Douglas G

I would be very interested to see photographs of some of this track connected to a Peco Code 55 Finescale point. Does the code 40 vs (apparent) code 55 rail height look OK and do the size and spacing of the sleepers match acceptably? Douglas

You could always hire a mobile access platform ;-) Are you working from photographs of the real thing at a distance when painting items on the layout? I think this helps.

A fantastic layout, even though I am not a MI fan. I think one reason it works so well is the choice of colours—not too bright in the background—so everything blends in and there is a real sense of distance towards the rear of the layout. Douglas

This layout really is an inspiration, showing just what can be achieved in N Gauge. Douglas

:-)

Thanks everyone - I do feel encouraged to get going again with my modelling. And as you say, Ben, this is a hobby to be enjoyed, not an obligation. Karhedron, I did build a P&D Marsh Mogul many years back and wrote about it in Railway Modeller. But standards in RTR are just so much higher these days that it doesn't cut the mustard for me. Maybe a Mogul will appear in the next Dapol catalogue, given that Ixion planned it and Dapol have taken over their Manor. Douglas

Forgot to add, Highclere is also an inspiration and I really like Missy's etched crane for Highclere, which looks very like the one at Dulverton. I had been hoping that someone might do an etched kit. Douglas

Thanks for the encouragement, guys. A layout like this is a big thing for one person to make, and sometimes it can be hard to see the wood for the trees. I am finding it difficult to know where to start, with so many bits part done. I think I should focus on the island station building and platforms first. I will have to redo one end of the platforms in order to get them to line up correctly for the barrow crossing. I got a bit disheartened last year, as it proved necessary to reduce the angle of the island platform ramp, which involves major surgery and removal of some of the brickwork. I am still waiting for Dapol or Ixion (or Farish?) to announce GWR Moguls, as they were the trademark of the Taunton-Barnstaple line :-) Douglas

Nearly a year has passed and I have not done any modelling. I seem to have lost interest and motivation, but am now trying to get back my enthusiasm and energy. I have been looking though my pictures and plans to try to get inspired. Three layouts on RM Web have the sort of Western Region atmosphere I am after and provide me with particular inspiration - Wencombe, Highbury and Vale of Oxbury. I can't wait to see Vale of Oxbury when it is finished. Douglas

This is fantastic stuff. I really like the impression of height in the last photo looking up the hill, and models of real locations always inspire me. How have you done the grass between the tunnels and the road up above? It looks very effective. Douglas

I picked up three sets of cabinet maker's dowels and screw-through baseboard joiners from Rural Railways yesterday at the Stafford Show, in order to join together the two station boards for Dulverton. I thought I'd better have three of each, as the boards are 3 feet wide. It seems that the cabinet maker's dowels are nominally 8mm diameter, but for a tight fit you need to drill with a 7.5mm bit, and then gently tap them in - they are held in place by little ridges. Seems simple, but could I find a 7.5mm drill bit this afternoon? I went to all my local DIY warehouses, and couldn't find one. Then I remembered Screw-fix, and fortunately they had single drill bits of the right size. But I wasted a good part of the afternoon driving around—not much fun in the snow. Then I came across another slight problem relating to the design of the MRS baseboards. The cross-pieces are at 1 foot centres. This means there is not enough room to get an electric drill into the space to drill the ends from inside if I use a large size drill bit, even with my cordless which is smaller than my mains drill. I could just do it with a 2mm drill bit, so what I had to do was drill a pilot hole through the two ends while they were clamped together. Then I separated the boards and drilled each end with the 7.5mm bit from outside, hoping that the two holes would still be aligned. I have done one set of the dowels so far, and they seem to have worked, but it would better if I could drill through both ends at once with the big drill to make sure they line up. It's also not easy getting the cabinet maker's dowels in to the holes. It proved necessary to ream the hole a little with the 7.5mm drill and open one end with an 8mm drill, but even then I had a job getting the the blasted things hammered in all the way (using a piece of ply for protection from the hammer). I was worried the baseboard frame would get damaged in the process. It is a fine line between being able to get the dowels in and having the hole too big, so that the dowel does not remain fixed. All part of the learning curve... Douglas

