Philou

There are arguments for and against both - the thing that does concern me about the turntable is point loading on the floor joists. I'm really at the limit regarding spans in timber. We shall see as I have time to explore both before any real work starts - it is nevertheless good to have ideas and contributions from all of you who read this thread.

Cheers,

Philip

Well, I mulled a lot this afternoon having found that the footings of the house are only 8" (200mm) deep and based on some very nasty looking and sticky green/grey clay. The only thing in between the stones was earth - not even earth/lime - just earth. The stone is shot too as it's mudstone. It's hard and the same colour as engineering brick - and that's the end of any similarity. It fractures when hit or subject to frost. Still, I shall just rake out the earth, replace the worst of the stones and make good with some lime and sand mix and then back-fill with the clay and a covering of gravel. It's going to be protected by the decking so I'm not over concerned - after all it's been standing for 190 years (so far).

Back to the traverser/turntable debate: I did have a thought regarding the traverser. A steel tube frame fixed on industrial grade castor wheels (supermarket trolley style but non-swivelling)

that would run in grooves (steel rail or even just timber battening) to stop any drift.The top of the frame would skinned with plywood. Sturdy, not too heavy, few moving parts and easy to push/pull. The alignment being taken care of by the peg-in-hole system. What do you think?

Cheers,

Philip 

Chums,

Ideas are flying around again. I agree that the turntable idea may well be worth re-visiting. My son-in-law is a very good car mechanic (see where I'm going?) and can knock-up no manner of things in metalwork. The key - and what had put me off at first - is the central support/pivot and the forces put on it when turning. I need to have in mind the weight on one central point in respect of floor loadings - spreading the load over two/three or more points using a traditional traverser seemed to be the more prudent approach.

I am reconsidering the turntable for a number of reasons:

The timber or the flooring as supplied is actually 6.15m long. Allowing 150mm bearing into the wall it means I have 6.0m with which to play. Added to that if I follow Joseph and John's idea of cantilevering the layout boards so they oversail the void increasing the width to about 6.4m (walls out of true unfortunately), I end up with rather more space in the middle that allows the turntable to turn without hindering any operating areas north and south. For simplicity of operation I like. As for the alignment of the tracks - as mentioned earlier - peg-in-hole could be just the job.

Regarding the construction, traverser or turntable, I was considering a steel subframe with cross members skinned with good quality ply - not too thick of course (15mm could be a good compromise). The building itself is dry BUT when the weather is damp (fog or drizzle) there is humidity inside. However, this primarily because the walls have to be raised to meet the new roof-line and the existing doors and windows need to be renewed and sealed properly.

There it is, mulling time whilst excavating in the garden today,

Cheers,

Philip

@Joseph

Ahhh .................. Sorry Joseph, it seems I mis-read your post #234 at the time .

Hats off therefore to you for having the idea first.

Cheers,

Philip

@john ks

That is rather a good idea cantilevering the layout boards over the void (it's on one side only), as it will easily give enough headroom to make use of the space underneath (I described it earlier as being no more than a corridor) for storage without banging one's head on the new floor beams and no space to lose stock down the hole. What's more I gain a metre or so extra length down the short sides ................ what to do with the extra space? I reckon Harlequin will say I can revisit his idea of looping the Newent branch back upon itself - we'll see . Thanks for the roller bearing suggestion.

@Harlequin

I saw gordon s had used something akin to drawer runners on his traverser, but I hadn't seen anything technical regarding their use. I did see that he had used a simple peg-and-hole system to align the traverser tracks to the board tracks. I do take the point that the threads would take some time to slide the traverser along. Shove and push might be the simpler solution as long as it is free running - perhaps as Chimer and john ks have suggested, to supplement the drawer runners.

@Chimer

Thanks for the drawing - it's certainly simpler than my mechanical ideas. Having never done metalwork in my life I would have been reliant on someone else for assistance. Whilst my woodworking skills are not too great, I get by (if you don't look too closely ). I have no problems with brick-built sh*thouses err, outhouses I mean. The one at our school didn't even have a roof on it - but it was solid!!

