on those has come out pretty much perfect so I may try and remove the capping on this and try again. However, from typical N-gauge viewing distances it's not quite so noticeable - unless its just the dodgy light in the railway room! A fair bit of time has been spent constructing Charwelton's signal box. Initially I had thought of using the Metcalfe signal box kit and so I built this: However, the more I looked at it the more it seemed out of place. The prototype was a slightly different style and it wasn't in LNER colours either and so this was constructed from card/Evergreen plasticard sheets and Scalescenes brick and tile papers, along with the hut next to it, with the Metcalfe kit donating its windows and stairs for this project : The construction of this box is detailed in the Card Structure Modelling section. Since then the goods platform and goods shed have been built: And the main platform has been built but not stuck down yet as its still awaiting the aforementioned bridge 490 to be completed: Once bridge 490 is finished that only leaves bridge 489 at the very southern end to be completed then the rest of the ballasting can be completed. I must say I've really got into Scalescenes kits and scratchbuilding using their brick sheets, its a nice relaxing past-time in the evenings. and the more I construct, the more my layout is starting to resemble Charwelton! Pics of the prototype that I've used are copyrighted but are located on the Disused Stations Charwelton website if you'd like to make comparisons. Thanks for looking! Hector

I wanted to stick the track down with Copydex as it doesn't set as hard as PVA and I hoped it would 1. deaden the vibration a bit and 2. allow me to easily lift the track if I needed to to rectify any errors or make adjustments, which I have had to do a few times (such as relaying the iron ore branch and goods yard - see page 1). However, Copydex was only available over here in Australia in very small quantities and so I just used plain latex. The track was held down with track pins while the latex dried but it would appear that I either pulled the pins out too early before the latex had properly set or the remaining flexibility was not strong enough to hold the curved flexi-track in place at track joins. I should have left the pins in until I had ballasted with PVA once I was happy with all the trackwork.. For track alignment over base-board joins, I did secure the top boards with the hinges at the back and ensured that a tracksetta remained in place on at least one track while laying the others. All track at baseboard ends was soldered to brass screws but I think if I did this again I would rather use copper strip sleepers, especially on the scenic sections. Hector

Hi Woodenhead, Initially I had planned to have the top boards hinged at the back but if I need to remove a board for any reason, e.g. to trace a wiring fault or replace a Seep motor, once the scenery is in place it is going to be difficult to get at the back to undo the hinges without damaging something at the front as I lean over, so I have decided to just rest the scenic boards on top. If a derailment occurs, which has already occurred, I can just lift up the front edge to reach under and retrieve any derailments. If I need to remove a board completely for any reason it will just lift off. Hector

Hello and welcome back! Thanks for the comments so far. Since March I’ve been busy filling in the sleeper gaps at the rail joins using the sleepers of spare bits of rail and gluing the bit that lies between the rails and the micro sized parts for the sleeper ends separetly. I must say this improves the look of the track-work immensely, although I wish I’d used and installed the spare sleepers that are supplied with the points and crossings – it would have made it so much easier! The necessary jumper cables to link each boards’ bus wires have been added and this has enabled me to run a train around the complete circuit of up/down lines. I’ve since run a variety of locos to check for running and I’ve had to make some adjustments to the alignment of tracks and baseboard joins. Most of the alignment issues have been a result of sticking the track down with latex glue but having removed the track fixing pins once the glue had ‘set’ this has enabled the flexi-track to try and straighten itself at the joins over time with a resultant dog-leg on the curves. Fixing it has involved either reinstalling the tracksetta and re-pinning, this time leaving the pins in place, or completely re-laying. Rails at baseboard joins also needed a bit of adjustment here and there, but all is now complete. Isn’t it funny (not!) how different locos pick up different track faults while being oblivious to the faults that other locos find! Must be something to do with wheel arrangements and front bogie types I assume. My Dapol’s 9F’s have had difficulty negotiating the diamond crossing at the exit of the storage yard, tending to try and take the wrong exit most of the time. Close inspection showed that the pony truck spring was causing it to stick and this resulted in the pony wheels pushing to the left or right after the exit of curves and no amount of adjustment would fix it. I ended up removing the spring completely and they now traverse all points and crossings correctly. This seems to be the complete opposite of other people’s experience where they normally have to add the spring to earlier releases of this loco for it to work correctly. So now I can demonstrate a full circuit of the main lines. The honours go to my Britannia class 70015 “Apollo” hauling an unusual empty stock movement comprising of sleeper cars and parcels vans (sorry – that’s all I have in maroon or crimson so far)! https://youtu.be/4R8rhPzC6yA Apologies for the dodgy camera/video work – there’s an art to this photographing/videoing of model railways lark! Thanks for looking Hector

