Harlequin

6 hours ago, Pandora said:

A book just published, written by an employee at Swindon Works, joined after school and left when the Works closed,  he was an Apprentice in the Paintshop  and rose up through the Paintshop grades from the lowest grade and qualified a a Signwriter (top grade). The old hands showed  him all the fiddles.

Crackering was one fiddle of note, crackering is  white spirit added to the kettle of paint eg Rail Blue, makes the paint easy and fast to apply,  but ruins the gloss of the finish.  if you were caught crackering  paint , you were in trouble.  A useful anecdote which debases the obsession we modellers have with the "purity" of the  colours of our models.

 

 

I think that's a story from BR days.

In Great Western days, the era this sub-forum is about, paints did not arrive in a ready made colour and did not naturally have a gloss finish. Thinners were a normal part of the paint formulation and in fact white spirit was the specified thinner for the "China Red" used on buffer beams.

To re-iterate, I'm not suggesting there is any one "pure" colour for GWR Loco green.

At the moment I'm not intending to compare model colours to prototypes, just to compare them to each other in a quantifiable way for now.

However... I have got a copy of Railway Archive No.5, as recommended in Great Western Way 2nd Edition, for the article "Painting Victorian Trains" by Dr. Anthony J. East. It gives some useful clues about the formulation of GWR Loco green ("Middle Chrome Green").

The exact mix of pigments and the resulting colour was quite closely specified by Swindon and the GWR were very careful about their "brand identity" so I think colours would have been rejected if they were not up to scratch. We know about the effects of weathering and heating and we know some of the reasons why paint formulations and painting methods changed over the years. So, I think we can explain most variations without resorting to stories from the pub about chucking ingredients recklessly into the pot!

On the subject of Lakes, Dr. East says that lakes are a specific subdivision of organic pigments: "A lake is a chemical complex formed between a [soluble] dye [snip] and a metal salt. Together they react to form a stable insoluble chemical complex." "In general, lakes are darker and more violet than the dye itself."

He says, Alizarin, the natural dye extracted from the madder plant combined with an Aluminium salt creates Crimson Lake. Crimson Lake is transparent and so needs all those undercolours but I don't know if that's true of all lakes.

45 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Transition curves are a good thing, great where space permits, but do they actually, of themselves, prevent buffer-locking?

Yes, they do.

45 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

I ask because, frankly, I can't see how they would. If the buffers ride past one another on the tightest part of the curve, surely they will lock as the train moves through the transition to straight, won't they?

 

 

When two vehicles are fully in the same curve, their buffers overhang the rail by the same amount and on the same side and so they can't ride past each other. The difference in their outswings is effectively zero.

Imagine track that simply goes from straight directly to a constant radius curve. The end of the vehicle still on the straight will have very little outswing but the one fully on the curve will have maximum outswing - maybe enough difference for the buffers to ride past each other.

A properly designed transition curve just ensures that the outswing of adjacent vehicles both increase gradually together so that the outswing difference is never greater than a buffer width.

Sorry if that's teaching Grandma to suck eggs.

(Did someone say Euler Spiral?)

3 hours ago, Paul H Vigor said:

I'm interested in the concept of 'scale colour' - how the perceived colour of a model changes depending on at what distance the model is viewed. The further you get from a painted object, the lighter the colour appears?

Hi Paul,

That's an interesting topic but I'm not going to get into it yet. It might eventually be possible to quantify the effects of scale and/or distance as a vector in CIELAB space but first things first - I need to just get some basic colour readings and see if they say anything about the relative colours of different locos.

(Yes, Hornby King class, I'm looking at you!)

Hi Tim,

3 hours ago, Tim Hall said:

Does it have a white and black tile to calibrate it before use?

The device runs a series of self-checks when it starts up including an "internal whiteboard" test. The operating instructions do not suggest any kind of external calibration is needed, or even possible.

The acid test will be whether it gives the same reading for a known sample colour (or colours) over a long period of time.

3 hours ago, Tim Hall said:

 

If you've got one loco that you're happy with, you could set that as your standard, and measure all others against it.

Yes, that's a possibility which might help me but other readers might want to use a different loco as their personal baseline so I'm not sure that publishing results in that form would be generally useful.

And of course, we know that GWR Loco green varied over time, even during the first weeks after out-shopping due to effects of heat on the varnish, so there is not one single loco colour that I'm happy with. I expect them to be different.