I may adapt your plan as I want to avoid taking up too much floor space with the support. As Harlequin has suggested there are heavy duty runners available - perhaps there are some that will allow some overhang without causing too much deflection. I'm thinking here of our Ikea drawer unit at home that is 600mm deep and pulls out to at least 450mm that is chock-a-block with crockery. Been good for 5 years or so for without any undue wear. They're simple domestic runners too!

I have seen in tiling shops heavy duty steel drawers full of boxed tiles - and they're heavy! Perhaps that's the sort of thing ............ the runners alone might do.

Thanks for the suggestions chaps,

Thinking time ahead when I'm excavating in the garden tomorrow .

Philip

That's why I think cassettes are a better option:

Stock is already 'boxed' on rails ready to be linked to the track; and,

Stock can be made up in its respective eras ready to go.

No, I won't be running modern and pre-nationalisation together - though I shan't have enough of everything to run from 1900 to 2018. Tempting as it is, my pockets are simply not that deep! In any case, as sure as eggs is eggs, someone will no doubt say 'Oh. You can't run that loco with that stock because ......... ', even if you try and coordinate everything. I shall try and not do too many glaring errors, Rule 1 notwithstanding of course .

Cheers,

Philip

@Denbridge

Under board storage I guess is a bit of a no-no if you try to keep to shallow gradients AND have enough room under the boards (plus their bracing etc) to reach in and lift out. What would we say? 70mm for the height of stock, 70mm + clearance (20mm?) plus the thickness of your hand and grab of the fingers - another 100 - 150mm? I would guess at 250-300mm overall for comfort. And then, there's all the pain of setting back on the track if something derails .

I think cassettes will have the edge ....... .

Cheers,

Philip

Hi RMWebbers,

'Tis I - reporting back. Not a lot to tell except that I have now finished re-pointing my wall - delays caused by poor weather, grandchildren, parties (wedding and birthdays), dreaded tax returns (UK and French  - urghh) and generally 'other things that must be done'. The scaffolding is down and I must now turn my attention to setting up some decking - I  need to dig into some unknown soil eg: is it soil or made-up ground? I shan't know until I start digging out this week. Once done I can put in some concrete footings with some galvanised steel plates upon which I can then set up some timber posts clear of the ground to then construct the decking framework - happy days ahead .

On the railway front - I had a personal delivery of some goodies by Mr Lord of LordandButler himself. Express delivery in under 24 hours - beat that!

I have very eclectic tastes - in the parcel was: a Dean Goods in plain green - good for use on the Dymented branches, an LNWR D2A (in LMS black without the tender half-cab) - so good for some period running and a very recent release of the Class 150/1 with sound in ATW colours. That will be fine for up-to-date use on the Cardiff-Shrewsbury run via Pontrilas. I shall have to get an equivalent in Centro (?) colours for the Hereford-Birmingham run via Ledbury. Oh dear, the credit card has run away!

On the layout I've tried to design a mechanism for the traverser - I'm thinking a square tubular steel frame with a threaded bar at each end which is free to rotate via a cycle chains and cogs. The bars pass through mounts that are threaded. The mounts at each end are fixed onto a solid frame so that when the threaded bar turns it moves back-and-forth through the mount thus allowing the traverser to move. I need to think up some means of secondary support to the traverser so that the weight is not carried by the threaded bars that would no doubt flex too much. I've only done back of fag packet sketches at the moment and I don't know if it's feasible or not! My inspiration for this comes from the lathe mechanism for moving the piece towards the clutch - if you know what I mean. Any ideas?

Regarding the plan, I have toyed with the idea of creating additional storage space under Pontrilas by taking off a sub-branch to the Dymented branch behind Ledbury viaduct. However, even on a maximum grade of 1:50 (2%), there's less than 200mm of headroom notwithstanding bracing/supports under the Pontrilas boards - so it's pretty much a non-starter.

I shall, instead, create additional shelving under Pontrilas and Ledbury and keep the spare stock in cassettes. I wanted to avoid packing and repacking all the spare kit I have. It means I can have everything 'themed' ready for use - excepting the big units such as HSTs and the blue Pullman that don't lend themselves so be readily split. They will need to stay out more or less permanently.