I've just come across this topic. Excellent scenic work here - very, very realistic, not easy in N-gauge. Hector

2016 Update 2: Now that my underboard wiring was complete I could get down to playing trains some serious testing. I gathered a variety of locos for testing purposes, all from the Dapol camp. I had an Ivatt 2-6-2T, a 4-6-0 Hall, a 4-6-2 Britannia, and my two 9F’s. I decided to use both 9F’s for testing as I anticipated that they might be the most troublesome. If anything they prove to be the complete opposite, apart from having to adjust the back-to-backs of the pony wheels on each one they ran perfectly. It was my Hall that showed up the most rail defects. Much time was spent testing each board individually, running locos backwards and forwards across every piece of track and pointwork to ensure that no derailments occurred before moving on to the next board. Some fettling of trackwork/filing of point blades was required to get perfect running and the Hall seemed to show up most of these defects. I have one particular point on which the Hall seems to catch and stall every time it runs over it in reverse. Nothing I did to the point would fix the problem and all other locos seemed to negotiate it without a problem. Luckily it is only one of the loco storage sidings in the fiddle yard and so that loco will be banned from using that particular siding. I suspect that the back-to-backs are out on this loco but I think the wheelsets are fixed and non-adjustable. One piece of track that required a fair bit of attention was my 3-way asymmetric point that is used on the approach to the goods yard. The shorter locos would constantly stall on the middle of this point when using one particular exit road. It turns out that there is a dead rail in the middle which required a separate feed from the DCC bus and once this was in place the stalling disappeared. However, next problem was that the 2-6-2T was constantly derailing when attempting to transition from one of the switch rails to the stock rail. On close inspection the switch rail was sitting lower than the stock rail meaning that the wheel rim was pressing up against the inside of the stock rail until such point that the wheel on the opposite end of the axle was forced off. I must have spent at least half an hour on this one rail alone, attempting to lift it to the correct height but being very careful not to break or damage the whole point in the process. I am glad to say that the issue is now fixed but has demonstrated the need to inspect all pointwork more closely in future before laying it. The last area of concern was my 90 degree crossover where the approach to Charwelton’s yard sidings are crossed by the iron ore branch. If you remember, I’d used a cut down Atlas crossing for this but this proved problematic. First, because of the geometry required, I’d had to use some old Roco 7.5” radius fixed curves but the approach to the sidings was too tight, even for the 2-6-2T. As in the prototype, the yard will be frequented by a 2-6-4 tank engine and if it was too tight for the 2-6-2T then a 2-6-4 would most likely also struggle. As for the iron ore branch, this was originally operated by an 0-6-0ST Manning Wardle shunter, and in latter years by an 0-4-0 ‘No.8’ from the Yorkshire Engine Co. I definitely want to avoid running an 0-4-0 as I can’t see this being reliable across the insulated sections of the crossing. The Manning Wardle was built under contract from the Hudswell Clarke design and so I will most likely use Dave Jones’ N gauge version for the branch when they become available. In the meantime, the only -0-6-0 available for testing was a diesel class 08. For the branch I had also used a 7.5” radius curve on approach to the crossing but I had to bend this slightly for it to meet the crossing at the correct angle and this proved to be too tight for the 08. Furthermore, the crossing itself is built as an isulfrog crossing and there is a fair bit of plastic rail involved. Running the 08 across the crossing at anything less than express speeds resulted in another stall. On close inspection, the gap between the live rails is such that at some points 2 of the 3 axles are over the insulated rails! Not very good for electrical reliability and slow running. With a heavy heart I therefore decided to rip up the yard and branch lines and re-lay it. This was the sticky mess left behind after lifting the track: After removing as much of the mess as possible using a sharp chisel, a quick sand down and repaint I had a clean canvas to work on: I was still going to have to use a similar geometry as the points feeding into the crossing were going to remain in their original place, I just need a fraction more space. At the same time I also decided to remove as much insulated rail as possible and make this an ‘electrofrog’ crossing. Using a jewel saw, I removed all approach tracks to the crossing itself but this took 3 attempts: This is what the crossing usually looks like: And this is what I was attempting to be left with… Here’s how the 3 attempts went: Attempt No.1: Cut away as much rail as possible. Then attempt to solder dropper wires to the remaining four central rails (which are only a few millimetres long). Result: not enough plastic to hold it all together and the heat of the iron melted what was left and the crossing promptly fell to bits into three pieces. Attempt no.2: Solder droppers first, then cut away rails with jewel saw. Result: not enough plastic to hold it all together and this time I was left with 3 bits of plastic and two short bits of rail with droppers attached. I tried assembling the bits along with laying the track but it was too distorted and the tracks weren’t lining up properly, so I decided to rip it up and start again - again. Attempt No.3: Solder droppers first, then cut away major rail parts with Xuron track cutters and a jewel saw, then use a needle file to remove what else was required in small amounts and obtain the final shape . Result: success! All tracks now re-laid into the crossing and rail joins at the ‘frogs’ soldered. The track to the yard sidings approaching the crossing is still tighter than I would like but at least it is now first radius. The iron ore branch is tighter at 7.5” radius but this is now negotiable by the 0-6-0. And this is the result…. This must be the most expensive 1 inch piece of rail ever with each attempt costing me a new crossing (A$15) plus A$10 postage! I take my hat off to anyone who assembles their own 2mm track, it’s very fiddly and I think I’ll stick with my Peco code55 in future. Here’s some videos showing the slow running in action using some antiquated 35 year old Minitrix wagons. Oh, and if you have the sound turned up, the creaking noise you can hear is my even older 45 year old ‘Trix’ 12v DC controller from my first ever train set! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlg1RNGPp5A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9uYmrNlHKE Next on the agenda is to re-assemble the boards and double-check the board-to-board track joins and adjust if required. After that I will have two jobs to focus on – building the control panel and weathering the track. Thanks for looking. Hector