Hi Kris, My plan for the fiddle yard is to use Peco points. For the Taunton-Barnstaple line trains there will need to be loops with points either end to allow through running round a circuit. But for Exe Valley line autotrains these will only run off to the right, i.e. towards Morebath Junction and down to Exeter in the real thing. So for these I can use a fan of sidings in the fiddle yard, perhaps with a diode break to stop trains as they come into the sidings. At home the track will loop round to the front and the track will then circle the shed where the layout will be housed, with the fiddle yard included in the run. But I want to build in capacity to exhibit. I have left room at the back of the station baseboards behind the backscene for a return track. So for exhibition use I could have small extra end boards with a semi-circular loop running round run to the return track at the back. I plan to install y-points at either end of the main station boards to allow a connection to these loops. The same fiddle yard could be used in the exhibition version. Douglas

As well as putting together the baseboards, I have also been working before Christmas on the platforms, and have taken a couple of pics with flash to show progress. The platforms are cut out of grey sundeala and faced with plastic brick or stone sheet, and with slaters black plasticard on the top. The piece of sundeala for the main platform extends behind the station for the station yard. I have carved away the sundeala to represent the drop down to the Silcocks store siding behind, and will surface this with black plasticard again. I thought I had the platforms finished, but realised that the left-hand ends would not line up correctly for the barrow crossing. Unfortunately I have not found any photos that are square on to these ramps. Studying the photographs I do have more closely, I saw that the ramp on the island platform was actually less steep and longer than that on the main platform, so I am going to have to redo the ramp to extend it. Ho hum... Douglas

I am enjoying this thread very much - a nice prototype to model. I have used the Ratio vacuum formed corrugated roof for the roof of the water tank for Dulverton. This Ratio sheet has the great advantage of being extremely thin, much thinner than the Evergreen corrugated siding sheets that I have used for flat roofs. The Ratio roof does flatten quite easily, and I wonder if it could be made permanently flat by immersing in hot water. You could then use it for the side of the motor shed, as well as for curved roofs in the way you have done already. I wonder why no-one has done 2mm scale flat corrugated sheeting using the same vacuum forming technique that Ratio use for their curved roof - I am sure it would be popular because it would be thin. Douglas

Thanks for the detailed advice on sealers, Devondynosaur. I will go and have a browse at the hardware shop next week. I have always been sceptical about water-based and acrylic paints and varnishes, partly because I wonder if they are as tough as oil-based products, and partly for the way they tend to raise the grain, as you mention. I may well go for polyurethane varnish, as I don't mind if it yellows - it would make the ply legs and sides look better IMO. I am enjoying reading about your Kingsbridge model by the way. I have always thought it look sa nice place to model, especially from the photos of Peter Gray.

Thanks for that advice, Devondynosaur. I realise there are two issues here - sealing the ply to protect it from moisture, and getting a good finish on the visible surfaces, the legs in particular. A search of the forum for "sealing AND baseboard" has thrown up some further information on sealing. One thing I definitely don't want is to colour the wood, so this rules out emulsions or oil-based paints. Some people on the forum seem to doubt that emulsion actually seals properly. It looks like I have the following options: Exterior polyurethane or yacht varnish Sanding sealer Rustins clear MDF sealer Polyurethane floor sealer (e.g. Rustins) Something I particular wonder about is if I seal the tops, will this affect the performance of adhesives, in particular PVA. My track will be laid on thin cork sheet underlay, which I will fix either with PVA or with Impact adhesive (e.g. Evostick) - I am not sure yet which adhesive would be best for this. But if it was PVA, would it stick better to unsealed ply or to a sealed surface? I have found opposing opinions in other threads on RMWeb. Certainly I think any sort of wax treatment is out for this reason - nothing would stick. I was also wondering if the Rustins MDF sealer would work on birch ply. Any advice on my options would be gratefully received. Douglas

Gosh, you have been reading my mind, Devondynosaur! I have just been thinking about this very issue. The boards come from Model Railway Solutions untreated as far as I can tell. The shed for the layout is dry and insulated, but I think I will need some sort of treatment of the ply to protect it in the long term, both the frames and the top. My understanding is that birch ply is designed mainly for furniture, and is not going to be as moisture resistant as external grade ply. There was something in Model Rail a few months ago about sealing baseboard timber and mention of such things as varnish, sanding sealer and (I think) dope, but no clear indication what is the best thing to use. My current idea is to use a coat of external varnish, perhaps yacht varnish, over all the ply surfaces, including the legs and the top and bottom of the tops before any scenery is added. I think this may also be a good idea when it comes to ballasting with diluted PVA as adhesive, to decrease absorption into the ply before it dries. Any thoughts on the best way to seal the ply would be appreciated. Douglas

