ISW

Back in 2011 I watched a gang of men dismantling bamboo scaffolding in Hong Kong (not far from the Happy Valley Racecourse). They were dropping bamboo poles ~4m long, vertically from several floor up (~5-floors), and there was a guy on the ground catching them in mid-air, just off the ground! He'd then lay them in a neat pile at the side of the road. Memorising to watch. And, no, there were no special measures to protect pedestrians or passing motorists. It was just another 'normal' day. And don't forget, they built 30+ floor towers in Hong Kong using bamboo scaffolding. Ian

Ditto. Here's my first ever photo of a Class 507, taken on 4th November 1978 at Birkenhead North depot: Some interesting differences on the 'wrap' livery applied to 507001. Ian

I'd say yes, plus it's not worth the risk. Everard Junction made this mistake on his Mk1 layout and had to rip the whole thing out a few years back (ouch). Yes, he was using cheap baseboard timber (OSB?) but it's a lesson worth learning. Try to support the plywood at ~400/500mm centres in both directions. I used simple 44x18mm timber from B&Q screwed into the baseboards (I didn't glue anything; mistake?) and this has stood up okay so far (including taking my weight!). I drilled 25mm holes through the stiffeners to aid wiring later (it's neater than going 'around' the timber). As I intimated earlier, it's these stiffener supports that then get in the way of any servos (or other point motors), so be careful with turnout placement (or plan the layout and locate the stiffeners accordingly - that's what I did). Ian

Here's my two-pence worth: Consider just 2 main lines for the majority of the layout, with 2 loop tracks 'where necessary'. That'll make for a little more interest, and you can leave 2 trains running while 'operating' the other 2. It also makes it easer to plan/fit the curves at the ends of the loft. With all that space you need to avoid 'flat earth' syndrome. I'd be looking at some flying junctions (or similar) and elevated sections to add interest. It might help to choose a WCML station as the basis of your layout (you might have room for 2?). That could be as complicated as (say) Preston or as simple as (say) Lichfield Trent Valley. The latter providing the added interest of a high level platform and connecting freight curve. Have you checked your 'reach'? It looks a long way to the back of the baseboards (especially the corners) and, while this is easy with unpopulated baseboards, this'll get harder (and more damaging) once the scenics / tracks are in place. Make sure your baseboards can take your weight. You 'will' be climbing on them at some stage; I was and still am! Consider using 'modules' for the scenics, that can be individually lifted out to work on them. Plan, plan, and plan again. I had my entire 2-level layout drawn up (in 3DPlanIt) before I even started tracklaying. I even had the baseboards in the design, so that I could ensure the turnouts were not 'over' a cross-member, making servo installation impossible. I made the conscious decision to include a full loop on the Lower Level (even though I didn't need it) to allow me to run trains before I had the Upper Level built. That gave me chance to 'run trains' much earlier, and iron out any issues. All my track was installed 'over' a full-scale printout of the layout (yes, that did involve a lot of taping together of A4 sheets!). It was worth it though as it was easy to locate all the turnouts and curves just by 'following the lines' and it all fit as 'planned'. You are going to have some long curves, so make sure to include transition curves at each end (the Drawing software will probably do this for you). Equally, you are going to have some long straights. These are hard to get 'straight'. I used a 1m steel straight edge to ensure my tracks were as straight as I could get them. Try to add some 'curves' into the straights to make it more interesting to look at. Build yourself a 'test plank'. Mine was only 1m long of double track with a crossover with servo operated points and fully ballasted, but it allowed me to 'try out' most of the building methods and electrical wiring / plugs / sockets / etc before I committed to the main layout. That was really useful. I hope the above is 'useful' at least in some respects / aspects. Ian