2016 Update 1: Yes, this project is still ongoing! It is well over 18 months since the last update so what has been achieved in this time? Well, I’ve had bouts of enthusiasm interspersed with periods of procrastination over my next course of action but progress has been made and milestones achieved. I’ve now completed the wiring on all 8 boards (4 fiddle yard, 4 scenic) bar the mounting and connection of some frog juicers that will be used to switch the frogs on the diamond crossings and the two reverse loop sections on the fiddle yard boards. As well as wiring and soldering every piece of track’s dropper wires to the DCC bus, I’ve also had to provide wiring for 54 Seep point solenoids and 6 signals! Here is some of my handiwork: On some boards the wiring was quite sparse… While on other boards it was quite abundant, but at least it was tidy… While on other boards it seemed impossible to keep it tidy… After a suggestion in a post from Black Sheep above, I decided to make the top scenic boards completely detachable from it's associated fiddle yard board to make them less cumbersome to handle once the scenery is applied. This has meant splitting the wiring between the top and bottom boards and using 25-way D-connectors in between. I really wanted to keep wiring connections to a minimum but couldn't see how I was going to handle a fiddle yard board with scenic board on top with scenery attached. Pictures of the underboard wiring for all eight boards are now posted in the Electrics section under the 'Show us your underboard wiring' post. There’s more to come but for now - Thanks for looking in! Hector

I must say I was rather disappointed that there weren't at least some renumbers of existing models even if there were very few new model announcements. Surely it can't cost much to do some renumbers?

