Regularity

For reference, here is Kalgarin Models’ page: http://www.karlgarin.com/rail_flatbottom_sizes.pdf Note that the code 100/7 has a head width of 0.053”, which equates to 2 5/16” in 7mm Scale, and just over 2.5” in ¼” scale, which is what we are interested in here. Here is a table from Fast tracks: http://help.fast-tracks.net/customer/en/portal/articles/2430160-can-you-make-assembly-fixtures-for-rail-other-than-micro-engineering-?b_id=13520 Peco code 100 has a head width of 0.041”, or slightly less than 2” in ¼” scale. Given that code 100 rail in ¼” scale is typically representative of 75lb/yd to 80lb/yd rail on the prototype, then the rail head would be 2 7/16” wide (source: http://www.s-scale.org.uk/rails.htm ) or 0.051” on the model - makes the Kalgarin rail pretty close. And a track gauge designed for C&L’s code 125 FB rail will accommodate the Kalgarin code 100/7 rail very nicely. So, what the “guy at C&L” should have said was, “I recommend that you use our code 125 gauge*, and Kalgarin 100/7 rail. If you are not using that rail, then put some 10 thou brass shim between the gauge and the ‘non-rubbing’ faces of the rail.” Not suggesting that you pull everything up and start again, Jordan: in any case I suspect you were re-using rail from H0 track. But for anyone about to start building track to represent 80# rails in ¼” scale, I strongly recommend you seriously consider using Kalgarin’s code 100/7 rail. It will look that little bit better, and even if no one else notices, you will know. * Assuming that they produce one.

The important part of a track is the bit which sets the flangeway: as long as this is the correct width, and set so that the outer faces of the two pegs is the same as the minimum track gauge, then the rest us merely convenient, as the running rails should be no closer than the distance over the outer faces, and the guard rails no further apart than the distance between the inner faces. I am not denying the utility of such things as roller gauges which have 3 pegs/washers, designed to hold the running rail and guard rail in place, but they are not essential. If you have three or four such gauges and a few oddments of metal (to weight town the rail and stop it skidding everywhere) then you don’t need a gauge that is designed for a specific piece of rail, especially with flatbottom rail - and not all rails of the same height have the same width at the head, and nor should they: code 100 rail from, say, Peco is intended for H0 track, and has a narrower head than code 100 rail from Kalgarin, for example. For this reason, I buy Atlas code 83 flex track and remove the ties, as it has a wider head which is frankly overscale for H0, but great for S. If only they sold the rail on its own... (I also buy it directly from the USA, as even with the VAT and administrative charge, it is still significantly cheaper than buying from any U.K. importers. I know they have to make a living and have their own overheads, but they won’t be paying retail prices for it, either, and will collect the VAT when the product is sold, not when it is imported.) The “guy at C&L” should have known this, and set you straight if not put you in your place, depending on when this was and who was the particular guy owning it!

Thanks: I understand now.

Careful: you’ll get Jacky excited!

I can only say that, in thanks for providing that photo, you must have a kind heart...

Shiver me timbers: leaves me pining for the old days...

Only if travelling on the LBSC.... (Sorry)

I was intrigued by the signalling diagram for Kerrinhead in MRJ 259: access to the coal drop siding appears to be via a lever on the frame, with 3 subsidiary signal arms associated with it (one for progress from the loop to the headhunt, and then individual arms for headshunt to loop and headshunt to coal drops. I may be wrong in that interpretation, of course. It seems somewhat over-signaled - maybe something the NER might have done - compared to some of the other signalling on the plan. Would be interested to know more about this arrangement. I have seen diagrams for other LYR branch termini, but they were double track with a single platform, e.g. Holmforth, etc, so not directly comparable.

OT, but is that why I feel like I am being addressed as if I were 14?

Doesn’t he scream when you put the track pins in?

He has rated a post this morning, but if he is about, then he will have some catching up to do!

Looking good - very sturdy. Will you be adding adjustable height feet to the legs, or just take some shim/packing with you?

A disappointment to Mrs. Damian? (Smut is my middle name.)

Bonus: when the layout is not in use and the weather is wet, you can use them to dry clothes. Watching clothes dry is slightly more exciting than watching paint dry: usually a bit quicker.

Those are J class, not j class... Ah. [square root of -1] see.