Starting the Staircase The Staircase is the main point of entry for the passengers onto the Platform. It connects the Gallery of the Overbridge Building down to the Platform itself. It's quite a basic element but, because of the number of small (and thin) pieces, it's going to be difficult to build. As usual, I'm relying on cereal packet cardboard for most of the structure, with a couple of styrene tubes and a few bits of greyboard. The 'design' looks like this: Those handrails are 1mm thick (or thin). Yes, these 'should' be nearer ½mm and twice the number of vertical elements, but I have to be realistic, and design something that I have a 'chance' of building! The various elements were exported from the design (in Xara Designer Pro X10) as an SVG file for importing into the Cricut software that controls my Cricut cutter. Here are those various elements cut out of Morrisons Mighty Malties cereal packet: There are a lot of 'side' elements as I plan to 'double' them up to get an appropriate thickness. I was very surprised that the handrails came off the cutter in one-piece, first time. Now, where did I put that PVA glue ... Ian

I think I'd go with piano wire (~0.6mm) and ½mm cardboard (from cereal packets). You could also use 20-thou styrene sheets, but I tend to the cheaper option! The cardboard can be easily painted as desired. The piano wire could be built up into the scaffolding configuration required, soldering the joints. The cardboard 'planks' can either rely on gravity or be glued into place with PVA. Ian

Platform Completed (ish) As intimated in my previous posting, it was time to 'pave' the rest of the platform and install the coping stones. These were, again, simply inkjet prints of downloaded textures suitably re-scaled and 'weathered' with my Xara Designer Pro software. The sides of the platforms were also treated to a brickwork texture. Looking back at my 'library' of photos of the actual station, it was evident that I'd have to detail the end (bufferstop) of the Bay Platform. It looks like this: The 'wall' and steps were quickly fashioned out of 2mm greyboard (with some additional 1mm card). This time I decided that painting would be better than a texture, particularly for the steps. And here's the result: This is another photo taken further down the platform: Yes, I know the Platform building is not 'properly' sunk into the surface. It's currently quite a tight fit (which is good) but cutting a sliver off the edges of the recess is very difficult (which is bad). I'm 'hopeful' that using a new blade in my scalpel will be sufficient to do the trick. The absence of the staircase it now getting to me, so that's looking like the next project. Ian

Ian, Yes, I also had 'fun' with my first (and second) 3-way turnouts! Here's photos of the top and bottom of my wired 3-way turnouts. Top: Bottom: Red and Black provide power to the turnout rails (back to black ...). The Green wire goes to the microswitch operated by the servo on the 'outside' point motor (LH one in the photo above). The Orange wire goes to the servo on the 'inside' point motor (RH one in the photo above). The turnout was not 'modified' in any way, other than to cut away some 'webbing' from the underside to provide access to solder on the power wires. Hope this helps. Ian

According to BRM April 2023, page 79, it was the November 2005 issue of BRM. Here are a couple of other photos I found of the layout: Ian

You may wish to purchase the NCE USB interface adapter (ref: 524-223?) with your NCE PowerCab. With the appropriate software on a laptop (or PC), by which I mean JMRIs free 'DecoderPro', you can also control your trains from the laptop. The DecoderPro software also lets you build a 'Roster' (or sorts) of all your locomotives, although that's only accessible 'in' the software, not on the PowerCab handset. I find setting up a new DCC decoder (or editing one) easier with DecoderPro than using the PowerCab handset. Ian

The one I have is a Q15 (there are still some on TheBay) and cost ~£30. They're not 4K (despite what the blurb says), but produce acceptable 720p videos. It's at the 'cheap' end of your price range ... Ian