3 hours ago, Tim Hall said:

 

Are you glossing the surface up first? If not, it'll affect your ability to compare other locos of a different gloss level.

 

(Colourist in the plastics industry from 1993-2005.....)

 

I won't be glossing up the surfaces. Model loco paint finishes are generally very similar in terms of the gloss level and I will rely on that to allow model colours to be compared. I also don't want to add another variable in to the measurements which might complicate things and make it more difficult for others to reproduce my results.

In theory anyone who cares to buy one of these colorimeters should be able to measure the same make and model of loco as me and get the same results, within some acceptable level of tolerance.

To try to get a grip on GWR Locomotive green in model form I bought a cheap colorimeter:

This device measures colours using it's own calibrated light source and gives results in a colour space called CIELAB, which is device independent and is widely used to specify and compare colours throughout manufacturing industry.

CIELAB (more correctly "CIE L*a*b*") is an international standard that describes colours in absolute, unambiguous mathematical terms. The three components of CIELAB are:

• L*: lightness 0 to 100
• a*: green to red (usually given in the range -128 to +128)
• b*: blue to yellow (usually given in the range -128 to +128)

By changing the values of each of those three components you can specify every colour that the human eye can see. Each colour can be thought of as a point within a 3 dimensional shape - a cylinder with the L value measuring the height of the colour within the cylinder.

At the bottom of the cylinder where L (lightness) is 0, colours look something like this:

At the top, L lightness is 100:

In the middle, around where GWR Loco greens are found, it looks like this:

To be able to compare CIELAB measurements against each other, and to reproduce them accurately, it's important to know the colour of the light source that was used to measure them. My new device uses a standard D65 illuminant with a 10° field of view, which is equivalent to noon daylight.

So, the colorimeter should give objective measurements of loco colours without any bias due to the perception of the viewer or the lighting conditions. I just need to be able to get access to a flat area of colour at least 8mm diameter on the models I want to measure.

More to follow...

Hi Neal,

Have you considered the GWR overbridge style kits here:

https://greenwoodmodelrailwayproducts.co.uk/shop/turntables/oo-turntable/ (All out of stock currently)

and here:

http://www.metalsmith.co.uk/4mm_scale_00_EM_P4.htm

I have no idea if they're any good but both claim to have motorised and indexing options.

58 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

Agree in turn, but even with transition curves, if the constant radius is too tight for the length of the rolling stock, buffers will slide past each other as the track straightens out again.

Guess how I know....

Agree but if you design your transition curves correctly, they will not allow the buffers to slide past each other.

28 minutes ago, Tim V said:

Clearly you haven't read the works of Peter Denny. You are describing a different phenomena. The buffers should not be in contact when pulling. Therefore they will not cross.

If your reverse curves & transition curves allow you to propel stock through them without buffer locking then you have truly found Nirvana.

:railway bhudda:

29 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. If the curve radius is too tight relative to the length of the rolling stock, there will be buffer locking, even on a plain curve.

Agree. This is one of the reasons for using transition curves between straight track and constant radius.

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Alternative buy a new DCC ready B1 (31-717, according to Bachmann) and put new number and Name on it

 

https://www.Bachmann.co.uk/product/category/152/lner-b1-1264-lner-lined-green-(revised)/31-717

With one stroke, @melmerby chops right through the Gordian Knot!

I found a photo of her in later years in the "Everything Great Western" group in Facebook. Date of photo not given but it looks like she's standing in a line of condemned locos with her number roughly painted on where the plate used to be. The letters GWR are just visible under the grime on the tank.

The caption says: "1901 Class loco No.1925, was turned out from Stafford Road Works in December 1883. In 1949 it was specially painted at the works ( including GWR lettering) in order to appear in the film " The Chiltern Hundreds" The engine then returned to normal service until withdrawn in April 1951, by which time it was then the last GWR O-6-0 saddle tank loco in existence."

I can't copy the photo or provide a link because "Everything Great Western" is a closed group but it is well worth joining. If you join, search for "saddle 1925" to find the photo.

13 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

A viable basic idea and some good suggestions for improving it.  I will make a few general comments; you are going to be using a mix of setrack and flexible code 100 streamline which is fine, but I would suggest that the sharper curvature should be the setrack, which was probably your intention anyway.  Curving flexi below about 2' radius risks straining the chairs and possibly pulling the rail out of gauge.  The setrack curved turnouts are great space savers, but my impression is that Peco are better quality than Hornby and will give better service.  I am of the view that conventional rather than an island platform will be a better use of space; island platforms need to be wide enough to allow 6' between any waiting room and the edge.  