Great work on the scratchbuilt signal boxes! I have been in two minds whether to use Scenecraft GCR buildings, including the newly announced signal box, on my Charwelton layout or scratchbuild/kitbash my own but since reading this thread I am convinced I should at least make an attempt at the latter. Very inspiring! Hector

Hi Black Sheep, In answer your questions: 1. The top layer just hinges so as to keep the alignment when the board is lowered again. However, now that you mention it, it might be easier to have lift off boards that rely on dowels to keep alignment. It would certainly help when dismantling as the two-layer boards are quite wieldy at this stage even without the scenery. 2. No, you are not going mad! The board is the wrong way round as it is only resting on board 3 for the sake of testing. I haven't permanently wired the diamond crossover frogs yet as it will require a frog juicer and I am currently tesing using DC only. This necessitated having easy access to the rear of the board to change the frog polarities between up/down route testing. The board will be turned round to its correct orientation once the layout is reassembled once all four boards are wired. 3. Yes the boards are portable. I designed the baseboards in this manner from the outset should the layout need to be moved as its current position is by no means assured and it would be a shame to have to cut it up or dismantle it once the scenery is completed if it did need to be moved and after all the work that will be put into it. I like to think the layout will also be exhibitable if it is good enough. 4. Yes, the wiring is run along the hinged edge only. The wiring runs up one of the posts supporting the top board and then horizontally to about the middle of the board before fanning out to the droppers and Seeps - this should ease the stress on the cabling from repeated bending of the wires each time the board is lifted. Thank you for your questions and your interest. Hector

Construction Update: Ok, it is over four months since the last update but another milestone has been reached. No, I haven’t completely wired the whole layout but I have finished wiring board 4 (the Catesby Tunnel end). This has involved running the DCC bus, installing and wiring four Seep PM1’s and making any final adjustments to the trackwork. Yes, I know it’s not much of an achievement in four months but this is a learning curve! I did find the installation and setting up of the Seeps a bit fiddly but not as difficult as some would have you believe. Despite using the ‘clothes peg’ method to install them I found I still had to elongate the mounting holes to provide some means of final adjustment necessary to get the frog switching correctly aligned. The PM1’s have been wired to choc blocks prior to installation for maintenance reasons, should one decide to fail. Wiring of the DCC bus followed and then extension of the PM1 wiring to a 25-way D-connector which will ultimately extend all switching wiring to the control panel but will allow easy dismantling of the layout should it be necessary. Testing of the rails at various points and the frog switching was initially carried out using a multimeter to ensure all polarities were correct prior to ‘live’ testing using a loco. I have also gone over all the trackwork on the board looking for potential trouble spots prior to running some test locos over it - some tweaks have had to be made to some rail joins as they didn’t appear to line up properly, usually at places where curved joints have been made using insulated rail joiners. I have come to the conclusion the IRJ’s are way too soft to promote correct rail alignment and they really need to be made of a harder material if they are to perform both functions. The top-board to helix join where the top board hinges away when lifted was the worse point. When I first laid the track I had soldered the rail ends to brass screws but over time the track has tried to straighten itself a bit and the brass screws didn’t have enough grip on the 4mm ply to resist – the result being a definite kink in the track. The same is happening at the ‘London’ end of the boards - this will need the same PCB modification as the ‘north’ end: As I intend to run a couple of 9F 2-10-0’s this was definitely going to cause a problem and so had to be fixed. I decided to try an alternative method of fixing the rail ends and promptly purchased a small square of copper clad blank circuit board. Having unsoldered and removed the brass screws, I glued a couple of thin strips of PCB under the rail ends and once the glue had set, soldered the rail ends to the boards using tracksettas to keep it all in line while doing so. The result is a much better curve with no kinks: After: Once this was complete I tried running all my steam locos plus a diesel over all trackwork to verify all worked electrically and to prove there were no other track faults. All farish steamers worked perfectly but both my Dapol 9F’s fail to negotiate the diamond crossing, with the front pony wheels taking the wrong route every time. They negotiate all points ok and I suspect the pony-wheel back-to-backs need adjusting (is this possible on a Dapol 9F and if so, what is the best way to adjust them?). Here’s a couple of videos of my test runs proving that it all works. Tests are made using mkIII coaches as this is what I have been using to test the track as it was laid and to ensure parallel tracks had sufficient clearance. Farish B1 on test in the down direction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbA8ttVJFco Farish B1 on test in the up direction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PnywZ0E7fQ Class 47 on test in the down direction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88HJq0owVu4 There is no Class 47 in the up direction video as this loco worked ok electrically and negotiated all points but it stalls on the ‘up’ direction on the diamond crossing. This loco is one of the first batch of ‘new generation’ Class 47’s released a few years ago that had the body-to-bogie height problem. Some people were also experiencing grounding on points with these locos – well it appears I am one of those people. Some modification to the bogie wheelset covers will be required later on. Now that I know all the process and techniques I am hoping the progress will be quicker on the other three boards. Thanks for looking! Hector