Overbridge Supports Installed Finally, after what feels like an eternity, the Overbridge support columns are installed in the Platform. The hold-up has been me procrastinating over what buildings (if any) to place on the Platform under the Overbridge. I looked through a lot of old photos and the only buildings I can be certain were in place in the 1970s were a long narrow one adjacent to the Northbound (at the extreme northern end of the platform) and the lift shaft from the Overbridge building. There are plenty of YouTube videos showing 2 other buildings towards the southern end of the Overbridge, but these are both plastered and very plain. I'm guessing these were installed 'after' the demise of the 1873 buildings in 1972. With 'my' Platform only extending ~50% under the Overbridge, I'm left with just the lift shaft to accommodate. This I can't place absolutely accurately (well, I 'can' but it wouldn't be wholly on the Platform!) as 'my' Platform has to curve to fit around my tracks (that has to curve to fit on the baseboards, that has to ...). I've therefore had to locate the lift shaft in the best 'representative' location. Here's the Platform complete with the lift shaft ('sunk' into the platform) and the support columns installed (aka, hammered into the Platform): You may also notice that the coping stones have been installed along the Platform edges. This is another of my home-made textures, based on one from the SketchUp online textures library. Once installed on the layout, under the Overbridge, we get this: Yes, I put all that effort into a lift shaft you can't even see! But, with the application of a little light through the openings in the side walls: Realistically, the lift shaft will only get seen in any on-track videos I make using my CubeCam installed on a wagon. Next, I'd better finish off the rest of the Platform by installing the paving texture and the coping stones. Ian

Has this reduced the 'pulling' power of the loco? I've found that with BEMF 'on', if you put your finger infront of the loco you can feel it increase the power. With BEMF 'off', a finger just stops the loco. Ian

Is this the same sort of stuff? I got this off TheBay from https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/382950845123 (just a customer, 1-year ago). The price is still less than £5 a tube. In case you are wondering, I used it to glue a square styrene rod to the inside of a freezer drawer to reinforce it and repair the cracks in the drawer.

Overbridge Support Progress This has been a little more 'messy' than I wanted, and I've still not installed the support columns on the platform. All the support columns have been painted in a nice 'bare steel' colour that seems quite representative of the colour in the 1970s (they are currently green!). The platform has been 'paved' using a texture I downloaded from t'internet. It took 3 A4 sheets to cover this part of the platform, and the joints are almost invisible: The 'paving' is inkjet printed on 230gsm paper (more like thin card really) and glued down with clear PVA. It'll receive the coping stones in due course, printed on, thin, 100gsm paper that'll take up the curve of the platform edge. The 2 missing columns between the tracks have now been installed (and the previously installed ones also painted) and carefully hammered in (well, it was a small hammer) until they were the correct height, 'just' missing the overbridge 'steelwork': I can't install the columns on the platform until I've built and installed the building that goes on the platform under the overbridge. Getting dimensions for said building it taking some time. Ian

No need to apologise. I think I was clutching at straws ... 'Maybe' M12093 had its BT15s retrofitted with coils to become BT17? Any evidence gratefully received! Ian

You make a good point there. But ... I've seen no evidence that M12093 was fitted / retrofitted with BT17 bogies. The Railway Observer (September 1979) does state that M12093 was fitted with BT15s though. I can't the only person with a photo of this BT17 bogie (assuming that E42224 was indeed so fitted) ... It must have made it onto some other Mark 3 coaches? Ian

Sorry to hear about the injury. Hope it heals soon. Note that your typing is probably better than my (fully functioning 10 finger) attempts. Many thanks for the explanation. Now the rectangular plug and hole makes sense. I did have a thought in the back of my mind that a round pin 'might' not have enough shear strength as well. Ian