There we are - that's it for the moment. I'll pop back from time to time with further updates.

Cheers,

Philip

Hello chums,

Been busy repointing the wall and so I've had to let the modelling and proposed layout slide a bit. However, Mike The Stationmaster and I, have been in contact regarding Ledbury station - especially the goods yard in trying to determine the track layout. He and I have found very little by way of photographs showing what is what - the signal box seems to be always in the way!

Notwithstanding, I have generated several layouts of the station area based on OS sheets (that are not always accurate) and guesswork from what can be seen in the odd photos. There aren't an awful lot of changes, but I should like to know what the signal box is hiding .

I attach for your delight and delectation, and thoughts, the various layouts:

With my DIY hat on - here is the scaffolding that my brother-in-law and I set up about 10 days ago and some of the repointing work. I am about half way along the wall now.

I did manage some modelling - trying to attach six copper strands onto some fence posts with some rather shonky cyano glue - was not a happy bunny.

Road surfacing and grass to be added.

Cheers everyone (hope you all had an Easter egg),

Philip

Hi Nicolas,

I think imt has probably got it right - an office inside a layout.  Tsk I can't see much 'work' work getting done - it isn't going to end well  .

Cheers,

Philip

Oooooh! That looks fun! Didn't know they did a turntable either. I think the second is better as it has lots of loops for interest - but - it seems it's mostly uni-directional. For example, if you leave the engine shed and follow any of the routes you cannot get back to it without reversing, whereas the first one has two reverse loops so can get back to where you came from in the opposite direction - but there again he's only two!

Good luck and have fun .

Philip

Think I'd rather spend my money on this than the rail mounted gun - no?

At last! Bit of a faff. I had to use the basic editor and resave it.

Here it is:

Cheers,

Philip

Hopefully it will work this time:

Nope!

Hello chums,

I'm back - this time toying around with the baseboards within the plan above and just as well too. It has shown up an annoying 'inconvenience'.

As I have extended the floor plan slightly all round, and had I left the proposed baseboards starting in the top left-hand corner (0,0), assuming a baseboard height of 1m off the floor (height plucked from the air for the exercise only) there would have been less than 1.2m headroom for those coming up the stairs. By now starting on the right-hand side (50,7950) (50 taken off for dry-lining) the headroom is now increased to 1.6m which is much better. Increase in board height = more headroom. I am very reluctant to bring the stairs further into the railway room as it will involve cutting more load-bearing timbers that I want to avoid as much as possible.

I have avoided amending the plan #226 to use up all the 'extra' floor space as until I lay the floor down I shall not know if the room is square or not - I suspect not very - so I err on the side of caution here. The coloured blocks below the floor plan shows a possible dividing of the layout into convenient transportable modules so that I can take them out so as to work whilst on their sides for soldering, maintenance and the such. The modules as shown, avoid all cuts through pointwork. However I do think there are rather too many - more cuts = more rail joints = more possible problems.

It's a bit of a pity that I am uncertain about the 'squareness' of the proposed space as I could have got some plywood in and started to make modules and at least lay paper templates to see the lay of the land whilst I'm not raking out joints - rain has stopped play for today .

Cheers,

Philip

Edit: The system wouldn't let me attach the file. I'll try in another separate post.

Hello Joseph,

The cantilevering south wards is around 300mm over and above the assumed 5.5m that I had determined to be the size of the layout - the reality is that I really should dry-line the barn walls as they are 500mm thick and made of stone - their insulating qualities are nil. Assuming that the walls are perfectly true vertically and horizontally (probably not) I would lose another 50mm all around. The maximum gain would be 200mm. However, east-west, I might gain 300mm! . Every little helps as I would probably use any extra area to ease the curvature of the main running track.

Cheers,

Philip

Hi John,

Unfortunately you've hit the nail on the head - the timbers are already in the barn drying out. They are a maximum 6m for the north-south (as looking on the plan) and 8m for those east-west. In any case, what is not seen on the plan is on the top of the low wall upon which are the posts, is a lower mezzanine that is no wider than a corridor that is used as storage. I don't think Mrs P would view it too kindly if she were to bang her head on the extensions - the difference is 5' and she's just over that. I shall be pinching about 300mm of airspace so that will ease the area above. However, I shall probably lose some of that IF I dry-line all around to help with insulation/heating, dust and vermin - I need to cost that bit out .