 

Look up a plan called 'Bredon', which will I think tick a lot of your boxes and is very satisfying to operate; this is a single platform with goods passing loops and a similar goods yard to yours.  You can retain the length of the back road and maintain road vehicle to the goods shed (assuming that is what's going on the front road) by having a road crossing or inset track that vehicles can cross on your back road; of course this crossing must be kept clear except for during shunting operations.  

 

Further operational interest can be provided by a small factory, dairy, brewery, or anything that comes to mind with a private siding.  There is room for one in one of the front corners and the siding is a kickback from the outer road.  But if the layout is to live under a bed the building will be vulnerable and is probably better removable for safe keeping.  It's obviously a double bed and thus sometimes used for double bed related activities which might mean that any detail that stands off the surface a bit is prone to damage, as double bed related activities can sometimes result in 'heat of the moment' stuff, you lucky devil...

 

I am concerned that 2 6x2 boards with delicate models on the top is going to be lumpy and awkward to handle, and something you are soon going to get fed up with.  Before you commit to this layout, take some time to consider the possibility of a fy>terminus setup about a foot wide along a wall or maybe in an L shape along 2 walls.  If parts are in the way, perhaps they can be hinged to fold, and if the fy is 'permanent' as a shelf the stock can live on it, which will mean that the layout can be very quickly set up and in full operation, and there will be no need to set the stock out and put it away at the end of each session, something else that does not take long to become a chore.  My own layout is in a bedroom, but permanently erected, and I can operate by performing a move or two during the adverts while watching the tele; it's a 2 room flat!  I find end to end layouts more interesting operationally than roundyrounds, though these are much better for train watching!

 

Spend some time cogitating (I've got an old X04 motor that does this) on what you want from the layout, what interests you need to have satisfied with it.  A roundyround is space consuming in a small room and ideally needs a dedicated railway room that it can hug the walls of; it is difficult to reach more than 2 feet from the edge baseboards if you are to do delicate work like uncoupling tension locks, and your curves are too tight for scale couplings.  You need 3 side access to the layout you've drawn. as has already been said.  Do you want to watch trains running through scenery?  Do you want realistic operation?  Is your main interest making buildings and scenery?  Rural, Urban, Heavy Industiral?   Different forms of layouts are more suited to each of these requirements and may be 'mixed and matched' if there is enough space; space is clearly you big problem, and the hardest to solve.  It is of little comfort that you are not alone...

 

Each of these scenarios has advantages and disadvantages.  Urban and industrial layouts have a built in excuse for restricted track plans; land is expensive and the railway hemmed in.  Similarly, river/canal/harbourside layouts are constrained between the water and a hillside which conveniently forms the backdrop.  Have a look at Oakhampton station, still extant and a very model-like situation, everything compressed on to a shelf in the slope leading up to Dartmoor, typical of railways in hilly areas; it has a double track main line, 2 platforms, a goods yard and shed, and once had a loco depot with a turntable as well, all on a site about 100' wide, tops.

Okehampton

1 hour ago, KNP said:

Well, this is Little Muddle don’t forget and just because the picture was posted today doesn’t mean it set off today!!!!

The 20th of September 1938 was a Tuesday... 

The "Suite for jazz orchestra No. 1" by Dmitri Shostakovich, was premiered on this day, 1938. (To pick a fact not related to the rumblings of War in Europe.)

Thanks for the answers.

To be brutally honest I don't think that space is usable for a scenic model railway. You will be looking through the trusses all the time so the scenic illusion just won't hold up. And if you look into the model diagonally the view will be blocked even more by the trusses.

I would have suggested a scenic area in the central aisle but, since the aisle is under 4ft wide and the inner posts slope into the aisle, I don't think that will work either.

I can't offer any more thoughts, except to get the builders in and open up some of the trusses (with building regs approval of course). Sorry.

2 minutes ago, KNP said:

Chris

 

What I am thinking about is on these lines.

I've done a quick sketch to show my line of thought, not the definitive answer but you never know it might provide the spark to get that old brain box thinking...

The track is concealed from view and just disappears behind the tree lined cutting, here I would use some large trees to get the effect.

The area now looks like a wooded hill that the railway has cut through at a lower level and the road bridge providing the view blocker as the train heads off into the distance.