Hi Ben, thanks for looking in. On my original decision to build Charwelton I was intending to use BR Blue / privatisation stock in a 'what if the GCR hadn't been closed in the Beeching cuts' type scenario using the original statioand installing colour light signals. However, the more I researched the station and the type of services and variety of locos that ran on it the more I got drawn towards the last days of steam. I am therefore building it with the 1957-1966 period in mind and will be installing semaphore signals. But considering I had previously collected over 30 diesels (plus rolling stock), half of which are BR Blue, the other half being from the likes of EWS, Freightliner, Fragonset, Virgin, First Great Western and Coal Sector liveries - as and when it takes my fancy, there may be times when diesels will be seen running on my GCR rails under the 'what if..." scenario, assuming that semaphores would still in use in the diesel period (akin to the Settle and Carlisle) as the line would be considered as a secondary route. Regards Hector

Six months later... ... all the track on the top boards have been laid! This was not as straightforward as I had planned. So eager was I to connect the last pieces up to complete the loop from bottom to top boards that I completely missed out a down-to-up line crossover! Luckily I am still using latex (copydex substitute) to stick the track down and even after 24 hours I was able to easily pull up that section to re-lay it, this time including the crossover! Some additional woodwork was also required at the southern end to lessen the gradient profile on the last couple of feet. This meant cutting a section out of the southernmost board to extend the gradient. The result of this cut was the board warping and creating a 1-2 millimetre height difference between it and the next board where the tracks were due to cross. Steps were taken to rectify this by adding additional support underneath the upperboard cross-members plus an additional brace across a section where the cross-member had been cut out underneath to allow for the helix to pass under. Luckily, this brace needed to be placed exactly where bridge 490 crosses the line so it will be easily disguised and the brace will serve two purposes. Looking south from bridge 489 back across where Charwelton station will be. The brace piece and makings of bridge 490 beyond: Compare the shot above to the 6th and 8th pictures down on the disused stations website to see what I am trying to replicate. Despite my resolution to use peco code55 throughout, the 90 degree crossing has had to come courtesy of a very shortened Atlas code 80 piece. With the tight curves into the crossing, I was reluctant to use flexi-track, especially as there is no Tracksetta that goes down to the required radii. I therefore dug out some old Roco 7.5 inch fixed radius curves for this (I think they came from my original N-gauge layout from when I was about 5-years old. I am now 49 – how’s that for recycling)! They were a bit tarnished but a quick rub with a plastic scouring pad brought them up nice and shiney! There was a height difference between it and the peco track but rather than raise the peco track to match, I sanded down the sleeper base on the Roco curves until it was the correct height. The end connecting to the 90 degree crossing was the correct height and so no modification was needed at this end. This has resulted in a small but gradual rise in height as it transitioned from peco code 55 onto the Roco fixed curves and across the Atlas item which isn’t very noticeable and should be less so once ballasted. Looking south again, this time from bridge 490, and a view of the gradient extension: Bridge 490 again, this time looking north across Charwelton station site and towards Catesby Tunnel: Still looking south but from further down the line at bridge 489: And now some gratuitous shots of trains on the line! 47 035 rounds the (non-existant in real-life) curve with 7 MkI’s on and proceeds under what will be bridge 490: 47 035 again, this time heading south having emerged from Catesby Tunnel and is just passing the beginning of the up loop: Now that the tracklaying phase is complete it is time to start on the electrics and connecting up all those dropper wires. I will also need to plan and build the mimic board and space for the turnout switches and I plan to use peco PL-26 point levers for this to create a signal box style control panel. If my electrical work is as slow as my tracklaying it might be a while before the next update! Thanks for looking. Hector