But thanks for the proposal.

Philip

Hello chaps,

Hope you've all been busy - scaffolding arrived yesterday (Sunday) and two wheezing geezers (me and Mrs P's pseudo-brother-in-law - don't ask) put it up today - it didn't take too long, just under an hour. I got it all in place when it started to rain. Safety barrier to go up tomorrow morning and if it's dry I shall start raking the joints out. I have to be careful as we have blue-tits nesting in the wall and I don't really want to disturb them - if at all possible.

I have also been preparing some groundwork in respect of the barn - setting out the proposed timbers. Scarm was my friend. It's not really an architectural tool but it's given me a flavour of what it will be like and it helped me see that the stairwell I had in mind was not going to work. Would you like to have a look? Aw go on .........

I've had to place a trap door over the stairwell opening as I don't particularly want to do a Humpty Dumpty.

Looks all neat and tidy, but the reality is far from it . It'll be fun taking the old timbers out first.

Cheers,

Philip

Gordon,

You're too kind - I really ought to be thanking you (I don't want this to seem a 'I thank you' ... 'No, I thank YOU' ... 'I thank you' ... etc comedy show) as it was reading through your efforts of starting ET and then re-starting over that really gave me the impetus to get going again. I have picked up on things that you have tried and whilst making my own pointwork may just be outside my capabilities, I'm darn well going to give it a go. I have already created a simple cross-over on a 20m main-line radius curve via Templot (on paper only, don't get too excited there at the back). Why 20m? Because it's the curve through Ledbury station. It's a start.

Golf? Monday? We're being threatened with snow here . Good luck and I wish you a good season out there.

Philip

@ gordon s

The traverser as shown on plan #72 (now underneath the two orange rectangles above (plan #226)) has track spaced at 60mm (for hand-of-deity movements) and they are at least 140mm in-board from the edge. But nonetheless, I take your point regarding overhang each side and I shall ask my son-in-law, who is a whizz mechanically, of ideas of how to overcome the fulcrum effect.

Cheers,

Philip

BTW: I hope you're able to get out on the golf course despite the weather .

@ Denbridge

The only reason for having the storage sidings is that the branch line stock would need to travel to the main storage area - there would be more stock than could be comfortably 'parked' either at Ledbury or Pontrilas. However, I do admit that the stock using the GVR was very limited - old 0-6-0STs that had been loaned by the GWR to the GVR and thereafter having taken them over, the line was worked by a variety of 0-4-2Ts. In the case of the Ledbury line, this was worked (from the photos that I have seen) by Panniers, Prairies and the GWR railcar. Rule 1 can always be enforced , but in this instance there is an opportunity to keep things 'prototypical'.

I don't mind having the stock on show - that is why my main storage area is in the middle and not hidden behind some scenic background - which brings me conveniently to the plan now showing the traverser at its maximum 'throw'. It takes up 500mm less space (north/south) than the turntable. I have also shown it at a length of 3m. A saving in width could be made by removing the need to access the turntable directly from the traverser and the little stub road that I had shown for parking the traverser pilot:

Cheers,

Philip

Just as an add-on to clarify a point - the red circle shown is not a turntable as such, it is simply the area taken up when the storage/turntable is being rotated.

Out of curiosity, I will over-lay on another plan, the area that a traverser will take at its maximum throw (north and south and the plan).

Regards

Philip

Hello chums,

I'm back again. I cannot believe how long it has taken me to make 3 cranked 8' concrete fence posts out of 3 matchsticks, make 3 pieces of 'barbed' wire and 3 bits of fence retaining wire out of stranded copper wire, glue them all together, add a bit of netting and a drop of paint and bit of 'grass'. ALL afternoon! It only measures about 2" high and 3" long. Deity help me when I tackle the layout!

