drmditch

I have a 'cunning plan' that might be able to help with this! (I'll get on with it as soon as I've laid some trap points.)

Likewise

I hope the J54 behaved itself, in it's very few movements!

Yes please. I need Mons Meg for hauling heavy loads south from Edinburgh - at night when no-one is supposed to see!

Thank you. I've found the NLS site before, but not realised that it gave a side-by-side facility. I've just spent the last hour finding my missing railway (West Durham) - and a river bridge! That is as well as tracking most of the routes I now cycle on!

The problem with all the NER outside cylindered locomotives with a leading bogie is that there is little clearance for the bogie wheels. At least this is prototypical! K Hoole in his book on the NER Atlantics reports Zs coming into Darlington Bank Top with the trailing bogie wheels locked and skidding. Although my solution on my A8 is relatively 'low-tech', it does work. This is actually constructed from a very old DJH kit for an H1, purchased from the Newcastle Model Shop in the early 80s. (It does get so annoying when people refer to events a mere 36 years ago as 'history'!) It was one of my first attempts at kit building, and stopped when I found I couldn't get it to go round corners. Much later it was subject to a (prototypical) rebuild into an A8, with a much hacked about chassis incorporating a Comet two stage gearbox and a large Mashima motor. The cylinder problem was resolved as follows:- - Discarding the DJH cylinders and bogie, which in my opinion never look right. - Building a new cylinder assembly around a brass mandrel, but with the cylinder covers built up in plastic. - Offseting the slide bars outboard of where they should be by 1mm. - (This becomes pretty invisible on the completed model unless you know to look for it.) - Scratch-building a new bogie, with the wheelbase improperly extended by 2mm - Incorporating a curved slot which moves the bogie forward by about 2mm on curves. The result, while not brilliant, does go round 24" radius curves, and has the cylinders flush with the footplate valance. The model also has the flange and balance pipe at the bottom of the side tanks which I haven't seen on other models. Since these (rather inadequate) pictures were taken this model has had it's cast whitemetal cab roof replaced by a new and much thinner one in brass. At the same shopping the cylinders were so that they now look level. I must take some better pictures! It might be a bit dangerous to drive because it does at present lack brakes. It's a complex wheelbase to get working freely, and having got it running I'm reluctant to handle it too much. However, I do have an idea that might work! (Apart of course from replacing the chassis with a 52F one!) And if anyone points out that the bogie wheelsets have the wrong number of spokes I would answer that these were what I had in stock at the time, and that they are insulated on one side only so that the bogie is live on the opposite side to the main chassis. Having got that working I'm reluctant to play around with it! One day perhaps, if they annoy me a lot!

Thank you Tony for approving my list! Of course, there can always be other factors - like a large ginger cat waiting avidly for a train to emerge from a tunnel! He only did it once though, and now he is long gone I do miss him. He liked looking at the trains!

I do agree with the above sentiments regarding satisfactory running. All model railways have to be a compromise (mine more than most), but the one thing that they do which must have a resemblance to the prototype is run along the track - preferably with the wheels on the rails! My tracklaying is far from perfect, however the vehicles and the track normally behave themselves, even (for the most part) when visitors are there to see them. Any problems are usually those triggered by the signallers/controllers/drivers - all of whom are represented by me! Usual problem solving techniques apply:- - Investigate every occurrence - Make it happen again - Isolate the factors (vehicle/location/direction of travel/neighbouring vehicles etc) - Test the location with other vehicles - Test suspect vehicle in other locations. - If a problem is found, correct it. - Re-test the vehicle and suspect location. The most common problems I have encountered are to do with:- - Wheelset back-to-back - Couplings misplaced as regards height or vehicle buffers (I use Bachmann/Hornby small tension locks - I did say my railway was a compromise!) - buffer locking needs to be avoided! - Springing, balance and free-movement on locomotive carrying wheels (both r-t-r and my own builds) - Bogie balance and travel on r-t-r vehicles. - inadequate weight in vehicles. Other occasional problems I've found are:- - inadequate coneicity on some r-t-r/kit wheelsets - track movement caused by baseboard/ballast expansion - debris on track! - couplings low to height fouling crossings on pointwork. - representation of sandpipes occasionally fouling track ( that was a tricky one to find!) - brakeshoes rubbing! (rare for me 'cos I allow very large clearances!) And nearly the worst:- - locomotive shedding a wheel/tyre/part of the motion! - I suppose that at least that's prototypical - although losing a grubscrew isn't! The absolute worst problems of course are those one can't re-create, or at least happen less than 10% of the time! However, the search for the apparently random was a large part of my working life! At least on my railway although all the responsibility is mine I also control all of the resources!