Looks like an interesting project Daniel. If your layout accurately resembles the photo's it should make for a very interesting layout. Not sure I'd fancy building all that 2mm finescale trackwork myself though! I too like layouts based on prototype locations and so will be following your progress with interest. Best of luck with it. Regards Hector

More progress, More testing: Well, the helix at the northern end is now nearing completion. I only have about two feet of track left to stick down to complete the trackwork on the lower boards. I was hoping to complete this over the weekend but other activities demanded my time. Pictures to follow when available. Some of my tracklaying time was taken up by adjusting the pick-ups on a recently acquired Farish B1 number 61321 (the weathered variety). I purchased this along with Farish B1 Oliver Bury and Black Five 45110. I have recently made a point of checking each loco, going through a procedure of testing and adjusting the pick-ups, lubricating and running in each loco as soon as they arrive in my possession. Both the Black Five and Oliver Bury ran smoothly out of the box but 61321 was very jerky when going round right hand bends on my running-in track. It took some time to get the pick-ups on this loco right - my first attempts resulting in the driving wheels locking up as the pickups were exerting too much pressure. However, once right it ran very smoothly. I then went on to test the haulage capabilies. Well, this was such a surprise. Whereas my Jubillee and Royal Scot were starting to slip with 5 coaches attached while on two traction tyred axles, my B1's could drag 7 coaches up the gradients on just one tyred axle! I went further and added coaches one at a time to see what their limits were. Both B1's could haul 10 - yes 10 coaches up the 2.77% (1 in 36) gradients on just one tyred axled! I think they could well have hauled more but I didn't think it worth testing any further as I won't be running 10 coach expresses on my layout anyway. I have now decided against fitting extra tyred axles to the Jubilee and Royal Scot and instead I will try to add weight to the tenders to match the weight of those on the B1's. I didn't get to test the Black Five as one of the wires on the tender drawbar broke while I was adjusting it for better contact and so it is now awaiting a spare drawbar from BR Lines. I hope the recently released 5MT and WD 2-8-0 match the performance of the B1's as I would like to keep traction tyred axles down to a minimum if possible in the interests of better electrical pick-up and introducing as little traction tyre induced gunge onto the track as possible. Hector

I agree, it looks great so far, should be a brilliant little layout once all the small details are added. Should provide lots of operating interest for such a small layout too. Layouts like this always inspire me to do something similar myself, but that would mean progress on the big layout would be delayed. Yes, keep the updates coming as I would also like to see more. Hector

I've never been there myself so I'll leave others to comment on its accuracy but it looks like a fantastic bit of modelling and I agree, we need to see more. The first image deserves to be in the 'Models can look just like the real thing' post! Well done Hector