It was a very eloquent, very thoughtful and very loquacious submission, but I have two problems with it. Firstly, I think it a mistake to have taken the bait that Tony was dangling: he obviously has strong opinions and a desire to find every possible reason to justify his own modelling paths by denigrating others. Tony: why not simply say that you made various choices for various personal reasons, and that you have no regrets over this because of the space requirements for the scope of the layout you want. Nothing wrong with that. Heck, you could even say that you know it is possible to build a mainline layout to P4 standards, but your personal understanding of the work required was that it would take up too much of your time and energy. Secondly, Iain also mentions a private P4 layout, but overlooks “Heckmondwyke” with a 42” minimum radius, and also the “Irish P4” layout Adavoyle, which apart from being an unusual subject, demonstrated that properly designed and made, Proto standards not only work, but work in such a way that the trains ran through the station (at speed) with just the right amount of movement, something which is not achievable in 00. And that the work involved to get to this level of reliability is not that great, either. I think the second point refutes Tony’s opinion as being without factual basis, and as a response to the original article, is all that is needed. The body of Iain’s letter is, however, a wonderful exposition of the thinking behind making an informed decision over track and wheel standards when working in 4mm scale, and should be recommended reading reading for anyone considering a thoughtful and serious approach to the hobby. (I am advocating here that we take the hobby seriously, but not ourselves.)

Nothing wrong with that: wear your nerdiness as a badge of honour!

Now we know the “missing” line from the film script, preceding this:“And that, My Lord, is how we know the world to be banana shaped.” Thanks for that: a puzzle of many decades standing is resolved, courtesy of the magic of RMWeb...

I believe IKB also rated his friend Robert Stephenson as the best engineer of their era. But without wishing to detract from RS, wasn’t it Henry Booth who suggested the key development that was ultimately the foundation of the modern steam engine, imaginary or not: the multi tubular boiler? Not only did it increase the heating surface area, but also forced the drought, producing a hotter fire, effectively turning the steam locomotive boiler away from an externally fired to an internally fired engine? And to all those 16mm ng modellers, a centre flue gas-fired boiler is externally fired, as the draw on the fire is unrelated to the exhaust steam partial vacuum. Internal - i.e. “inside” - does not mean internally!

Jacky, As you are using wood for your ties, and not plastic, you should be thinking of staining rather than painting. You can still use paint, but it needs to be well thinned, as you have the benefit of natural grain, and you can get this to show through. On a layout which was abandoned any years ago due to an unfortunate error in the baseboard construction which only became apparent when I started to lay the rails, I had great success using Humbrol “gunmetal” paint thinned to about 10% paint. I soaked the ties beforehand, but it should work applied as a wash, perhaps in more than one coat: you can also apply a coat of thinned down chocolate yo get a hint of brown, if you wish. If you apply thinned metalcote gunmetal as the final wash, you will get a hint of the silvery sheen typical of weathered creosoted timber so typical of ties that have been out in the elements for a few decades. For a darker colour, maybe newer track, the “tarmac” is a good base for the initial wash. Paint the rail as you would otherwise do. If using enamels, to this later, if acrylics, then do this sooner. I prefer the slower drying times of enamels for thus. Others may also use inks and alcohol. Whatever works for you, if it gives you a good result: the important thing is to adopt and and adapt the technique and materials to suit yourself, Suggest you have a trial on two or three ties away from the layout. Allow time for the washes to dry before applying another coat. It is possible to use washes to paint styrene to look like wood, but it requires a few extra stages. If there is some texture to the surface, it is a lot easier as paint will naturally accumulate in any dips, so it is worth dragging some coarse grit abrasive paper along the supposed grain: not much is required, no need for saw blades or anything. Then apply white primer, followed by a diluted wash of cream (to get a good base colour) and a very thin one of red oxide or something similar (adds some “warmth” to the base). Then follow on as above. I haven’t used this technique on track, but it works well on wagon interiors: Hope that helps.

Alternatively, in these days of being more environmentally aware of waste, you are ahead of the game when it comes down to recycling. Besides, they will be covered up with scenery and track beds, so who will know?

I do my best to be “helpful”.

Exhibition reviews would really come alive with a backpack hoving into view, followed by a lingering whiff of armpits which have not seen soap for some time, and deodorant never at all... Edit: iOS predictive text doesn’t know the word “hoving”!

Are we back to the thermometer again? (“Does it hurt?” “Only when I laugh...”)

Gary, Good to hear (read?) that you are home with gall bladder intact. One question, and I don’t want in any way to be alarmist, but in amongst all these tests and examinations, have they checked your pancreas?