Very glad to hear someone else was interested ... Brilliant. Well done that man. Your 'evidence' does seem to be well founded and shows, for one thing, that I should become a member of Robert Carroll's "BR Coaching Stock" groups.io!. Here is a 'possible' timeline: BT15 bogies were installed on Mk3 loco haul stock in ~1979 (The Railway Observer) My photo of the mystery bogie dates from 1981 The Facebook link you sent states regarding Mk3 TSO M12010 "Another experiment that arrived at Longsight in 83 was this Mk3 TSO which had been given modified bogies. I don't know if they had been reclassified but were essentially BT10s altered to use Clouth springs." In https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:675174/FULLTEXT01.pdf it says "In evaluation of the HST tests, it was possible to compare results from coaches with different bogies. The coach with BT17 bogies had a poorer ride than the coach with B10 bogies, and the r.m.s. values for vibrations were approximately 10% higher. Despite this fact, there were no significant differences in the comfort ratings of the test subjects (Harborough1984, Harborough1986a)." and "During1983-1984, comfort tests were conducted with an HST (High Speed Train) and an APT (Advanced Passenger Train). In the HST tests, MkIII coaches were used, one with BT10 bogies and one with BT17 bogies. The coach with BT17 bogies had defective dampers and therefore had worse dynamic behaviour than expected (Chapell 1984)." What is not clear is 'when' was the BT17 developed out of the BT15? My photo shows it to be 1981 or earlier, but the other extracts above could be construed as to imply a later date? Based on the above, we have to conclude that the statement in http://www.traintesting.com/M12140_Mk3_coach.htm that "BT17 bogie was a BT10 but with coil/rubber pedestal primaries and was fitted under Mk3 coach No: M12093." is incorrect, and should say BT15. Now you have 'pointed us in the right direction', some searching for BT17 bogies can commence ... Ian

Mike, If you are looking for 'low cost' then I can recommend 0.1" spaced PCB type connectors and stripboard (veroboard) to make your own. I have my entire layout wired using them. Here's some photos to explain. My 'typical' connectors, including the design I use for turnouts to provide both power and the switched frog power: Here's some installed under a baseboard: Yes, it's more labour intensive but I enjoy the wiring, especially when it works! Ian

Me thinks not, although I'm open to being proved wrong. With round posts (instead of rectangular), if you imagine all the baseplates on a curved diverging rail installed, they'd be at any-old-angle. That's until the rail is threaded through the baseplates ##. At this point the rail would simply take up a curve that goes through all the baseplates (assuming the holes are in the right place, of course) and the baseplates would automatically rotate to be at right-angles to the rail (they being a close fit on the rail foot). ## I gather you slide the baseplates onto the rail, and then install into the bearers. I've detailed as above to to explain my point Ian

Nah, got that idea wrong. Found this in a 2010 posting on railforums.co.uk: There are four sub-type of the BT10 bogie: BT10 - 125mph BT10A - 110mph BT10B - 125mph BT10C - 100mph The BT10C was designed specifically for the sleepers. Close up you will notice that it has additional levelling valves (these are easier to see when standing facing the bodyside, looking at the right hand bogie). There is also a different Swing Link configuration. Finally, it is also heavier, by about 350kg. Still don't know what the mystery bogie is ... Ian

It's a bit of a long-shot, but @mjkerr mentions the Mk10A & Mk10B bogies in a 2011 posting on RMWeb: Maybe he could help out ... Ian

So, getting desperate, I cropped my original photo down to just the mystery bogie and used that in a Google reverse photo search. There are quite a lot of bogie photos in t'internet, but none (!) were exactly like the mystery one. The closest I found were the bogies fitted to Mk3 sleeper 10612 (in October 2015). Here are photos of those bogies: The designations BT10A & BT10B are in the Article (link below) are are nothing I added. http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/latest-input--news--old-pictures-etc/cornwall-expo-2015-a-special-report-part-2-by-mick-house They have the 'look' of my mystery bogie, but with rubber primary (Clouth??) instead of coil springs. Does this 'jog' anyone's memories? Is it just the same as a BT15 (which also a BT10 with a rubber primary suspension - see my posting of 05/11/23 @20:13) and/or is it the same as the BT10b 'upgrade' (also referenced in my posting of 05/11/23 @20:13)? Does that make my mystery bogie a BT10C?? Ian

This is all mighty impressive stuff. The ability to design and build (3D print) your own bearers (sleepers) and baseplates (chairs) is a great idea. What I can't understand, however, is why you (and/or @martin_wynne) decided to use a rectangular plug/socket for the baseplates. I'd have thought that a circular one would have been better. That way the holes in the bearers would not need to be 'rotated' for the diverging track. It would also obviate any need for LH & RH versions of some baseplates. Or have I missed something? Ian