An idle question BTW: Have you chaps had any problems with cyanoacrylic going 'off' - perhaps due to old age or climatic conditions? It's partly the reason why it took so long. Both my tubes just wouldn't grab the items to be glued - fine on my fingers - no trouble sticking those together - oh no!

I haven't been idle on the plan front either and I'm reporting back.

Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to proceed with Phil's turntable idea - though I thought it was an idea well worth pursuing as the turntable could have been set further eastwards and the accesses into and out of Ledbury tunnel shortened. However, as you will see on the plan below, the red circle measures 3m diameter and as you can see it is ENORMOUS. I need 3m (or thereabouts) to be able to store a complete HST (2+8) or a decent 9/10 coach + loco. I am also going to need to park a double headed MGR (Class37s) with as many HAA as possible. (I have the required 32 to make up the full length train but even 3m (10ft) won't be enough).So I'm afraid it's going to have to be a traverser instead - pity in a way, as the idea of turning whole trains was very attractive.

In turning to 'Dymented', I have shown a simple station, double platform to allow for trains along the GVR and the Gloucester branch to access from each direction. Though the possibility of through-running could be done in my world, prototypically, it simply could not have happened and therefore trains will terminate and then return from whence they came. I have shown a simple siding with a platform (perhaps equipped with a small 4ton crane, a coal staith or three and perhaps a cattle pen). As it was not possible to provide a traverser in the manner I had seen in my mind's eye, I have for the time being, shown a small fan of sidings within which it is possible to hold a couple of mixed traffic trains, a railcar, or, a DMU depending on the period being modelled on the day. Other branch-line traffic can be held in the sidings at Ledbury or as seems to have been more prevalent, at Pontrilas.

At Dymented, I have also shown retaining walls at the back of the platforms so that main-line traffic passing at the higher level can be readily observed so as to follow Phil's view in that matter. I was impressed by Gordon s' use of Slater's 7mm stonewalling for his retaining walls - I wondered if a similar look could be achieved but using a colour to represent the Raglan red sandstone that was in and around Ledbury, and of course, Raglan being alongside the Newport/Shrewsbury line.

In going back to the 'business' side of the layout, I have now added a head-shunt from the traverser so that the traverser pilot can take stock away to release the loco without fouling either of the access lines. The head-shunt will remain under the Malvern Hills. For the time being I have retained the turntable and a small fan of sidings for stabling locos as there is no MPD elsewhere. I really ought to have extended the traverser to a length of 3m but as it was already over 2.5m long as drawn originally, I thought that it would not add much to the plan at the moment.

Here are the plans:

Kind regards,

Philip

Hi IamDaniel,

I assume that there has been no change in design between 2016 and this year. If not, there are 4 screws to undo. Turn the model onto its roof in a cradle or soft cloth - I use bubble wrap - and at the rear of the bogies (fuel tank ends) are the screws. You will need a jewellers style screw driver (Phillips head and I believe it's size 0). They are recessed and not too obvious at first. You need to turn each bogie hard right then hard left to access the screws. When turning the bogies, ensure that the coupling hooks (if fitted) do not foul the buffers.

If you turn the loco back on its wheels - take care as the screws will likely drop out! There are two clips at each end of the loco in the cab. To unclip these, I used two credit style plastic cards inserted between the body and the underframe starting near-to the fuel tank and working towards one end and then the other to gently prise the body off. Mine wouldn't come off straight away and it needed a little fiddling before it would unclip - but unclip it did.

Once you've done the maintenance, re-assemble in the reverse order. The re-clipping of the clips on mine was the longest part (maybe as I have a chip and loudspeaker, the wires may have fouled the bodywork at first).

Good luck,

Philip

Edit: Just to add, I hope you are able to sort it out as I have two 66s and they are both very smooth runners and quite powerful to boot.

Well, thank you Darren Ray, figworthy and gordon s for the thumbs up! I really feel motivated to carry on! Brilliant! (Lucky I didn't do close-ups ).

BTW, I apologise for the very modular look, but that's the way these French modules work - there's less than 180mm between edge of track and baseboard edge - it's all straights and very little by way of curves and the like.

Philip