Thanks very much for the offer of the photo's Dickie, and sorry it's taken so long to get back to you. I may get back to you on this if I need them. Ok, time for a much needed update on this layout’s progress. After reaching a milestone in completing the last of the storage tracks way back in January, I had a brief rest from tracklaying while I turned my thoughts as to the best way to tackle the required gradients to get up to the top boards. I must admit I procrastinated for weeks (and several months) before making a start as I was overly wary of making a mistake and ruining the good work I’d done so far. After a while, I realised I would have to make a start somewhere if the layout was to progress and so I started by laying some additional sidings at the top of the storage lines for stabling some spare locos plus a longer siding to hold a few coaches should I want to temporarily shorten a rake before it makes its trip ‘up top’. If you remember, it looked like this, and the additional sidings have been added here (circled): And the resulting additional sidings (longer coach siding just behind): I had been using a good quality 4mm ply for the board tops and saw no reason not to use the same material for the gradients. It is a bit flexible when not supported though, and so I sandwiched two layers of short sections together, each piece being a 22.5 degree piece of a circle, overlapping each piece in a similar manner to bricklaying. It would have been easier to cut longer lengths from one board but I was thinking about the wastage that this would produce, although with hindsight it would have been a lot quicker than gluing and screwing the many short sections that I had cut out! 'Helix' construction method: The finished article (gradient should finish near where the 'G' clamp is but has been temporarily extended for loco testing): To support the gradient, I have used 3/16” threaded rod, cut to appropriate size but with an extra centimetre or so for any height adjustment that may be required. The gradient board is clamped between two 3/16’ nuts with washers while the bottom uses a larger washer where the rod goes through the lower board to spread the load, not that the gradient weighs that much anyway. I have been making any height adjustments on the lower sets of nuts on the lower baseboard. Gradient Support: Having gone over my calculations for the gradient ratios many times and made a few adjustments, I was keen to test some locos with some coach rakes to see what they could manage. If you remember, I was trying to keep my ratios to 1 in 36 or under 3%. Measurements taken after construction show that the ratio varies between 2.2% and 3.5%. It is impossible to make the gradient a constant ratio throughout as it needs to clear the lower tracks underneath in some places and clear the frame of the upper boards in others. Although the droppers have not yet been connected, the rail joiners plus a couple of short wiring links made a sufficient connection to conduct some test runs. I have tried all the locos I have purchased to date, namely two V2’s, a Jubilee, a Royal Scot and two Dapol 9F’s. I started by testing a diesel, a Deltic with seven Mk1 coaches and as expected, it romped up the lower part of the gradient with no trouble. For steamers, I started with the Jubilee as it had traction tyres fitted and things didn’t look good to begin with when it couldn’t even manage two Mark 1 coaches up the first section of the gradient and it hadn’t even hit the curve yet! However, on inspection, the traction tyred wheelsets were at the front of the tender, next to the cab. Advice elsewhere on these boards recommends that traction tyres are placed at the rear end of the tender for best results and so a bit of wheel-swapping took place while I also added the extra set of tyred wheelsets. The performance increase was dramatic, with the Jubilee now able to haul at least five coaches up the slope, six with a hint of slippage. The Royal Scot had its wheelsets adjusted accordingly and it too could manage five coaches – still short of the seven I was aiming for but a lot better than two! However, I still wanted at least a couple of seven-coach rakes to make it up the gradient if possible as I intend to run the Master Cutler and South Yorkshireman expresses and the Bournemouth West to York Cross Country services and these would look a bit short with only 6 coaches. I decided to experiment on whether borrowing further tyred wheelsets between the Jubilee and the Scot, resulting in a tender with three tyred axles, would have an effect on electrical pickup, remembering that the driving wheels also have pickups provided. Well, a 3-tyred axled tender does the job with both Jubilee and Scot both hauling 7 coach rakes up with no trouble! I still have concerns about the 9F’s and V2’s as these are the worse performers, having no traction tyres at all. I will have to look into either adding extra weight or some form of tyre to these if I am to get similar performance from them, maybe resorting to Bullfrog Snot or some other method. Here’s a video of my Jubilee hauling 7 BR Mk1’s up the slope: Both it and the Scot slow up on the last section along the back straight and considerably so when it hits the final curve as the slope here exceeds 3% and is too much. I intend to make some modifications to the top (scenic) board here and extend the gradient for another 18 inches or so, enabling me to lower the current end of the gradient by 10-15mm and the ratio should come down to a more manageable level of 2.5% or so. I have done the same at the north end to limit the gradient and so the modification should look something like this: So, what’s happening at the north end of the layout? Well , it’s currently a bit of a ‘work in progress’! So, finally, from the testing I have done so far here are some definitive answers if any N-gaugers are aiming for 5-7 coach rakes and thinking of building a helix or gradient: If you intend to run diesels, aim for 3% (or 1 in 33) as a maximum ratio on a minimum of a 12 inch curve. If you intend to run steam (with traction tyres allowed), aim for a 2.5% maximum (1 in 40), again 12 inch curve minimum. If you intend to run steam on no traction tyres – KEEP IT FLAT and all on one level! Hope this helps Hector

Ooh, nice pictures Dicky! I haven't got around to seeing Wolverhampton MRC's layout 'in the flesh' so to speak, and if it is up for sale I probably never will now, which will be a great shame. Let's hope the purchaser plans to exhibit it. I hope I can make my N gauge version as good as theirs! Jeff, the layout will be set between 1957-1966, so yes, I aim to run A3's, Rebuilt Scot's & Jubilee's amongst others (Black five's, 5MT, V2's, Britannia's, 9F's, etc). Thanks for looking. Hector