Denbridge

 

Best I have. Mr. King's work, so I expect you'll have some more when he happens by.

That is very tasty. I wonder if Mr. King would consider doing a  stretched Spam? (For a huge fee of course....

 

Apologies for the slight delay in the usual show report - had to rush off elsewhere the moment the van was unloaded.

 

DSC01483.JPG

Anyway, as has already been alluded to, we had a successful outing to Lincoln-upon-Newark (also being referred to as the Linwark show). I managed to remember to take some pictures in the last hour before packing up on the Sunday, so the crowds had started to disperse by the time these pictures were taken. Despite the cold conditions, we were kept nice and warm by the convector heater above our heads.

 

DSC01491.JPG

Some additional details added immediately before the show included this garage forecourt group, carefully assembled by Tom (LMS29). Further round, a steam ploughing engine has - for now - been plonked in the yard beneath the viaduct. The 1903 map identifies this yard as a 'steam plough works' so that is the current thinking behind the further scenic development of this area.

 

DSC01480.JPG

We don't always go behind the scenes so here we are. Jonathan is obviously so ahead of the game that he is standing on the opposite from his designated operating position, clearly able to control movement on the layout by thought impulses alone. Craig meanwhile is deciding which of the ample stock of pacifics he should choose for his next working.

 

DSC01484.JPG

At the south end, Tom oversees the arrival of the loaded iron ore train into the down goods yard, overseen by the new signal. Shedmaster LNER4479 senior seems to have a conundrum on his hands.

 

DSC01492.JPG

Nicest of all, as I was around the layout with my camera, it was announced that we'd been voted 'best in show' by the public and here is the club's trophy in recognition. Two A4s were requested to pose for this picture; one of them turned out to be Graeme's neverwazza stretched version.

 

And now for Ally-Pally, somewhat less than four weeks away...

I don't really recall.  If you want to start my layout thread from page 1 it may well give you an idea.  I'm guessing at least 400mm, but there were numerous differences you your own layout. The main difference is that the helix is a massive spiral running round the room, rather than in one concentrated area.

 

The first thing is that the layout that starts on page 1 was not my first attempt to build a layout.  It was probably my third or fourth.

 

Long before the versions you can see in my ET thread there were several versions of complex multi level layouts.  I'm horrified looking at these pics by the standard of track laying and the pretty awful woodwork and track bed. The comment that track laying doesn't need any skill still sticks in my mind as nothing could be further from the truth.  Laying track badly (as in these pics) was easy.  What you don't know of course is the sheer frustration as trains ran like they were on a roller coster and couplings came apart with the rise an fall of adjacent wagons. Then you have the various derailments and having to dismantle a big chunk of the layout when one of the Tillig turnouts failed.

 

Never again.  Here's some pics that few have ever seen.  They are in my chamber of horrors.

 

IMG_0905.jpg

 

IMG_0870.jpg

 

IMG_1112.jpg

 

IMG_1321.jpg

 

With all these pics the upper levels containing the terminus were still to be fitted and they would have been full width like your own.  There was a helix of sorts.  The tracks ran around the room with a continual gradient from the lower level to the top.  The gradients were typically 1:50 which were OK for multi axle diesel loco's but steam loco's really struggled with seven coach trains with a gradient that ran for something like 200' with many, many twists and turns.  Look closely as these pics and see just how  difficult it was to access the pointwork to the storage yards, even without the top level in place.

 

Of course at this time, I knew best and ignored most of the advice I was given.  I did manage to get some things running, but then a few things went wrong and it was a nightmare trying to get in there and correct wiring faults and derailments.  I guess there were three of four levels with an overall difference between the top level (that never got built) and the lowest level of around 500-600mm.

 

Look at the amount of track, turnouts and ply, most of which went in the bin.  I spend months on my back under the lowest board fitting computer automation and I lost count the number of times molten solder dropped on my bare arms, legs and head.  The lowest board was just out of comfortable reach when lying on the floor, so I was having to prop myself up and then solder from a very uncomfortable position.

 

Still convinced I knew better, I pushed on and ploughed more time and money into this bottomless pit.  Eventually it was scrapped and new versions were started, each with their own problems of hidden tracks, gradients and tons of trackwork.  Even within my current ET thread which started 10 years ago there are at least four versions to this date.  It's not as though I'm an incompetent builder.  I'm lucky enough to have a double garage converted into a workshop with decent woodworking machinery.  I build my own track and have a knowledge of basic electrics so know how to wire a layout and trace a short.  Without those skills, who knows where I'd be with an imagination that completely outstrips skill levels.