As a plus you now have a vehicular entrance to the goods yard.

 

 

 

Remember....

From little seeds mighty oaks do grow.

From this little sketch the mighty answer might evolve!

 

I think that would have to be, at least partly, a rock-sided cutting for two reasons: Banks take up a lot of space and in the real world they were kept clear of trees.

You could possibly also attempt the neat visual trick of continuing the cutting towards the backscene so that the line of the track appears to be straighter than it really is. Maybe put some dummy track in the bottom! (But you then need to disguise the junction of the cutting with the backscene somehow.)

I agree with Keith that the curved points look like Setrack parts. Redraw using Streamline Code 75 parts to find out if the plan still works. You may need to do something clever to achieve the tight curves in Code 75 flexitrack. I'm sure it can be done but it won't be as straightforward as laying to the typically larger radii used with flexitrack.

P.S. I think having one siding without road vehicle access is fine because you need somewhere to store your empties and generally shuffle wagons around during loading and unloading.

Edit: I don't think there's room between the tracks for an island platform. The minimum width for an island platform should be 48mm but you can fiddle that a bit. With the tight curves you may need to leave ~25mm between the platform edge and track centre to allow for the overhangs of long vehicles - you need to test that. That adds up to ~100mm between track centres either side of the island platform for most of its length.

The roof trusses are really constraining. Are the inner ones upright? What is the distance between the inner posts? (Looks like about 5 feet?)

Do you want your railway to be scenic?

Are you using Setrack parts for a particular reason?

I stumbled across a hint about the two whistle tones in this photo of the cab of Odney Manor:

In the top right you can see the two labels, “Whistle” and “Brake Whistle”...

2 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

 

Correct, I am (per the thread title, in fact).

 

Unfortunately Peco themselves seem to be confused between the code 100 and the code 75.  This was their answer when I posed the question to them by e-mail:

 

Due to the design of this turnout, the left hand route would be a nominal 24" radius, with the right hand route of a slightly larger nominal radius being nearer to 36".

 

That weasel word, "Nominal", is their "get out of jail free" card...

This is 7828 Odney Manor at one of the recent WSR open days:

Sorry, not the best photo and take it with a pinch of salt because, (a.) it's one of the 1950s BR-built versions and (b.) it's in preservation livery.

I've only just noticed the helpfully labelled Whistle chains - "Whistle" and "Brake Whistle"... Interesting...

The staggered point blades don't reduce the radius of the smaller right hand route by very much.

I measure ~915mm for the left hand route, as expected, and ~800mm for the right.

Peco do make mistakes with their stated radii. They sometimes claim the Large turnouts are 60in radius - and that's just silly.

14 hours ago, pgcroc said:

 

Hi Pete,

The branch line is very close to the main line in lots of places - so will it "read" as a branch line or just as another part of the main line infrastructure? It will share tunnel portals with the main line, for instance.

Operationally speaking, why is the engine shed at the end of the branch line? A tiny branch line wouldn't need a big engine shed. The through station might need one (if it were bigger) but the shed doesn't have a direct connection to the through station, even though it's adjacent to it.

I assume the Goods shed (GS?) is just a placeholder for something more developed but remember that the goods shed needs a yard and both of them need road access. You need to be able to back a lorry up to the shed doors.

Be careful not to put so many buildings in front of your railway that you can't see it.

How is the raised station building connected to the rest of the world? How do people get in and out?

Both your high level termini are very close to the back. Remember to leave room for some scenery behind them otherwise they will never look realistic. (Unless you cover them with train sheds!) Minimum: a few mils for a brick retaining wall but that would be extremely boring (and odd for a high level station). Maybe a platform, a low relief station building? Maybe something more fancy?

This is vaguely similar to the station I drew earlier, but rotated by 180° (or flipped).

My one island platform was 70mm wide. The other platform was not an island so that it could accommodate a traditional station building with level road access.

Tighter radii heading towards the lifting section on the left.

Larger curvaceous radii heading into the scenic end on the right.

3 minutes ago, pgcroc said:

Hi Harlequin

 

 

Do you mean these 2 points and the crossing?

 

Cheers

Pete

Yes.

31 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

If you really want to go to town, then this kind of formation is (I think) not unlike the kind of thing that you might have seen at junction stations...

Since the branch platform loop connects to the main line at the other end of the platform you could avoid the second connection at this end as well..???