Hi, No, I have just got temporary dispensation from the domestic authorities to use the conservatory for working on the boards, as it gives more space and light. But is also cold, so I am looking foward to getting the boards into the insulated shed which is to be their permanent home. Douglas

Here are some pictures of the boards so far, as promised. I hope these come out OK - our camera is getting a bit dated and is only 5.1 megapixels. Overview of the two frames without the tops - shows the right-hand dropped board and the areas cut way for the embankments. Another view showing the dropped board for the embankment to the right. The frames with tops added, showing how the land drops away either side of the embankment on the right-hand board. The embankment sides and landform will be added with pink Knauf board sheets carved to shape. The left-hand board with top in place showing the main station area and drop dwon the embankment at the back (where the land sloped down to the river behind). The board with the plan in place on top. The plan was blown up on a photocopier from a 1937 GWR plan of the station, with extra details added from old ordnance survery maps. The left-hand board with the plan on top. This board has most of the station buildings, the Carnarvon Arms Hotel to the rear left and most of the platforms and goods sidings. A final overview of the boards with the plan on top.

A momentous day in the development of Dulverton. I have the two main baseboards for the station area completed and joined together, and I am starting to believe that I may yet get this model done one day, after years of planning and periods where I lost motivation to work on this project. As noted earlier, the frames for the boards have been made by Model Railway solutions, one 5'3" X 3'0" and the other 5'0" X 3'0". These are their premium birch ply frames. I am very pleased with these boards and how they fit together, giving a strong and professional-looking frame. The tops are made from 9mm birch ply, which I have purchased separately and had cut to size by a local timber yard. I am now pondering about where to locate the backscene. I am going to cut the board surfaces so the backscene can slot in behind to disguise the join as much as possible. The join with the backscene will be further disguised because the land drops down behind the station and behind the embankment leading off to the right of the station towards Taunton (see plan earlier). At the left-hand end of the station layout, the backscene will extend almost the back of the board, behind my model of the Carnarvon Arms Hotel, so the join will be hidden by the hotel and the drop behind the hotel. However, at the right-hand end of the layout, where the track curves from the station throat towards the front of the layout, the embankment and drop are as a result also towards the front of the board. If I use the bottom of the embankment as the line for the backscene (there was a fence and some bushes along this line that will help to disguise the backscene join), then the backscene will be very far foward, and I will not be using the back part of the board at this end. But if I set the backscene further back, so I can model part of the field that was there behind the embankment, it will be harder to disguise the join. There was no field boundary or change in ground level to hide the backscene join if I located it further back, and I am worried that the join would just be too obvious. It will need some careful thought. I have already tried cutting this board once and it didn't turn out right, so I had to buy a new piece of 8 x 4 ply to have another go - ouch! I hope to get some pics posted soon - too dark at the moment Douglas

Hi Cromptonnut, It is indeed a lovely part of the world - I wish I lived there (apart from the high rainfall!). The station building and goods shed were sold off for conversion to houses several years ago. The access road in the photo you linked to runs down the old cattle dock siding - fortunately I visited before this was put in and was able to survey the base of the cattle dock while it was still there. Previously the station building was used as accommodation for staff from the Carnarvon Arms Hotel, while the goods shed was used as storage. The Hotel did have plans to convert it to squash courts, but this never happened. One time when I visited over ten years ago there was a hairdressers in the red-brick office at the end of the goods shed - it is amazing how railway buildings get used for so many things after closure. It is worth mentioning that a group of people from the Dulverton Civic Society have been building a 4mm model of Dulverton in an outbuilding behind the Dulverton Heritage Centre. This is a link to a feature on painting the backdrop for this model: http://www.ruralwork.../railway2sm.pdf Douglas