 

It's taken thousands of pounds and around 15 years of my life for the penny to drop and I now know there are no shortcuts in building a layout that will perform well and be very reliable.  One where access is easy and if something fails, it can be repaired without dismantling large areas or multiple levels to access a failed tie bar or switch blade.

 

I had hoped I wouldn't have to revisit this early attempt at layout building, but sometimes pics are the only way to show what others are trying to explain.

As far as access is concerned many years ago I built a fairly large (in terms of area) layout in my the attic in my parents bungalow.  I was young and flexible so getting underneath to wire it wasn't too much of a problem but it still needed space and i'm not sure how you'd manage that on a double decked layout - but you will inevitably need to access it.

 

 I have relatively long arms so a reasonable reach but parts of the layout were well beyond my reach once I could no longer climb onto the baseboard when i added more track in front of the more remote track I'd laid first - in fact for rail cleaning I had to get outside the insulated area and crawl overs rafters and access the track through a hole cut in the insulation.  Pretty extreme I would agree but never ever forget that the most inaccessible  part of the layout will be the bit where points fail or a derailment occurs, unless you can get up through the bottom of the helix you will never reach a derailment 3 feet away from the accessible side of it, and of course that far side will be where the derailment occurs.  

 

Building it is one thing - whatever people on here might say or you might think - but maintaining it, keeping track clean, and dealing with faults such as broken connections or dry joints that only become apparent once you start running trains is a whole bigger ballgame

As i mentioned previously,the average person only has a reach of about 30 inches. Your base boards are deeper than that. It isnt just about reaching either. To do some jobs youll need to use both hands. Plus you need to see what you are doing. So, youll need to get your whole upper body in the space under the terminus and be able to work in that space.

You still havent given any consideration as to how you will gain access to those yards and yards of track on the lower level, forgetting the helix for now. Even a800mm space between would be insufficient to gain access to over 50% of that trackage.

That was my first reaction too. I seem to recall the bell sounding when a stopping or terminating train was about to arrive. That wouldn't help with through running rains though. I doubt whether signalmen could see either. Crescent Bridge box had rhe bridge itself in the way, and North box was set back from the platform. The guy in there might have seen the North end crossing, but no chance I think of seeing the other two. With a 20mph limit, and the noise a steam engine makes, it was probably considered to be safe, particularly if there had been no incidents reported for some time. Of course there is also the fact that there was no other way to do it, and it would have cost a lot of money to create one.

 

My WTT shows that on average there was a train using the Up main every eight minutes, but of course that doesn't include shunting and most light engine movements. Mind you, as we've already agreed, an awful lot went on back then that wouldn't be countenanced now, and unfortunately a lot of raiway personnel got killed or maimed.

Platform bells were often treadle activated so would ring for all traffic.

Your numbers broadly agree with mine, then.

 

Does SCARM's 70mm separation between levels take account of the thickness of the board?

 

I suspect not and if we assume 9mm ply is used then the gap for the track work and train on the helix to pass under the topmost platform line is actually 70-9 = 61mm. That is perilously close to my measured loco+track height of 60mm, any small variation in vehicle height for whatever reason will cause a collision and note that my calculated height does NOT include underlay or powerbase plates...

 

I'm 99% certain that traffic on the helix will collide with the baseboard supporting the topmost platform line, as things are currently designed (and that's assuming that you can give the baseboard enough support around the helix with that support frame also interfering with the trackways.

 

I think you will have to increase the gradient leading to the helix at the very least.

 

But that would be just another bodge on top of a series of previous bodges and bad choices that have led to this frankly ridiculous situation. And I can't believe that you're even taking Joseph's suggestion of an additional height-adjustable N gauge layout seriously. Are you sure he wasn't joking?

No amount of tweaking and changes will alter the fact that it is completely impractical. Even getting trains to go up the helix is a waste of time if you can't get to the tracks to undertake repairs, undertake essential 'deep' cleaning, or rescue/re-rail a rogue train vehicle. As Scottie often remarked "Yea canna change the laws of physics Jim

If I can just add my tuppence worth (or 2 centimes if you will ), when I were a lad and we had no internet, we had CJ Freezer's plans handbooks, pencil, piece of paper, a huge rubber and drew lots of plans and did track laying - and inevitably something would have gone wrong and it was a case of start again. I will say that today, seemingly we may spend sometime behind these 'ere screens - at least by the dissemination of information rapidly between lots of people, we can get advice and be aware of potential pitfalls that may await us sooner than rather when it is too late, and that is a positive thing. Of course, sometimes advice is not taken up for ....... well, reasons. Whilst I agree that there's nothing better than 'doing things', some of us are cautious and others (like me) may not have anywhere to enable a start just yet.