As regards the 'roundy roundy' debate, doesn't it rather depend on what one wants to achieve? My railway is currently being re-built;- http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/105609-rebuilding-a-railway/page-1 There is no way the railway, or my modelling skills, will ever reach the standards of many of the layouts mentioned above. However, it is my private railway and meant for me, with occasional visitors who might be interested. It is inevitably compromised by tight curvature, steep gradients, un-prototypical track, and abbreviated track layouts (although with this re-build I am trying to do better.) What it does permit is:- - Running trains from 'the rest of the world' a.k.a Darlington, a.k.a the main storage sidings, via a (fictitious) junction station all the way to a (fictitious)Durham terminus. (Yes, I know Durham had three railway stations - it's just that none of them quite fitted my requirements.) - Running empty and loaded coal trains around the mid-level in opposite directions. - Running (diverted) main-line trains around the lower level, with connections to the Durham branch. - Providing a service of local passenger trains between three stations - Providing freight services between goods yards - Enjoying at least two (and possibly three) trains running continuously if all I want to do is 'watch the trains go by'. It also allows me to make what I enjoy making - locomotives, rolling stock, buildings, and infrastructure. Some of these ideas came from articles written by David Jenkinson in the '70s and '80s, and of course further inspiration from Peter Denny. So, although not prototypical, it allows me to model (and/or mimic) what the prototype was intended to do. Lastly, and by no means least, it keeps me happy!

Progress! The up and down lines on the bottom level now allow a continuous run all the way round the room and over the hinged section! The track levels seem fine. The board edge pieces of circuit-board are rather large, with 1" of track soldered down either side of a diagonal cut, I don't think that they are going to shift. I'm considering level crossings to disguise them. It all seems to work smoothly, although I haven't yet run a very long train over it. There is also the start of a control panel. There are twenty isolation switches just for the lower-level storage and the main-line loops!

I've been trying to consolidate the wiring plan. There is a diagram, description, and some questions here....http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/115694-wiring-for-two-control-positions/ Useful advice gratefully received!

Magnificent modelling, and excellent results showing from a lot of work! I live in Durham (England that is, not the other one that keeps getting in the way on Google - apologies to anyone from NC!), and the thing about the various sandstones used for everything from Durham Cathedral to quite minor railway bridges (two of which I've just traveled under on my trusty 1-1-0) is that it changes colour with the light. On a dull day it can seem very dark. Sunlight, particularly the westering light such as we have on this magnificent autumn afternoon brings out an almost golden glow. This is especially true when the stone is relatively clean, but does also have an effect on dirty stone as well. Some individual stones just pick up the glow more than others. The bridge in this photograph (now demolished and replaced) was the 'stonebridge' at Relly Mill. Originally this spanned part of the complex junction of the Durham - Bishop Auckland, Deerness, Lanchester Valley lines as well as the ECML. Sorry it's not the best picture, but it does show what I mean about light. I doubt if this bridge was ever cleaned, but of course it won't be as dirty as it would have been in the heyday of coal-fired, coal-hauling railways! I try to capture the sunlight effect on my model stonework, which is nowhere near as good as yours, because after all, doesn't the sun always shine on our models?

I'm still learning to solder properly, and here is my 'learning piece'. I've got some brass kits to construct, but I thought it might be less expensive to scratchbuild this NER A2 Machinery wagon, (LNER MAC-L) I did learn a lot - most significantly to plan structures and assembly sequences carefully. It's not as easy to add bits on as it is in plastic! I like the result anyway, even though the clunky couplings show up really badly on this type of vehicle!

I hope this doesn't apply to brass-capped-ness. (There might be visitors - one day!)

Well, mine is certainly very heavy. However, so far the hinges seem to work fairly easily!