An update on progress with Dulverton. In the light of the news that Dapol have bought the Ixion N Gauge Manor, it now looks unlikely to me that Ixion will do the previously announced GWR Mogul. As these were the main locomotives on the Taunton-Barnstaple line, I can only hope that Dapol will decide to produce them instead, as they could use many of the components from the Manor. I do hope we will yet see both the Churchward and Collett side-window cab versions at some stage. In the meantime I purchased a Manor from Dapol at the Warley show as a stand-in for the moguls. Manors never did appear on the Taunton-Barnstaple line as far as I know, but I suppose it is possible they might have been tried as a light-weight but more powerful substitute for the moguls if more of them had been built. There were weight restrictions on the viaducts on the line which meant that heavier locos such as Halls were not permitted, and even the Moguls were apparently a concession over the yellow route designation. I am still waiting for my baseboards to arrive, so in the meantime I am focusing on building the platforms and the yard behind the main station building. I am finding that modelling a real location, it is very difficult getting the relative heights correct so that the landform is correct. The key seems to be identifying certain datum points of determined height and working upwards or downwards from these. The obvious datum points/levels are the tops of the platforms, the tops of the sleepers of the track and the road level on the railway overbridge. I am slowly working out from these how the land should slope, in particular down from the road above the station and in the station yard behind the main station building, where the land sloped down from platform level down to the track of the Silcocks warehouse siding, as in this picture: http://www.sciencean...?image=10548769 For the road, Google street view has been invaluable, and also old Ordnance Survey maps that show spot heights on the road at various points which tell me where it sloped and where it was level. I have built the platforms and main station area on Sundeala board topped with Slaters black plasticard, with details such as platform edges scribed in. Embossed brick or stone is used for the facings. The advantage of Sundeala is that it is light and can be carved relatively easily. In particular if the platform facing is not quite right once glued in place, the Sundeala can be carved away or plastic fillets inserted to get the correct line. My current job is carving the Sundeala down to the correct profile for the slope in the station yard - quite fiddly, but I'm getting there. Douglas

Just a quick addition to this thread which seems to have gone dormant recently. It is tempting to think that information on a station or other location you are researching will be in the county record office for the county where it is located. They may well have something of use, but it is perhaps more likely that plans and other railway documents will be in the Record Office for the county where the railway company was based, and in particular the location of its drawing office. Thus, in searching Dulverton, which was in Somerset, the most useful information for me, in the form of a large scale plan of the station from the late 1930s, came from Wiltshire Country Record Office. This is because they received material from the ex-GWR drawing office at Swindon. Another thing you may get from Country Record offices is historic plans submitted for planning applications. In the case of Dulverton, I got a very useful floor plan of the Carnarvon Arms Hotel from the late 1950s from Somerset Record Office, which were produced for an application to extend the hotel. Douglas

Hi Jerry, Thanks for your kind words. I find your model of Highbury Colliery very inspiring and hope to catch it an exhibition some time. The fact that it is another prototypical layout set in Somerset adds to its appeal. Regarding the track, it all comes down to time really, plus the fact that I don't like soldering :-) I know Easitrac reduces the need for soldering, but some is going to be needed for the points, even using sleeper bases and gluing on the chairs, if I understand correctly. I really do like the look of the bullhead track, but on a layout you will generally be looking from a distance and from the side, so the advantage over Peco Code 55 Finescale is less obvious, apart from the sleeper spacing. At exhibitions I have to get really close before I can immediately tell the difference between 2mm finescale track and carefully ballasted Peco Code 55 - it is actually more apparent to me from above, due to the thickness of the rail top in the Peco product. I am not keen on the idea of using Easitrac flexi track with Peco points, as I think that will just show up the deficiencies in the Peco points, and the difference in sleeper spacing and lack of gap under the track in the Peco points will be made even more obvious, in my view. As regards going 2mm finescale, I might have considered this on a purely diesel layout where drop in wheels can be used or rims reduced, but there is no easy conversion option for the Dapol and Farish steam engines I am using (unlike the old Ballantyne wheels for Poole Farish locos). It is interesting to read the discussion going on today on RMWeb on the accuracy of Peco Code 55 finescale, which mirrors similar discussion on the Yahoo N Gauge Group. If there was an N gauge version of Easitrac flexi track and matching RTR or kit N gauge points, all with a more appropriate sleeper spacing for 1:148 British practice, I would buy it like a shot. In the meantime, I have now bought all the points for the station at Dulverton and find the medium and large radius Peco Finescale points, and also the 3-way turnout, are very accurate representations of the geometry of the points that were there at Dulverton. The only exception is the points at the ends of the main passenger loops, which were very large radius to allow high-speed running—for these I will have to compromise with Peco large radius points. Douglas