 

For space saving, again when I were a lad, in our house where the ceilings were high, I made a layout in my bedroom measuring approximately 8'6" x 10'6" that folded up completely against one wall floor to ceiling - and it was only about 9" deep - so it took little space.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

I think one of the points that has come across on here (not just this thread) is that it seems common for designs to be mapped out on a computer that would just never work in reality for one reason or another. I think most people gained their ideas from dear old CJF or from magazine articles, so at least were basing their ideas on established, working formulae. I remember well the instances where a 'Freezer' plan was expanded and the builder complained his trains wouldn't run properly. CJF designed most of his plans around a minimum 18" radius and trains of 4-5 coaches maximum. They worked well, within those constraints

I seem to recall both the discussion & the bell. The bell was sounded on p1 upon the expected approach of a train? Thus give a warning could be given to the porters on the crossing. I would have thought they were in view of the signalman, who would be aware of their presence, and if pulling off signals could warn them.

Perhaps others remember either bell or discussion?

 

Stewart

Platform bells were in fact quite commonplace to announce the arrival of a train.

I actually enjoyed this issue more than any for quite some time!  Horses for courses.

The articles were great. It was the poor reproduction that disappointed me. But Andy has answered my concerns in a fair and balanced way, so I'll say no more.

 I think there is a car under here.

snowy car.jpg

Yuck. The little snow we had has just about gone. Now icy as hell

I always get the digital issues of magazines nowadays (saves on storage room!) in which the photos are superb. In fact I thought the March issue was one of the best for some time (pleased to see that there were trackplans too).

 

The quality of photo reproduction in magazines has been an issue since the 1980s at least. The paper used does make a difference, but it's possible to have poor reproduction on good paper too.

I realise that digital will always be superior. But it is sometimes nice to have a more traditional format. I travel a lot and squinting at a picture on a tablet is not for me. I do most of my reading on trains and planes. Andy has covered the problems with the March issue for which I'm grateful. It was sadly the worst I've seen in my chosen magazine subjects, though hopefully a one off

Chums,

 

Just a quickie or those that might have been following the stairway to hell heaven saga: Here is a photo of the finished thing (well - not quite as I have to back-fill the join between the render and the stairs).

 

I just hope I can do a decent job in the barn laying the new floor . It is about 4m up in the air!!!

 

Domestic harmony has ensued for a while. She must be pleased as she didn't bat an eyelid when I announced that there was yet another parcel arriving for me on Saturday (no not the Super D, that'll be next week - this week is the GBrF Class 66 'Evening Star').

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

20180228_211024_resized.jpg

Stairs look great. I'm sure you'll do a grand job of the floor. No matter how good, when it comes to baseboards, screw adjusting legs are your friend

You could always use a bit of two part epoxy glue instead of solder.

Blu-tac or similar to temporarily hold the screw to the driver.

 

Cheers,

Mick

Place the screws in the hole first, then the screwdriver to the head

Must be Elm!

Oh yeah. Dutch Elm Disease and all that D'oh. I thought Oak because it is protected.

 

There was a significant issue with the reproduction of March being over-inked. Feel free to compare my original image supplied to the office with how it may have appeared in print (although through conversations with contacts it doesn't seem to be all issues).

 

Buckingham_Feature_11.jpg

 

As explained elsewhere Tony's originals of Kendal Branch had disappeared and the images used (agreeably poor in resolution) were from electronic copies of the supplement they previously appeared in.

 

A pretty sweeping and damning statement considering how much time and effort Phil and I, in particular, put into the issue. 

 

 

I'm sorry. I have no wish to put anyone down, but having just returned to the hobby after a 3+year break, I've been very disappointed. I will certainly look at issues, since I always enjoyed BRM, but, and this is a purely personal reason, I cannot justify spending £4.75 on a poorly reproduced magazine. I hope things do improve, if so I'll certainly buy BRM.

Does that require removing it from a plastic bag?

How does that make any difference? 

I finally had time to sit down and read the March 18 Classic layouts issue. 

I looked forward to this sine it featured layouts and modellers I have long admired.

What a disappointment. The reproduced photos are appalling. Now, I think we can all agree, that coming from the likes of Tony Wright, the originals would be superb, so the blame must firmly lay at the feet of the Publishers and printers.