Many Thanks LNER4479. Unfortunately, what with the baseboard edges coming where they do, I can't see a way to implement your proposal. There is, just a way to lay this:- Do you think this would provide suitable protection for the passenger lines? The problem is that I'm trying to integrate most of the existing 'old railway' station, with ballasted track etc. As I said higher up the the thread, it might have been better to have discarded these!

The pointwork for the north end of the junction station will largely have to be placed on this swinging structure. I've worked out two options, and would be grateful for advice. This allows access to/from the Platform loop from both the Up and Down directions, and provides a 'crossover' for any shunting moves (there is also one of these at the South end. It also happens that the point motors will be placed in convenient positions, and I happen to have all the pointwork I need in stock! The curvature flows easily and it 'looks right' However, it does place a facing point on both Up and Down lines. I would presume that this is not a layout that the NER would have wanted. The second option does not have the facing crossover, but, of course, there still has to be a facing point on the Up line anyway, so I'm not sure what is gained by the additional complexity. Perhaps though the NER would not have been troubled about this, or the additional signalling required. Would the LNER have preferred the simpler layout? I would be very grateful for advice, while I spend an evening looking through NER/NEA track plans!

Although I haven't posted much on this thread for a few months, progress has been made! Since the layout goes round the exterior of the room, the crossing of the room door forms a major part of the structural engineering. First the door itself was replaced with a sliding door, which was actually a mini-saga in itself. Then there was the planning and construction of the 'swing out' section, the geometry of which is quite complex. Here is the result, in the closed position. Here is the structure partially swung open. Since there will (eventually) be track on two levels I wanted to avoid the conventional 'swing up' bridge. I also wanted to make it safer. There is no chance of this thing falling on anyone's head! The critical aspect of this design is that the edge furthest away from the line of the hinges must be at an angle greater than that of a tangent to the diameter of the circle described it's rotation. (It's easier to draw than to describe - unfortunately I seem to have have lost my exploratory drawings.) If you think of a wedge of cheese, you're on the right lines! The curved bracing does allow a 'crawl through' if one wants to put the kettle on while leaving trains running! The whole structure has to be very strong and stable, since it is effectively hinged on one corner. It is made from 1/2" birch ply, and is self bracing in three dimensions. I should probably have used thinner play for some of the bracing pieces, and the weight of the finished structure was a bit frightening. However, the abutments are very solid, also braced in three dimensions and are secured to the underlying concrete of the floor. The hinges are heavy duty stainless steel with ball-bearings. The rubbing surfaces comprise of segments of brass, which (may) allow for electrical conductivity, but I'll have to see how that works. It does seem to swing very easily, and because of some complex geometry (the top surface is actually tilted down towards the centre of the room, and there's hardly a right angle in the whole thing) it does actually swing closed if left unsecured. As you can see, the joinery is not quite finished, and I'll try to make a better explanation when the upper level is fabricated. Meanwhile, I want to get some track laid, and the all-important track joins made.

Is it possible to enquire about this photograph. Were some of these locomotives unloaded at Hull? I haven't seen any references to any of them being used on the LNER. I wonder what work had to be done so that they could be moved over British railways.

Bother! It cuts away just when 3637A started her (one?) very important move!

With regard to the previous discussions, I just like making things which have some relationship to the 12" to 1' originals. I don't think that on this august thread, I would dare to call myself a modeller, although I do call myself an idiot on many occasions. (Usually when I've just cut something too small, or assembled something the wrong way round, or...or... or...) This J21 was completed a few years ago now, but it does have moving inside Stephenson gear! - well the upper parts of it anyway. I'm working on another one with Joy gear but it has got delayed by my house move and need to reconstruct my railway! The J21 is re-worked Nu-Cast, but this ex-GCR three-plank dropside is scratch-built, with lifting link brake! (I did consider making that work, but sanity prevailed!) Sorry about the clunky couplings, but that's what works on my railway.

I did note that. Isn't there something it could be converted into?

Glad 3637A doesn't show up too badly in company. I wonder what is the correct collective noun for station pilots?

If you mean by this that the cab footplate rises up towards the backhead, then this is entirely this is entirely prototypical. On mine, the footplate length under the boiler is splendidly straight!

Nothing I have seen or read suggests that any Q6s were converted to lever reverse. RCTS specifically states that they all had and retained the two handle reversing system.