Very Disappointed. I now understand why friends have said BRM is a shadow of its former self. I certainly wont buy another copy without at least looking through before purchase. 

Well that just about puts the lid on this thread, then, doesn't it! We've clearly been wasting our time giving you feedback and now you're being told you've been wasting your time listening to it. 

 

I'm out.

Part of me wishes rmweb had been around in my younger inexperienced days. I might have avoided some costly and frustrating mistakes. One thing I'll never change though is good old fashioned hands on planning. One thing I've seen so much of, is how easy it is to plan totally impractical layouts on a computer

Oh dear! You have reminded me of my mother's cooking. We lived uphill in Lincoln, and I worked down in the City, but walked there and back, including for lunch. One Tuesday lunchtime I got home to find liver and onions on the menu. It was quite nice, and unwisely, I said so. Therafter, every Tuesday, as I walked up Lindum Hill, or sometimes Steep Hill, I knew what was waiting for me when I got home. Anyone who knows Lincoln will be aware that those hills are quite challenging, and the food usually was too.

 

Another memory, right at the end of my driving test I got stuck behind a lorry on the steepest bit of Lindum Hill, and had to double declutch, remember that?, into first gear. I managed it, thank goodness.

Liver and onions (with Bacon) was one of my few favourites as a kid. I still love it now. I've always been a little strange, I know most people hate it

@ Phil

 

No - much rarer than that - not exotic tho'. UK/European. I doubt if anyone has stock of it anymore.

 

Philip

Oak?

Thank you for your replies.  I attach for reference an output from SCARM showing just the helix, but both upper and lower levels at once, as it might have been difficult to see the transition between them with the two levels separated.

 

As can be seen, the helix only needs to pass under the first track at 7,100mm from the far left wall (or 400mm from the far right wall), not at the point where I have placed the tunnel start markers. At that point, the level separation is specified as 70mm and the gradient on the pre-helix section is < 2% (as measured by SCARM).

 

As to the height separation between turns on the helix, I have taken this from this commercial product, a 3rd/4th radius helix kit for OO gauge, which gives a separation per turn of 76mm. Somewhere between 5-6 turns would be necessary to achieve the 45cm drop in this case (and if something less than an integral number of turns is necessary, one can always continue the same curve on the flat at the bottom, of course).

 

As to steam locomotives using a 3rd/4th radius helix,

is a video of a Hornby B1 hauling an 8 carriage train up just such a helix (look at the end of the video for the haulage section), albeit on the outer (4th radius) curve. This person is using the DCC Concepts Power Base (as revealed in another of his videos).

 

is an American video (of fairly poor quality) showing an HO scale steam locomotive pulling a very long train up a helix of 18" (457.2mm) at some speed.

 

Mightbe - the reason that I do not always unquestioningly defer to all suggestions made here is that they sometimes contradict other information, such as in the videos above. I am afraid that I do not think that there is any reason to criticise empiricism - it is really the only reliable way of dealing with conflicting information.

 

In relation to whether the helix needs to be double track - it would be a lot more convenient for it to be double track, as a single track helix might well create bottlenecks. However, if a single track helix would be the only way of making this work, it might be worth considering. Given the conflicting information and incomplete data about the extent to which a double track helix (with 3rd radius on the ascent) is likely to be workable, I shall probably have to test this (with and without the Power Base) to see whether this is the case before finalising the layout design.

 

I shall be very interested in the results of Denbridge's PowerBase tests in due course.

 

Incidentally, in relation to the level separation: I wonder whether 400mm would be sufficient? That would allow me to have the N gauge layout at 1600mm, which is acceptable for viewing given that I am quite tall, and reaching to the back of that could be facilitated with a simple kick stool. The lower level would then be at 800mm and the upper level of this layout at 120mm. This would also reduce the number of turns required in the helix.

 

Incidentally, well spotted on the single/double slip error: I have now corrected this.

Hi. 400 mm is nowhere near enough clearance to get in to do maintenance. Especially since you would have to get to tracks at the back of the lower board. add to the fact you will have a scenic area at the front. Even an open area inside the lower board would be of no help. the average person only has a reach of say 70cm and since 400mm will only allow you to slide your arm in, that is as far as you'll get :/

I've recently come across your thread and have been enjoying reading through the posts. What a beautiful and atmospheric layout. I absolutely love it .

One question if I may? Youve probably mentioned it previously, but what brick papers do you use? I've never been a fan of printed papers, but those on your layout, particularly the creamery look fantastic.

That's N gauge

 

Andi

And 18" equates to 36" in OO