SteveBedding

Thanks everyone for the comments and encouragement, it both extremely useful to discuss issues as the arrive and entertaining at the same time ; especially thanks to Geoff for giving SWMBO the dates for CMRS 11 - if she goes it means I can - without having to forfeit some form of penance... Track-Bed (Continued 2) Work on the boards has been progressing steadily with board 1 now structurally complete and matched with board 2. I had hoped to get a bit further but was diverted by having 2 growing teenagers home from school for the weekend. The boys (aka the Two Jimmy's - they think they are the the cultural descendants of Messrs Paige & Hendrix) set up their 'studio' upstairs which gave me the perfect excuse to hide in the garage... (actually they're were not too bad, but I had hoped that they would try a bit of Sabbath or AC/DC rather than Metalica which I don't know ) Anyway, it was not the music/noise (delete as appropriate) that caused the interruptions, rather the constant need to keep them fed - five loaves and three fishes wouldn't cut the mustard for that pair... ...Anyway, the progress... The underside of the track-bed for board was was treated exactly the same as for board 2; the mirror image of the Templot plan was fixed and varnished and copper tape applied before the track-bed was fixed to the rest of the frame... ...this time it was easier as I had 'discovered' how to move the point of origin for printing the track plan and was able to produce the output as a single run A3 wide - so much better than trying to join up 2 alternating rows... ...Joining boards 1 and 2 turned out to be extremely easy. As I had planned (hoped) the assembly jig allowed for the two board to aligned together and I was able to fix the track-bed using board 2 as a reference... ...the top surface still needs its final sanding, but that'll wait until board 3 is in the same condition and they are all mounted on their legs. A quick check of the underside gave reassurance that I had managed to mark the alignments correctly; the track plan on board 1 lined up perfectly with that of board 2 - and the straight lines still looked straight over the joint! And lastly for those who may have noticed that the car in the background is different to normal, here's a bit of culture... ... unfortunately its not mine, but it does bring back fond memories of my Father's Moggies and Woodies. Sadly, I expect progress to slow down over the next few weeks, finishing board 3 could take almost as long as 1 & 2 put together ; another training course next week, and railway shows at Chippenham, followed by Aldershot and Didcot (helping Mitzblue with Witney Euston) will limit my time available to get in the garage... ..oh well, I'll have to find some 'indoor' modelling to do in its place

Why am I not surprised that you are a fan of such erudite entertainment! I'm now waiting for cries of "oh no not the comfy chair..." Simon, more seriously, that's some quite impressive detailing at that scale - what's next - Newtons Cradle on the desk or even a Pirelli calendar on the wall?

Claggy This is an absolute joy to follow . The detail of both the scenery and the rolling stock make it an impressive layout with a stunning visual impact, but what is making it so special is the narrative describing the movements... I wouldn't know if you were 'working' a real timetable or not, but the way 'story' is sequenced it gives it a real credibility and puts this forward as spectacular model :clapping_mini: .

¿Qué? Neal, I'm supposed to be going away for the weekend... ...however, if SWMBO permits , I'll swing by the show first thing Saturday morning before heading off and say Hi. (note to self - don't forget camera! )

That is impressive! :clapping_mini:

Neal, Thanks for the optimistic encouragement, I'm only cracking on with the bits I'm comfortable with so far - I suspect I'll drop back to a snails pace when I start getting to the difficult bits ie all the work that changes a few bits of wood to a model railway... ... The target I've actually set myself is for the 2mmm Associations 60th Anniversary in 2020 As it happens, I'm looking forward to CMRS 11 so that I can get to see Chris Hewitt's EM version of Calne - I'm sure that he will have included some superb details that I can imitate. Also with Chris Leigh's Black Dog there it will be nice to see the next stage of the line - all it needs is for someone to have done Stanley Bridge Halt and the whole of the Calne Branch would have been represented.

Thanks Kris, now I just have to get SWMBO to accept the fait accompli... Following observations by Andy earlier, I have been reconsidering the issue with cork underlay and practical lengths for laying Easitrac; I know the purists/rivet counters may say 60ft/120mm, but that would negate the benefits of Easitrac. From what was been said, I think I have a way forward: 1. Use 3mm ply fixed to the existing ply surface, trimmed and chamfered slightly narrower than the nominal track bed ballast width; this will allow for the scenic build up to run over the board surface, up to the 'underlay'. The ballasting can then cover the 'underlay' and join to the landscape (use of 3mm ply also means that I can use normal 3mm cork for those areas within the station and sidings that are mainly flat - ie the the gravel/cinder areas alongside the track). 2. Easitrac lengths do not appear to be a constraint. The layout plan calls for 3 stretches of about 1m, but the majority fall in the range 200mm - 600mm; I would aim for a maximum single section length of around 240mm to 300mm (may be initially laid in 500mm strips, but when dry cut to an appropriate interval). I now have to wait for the Easitrac to arrive, but I have a mental appreciation of how to proceed.

Colin, Nice to know its providing local interest . I'm 'semi' local myself, Hilmarton in the early '70s, Compton Bassett, Calne, Colerne '00-'08, and just moved back to Lyneham about 4 months ago. I just can't seem to keep away... Well dear, if you're offering in open forum (somebody witness this please ) then half a dozen BR Diag 1/353 standard 8 ton cattle wagons wouldn't go amiss... :clapping_mini:

Fully understandable! However my justification for a Q1 on a GWR branchline is that in wartime anything could happen... I'm pretty certain that it didn't actually happen, but there's no reason why a Q1 hauling a load of AEROs (thats a GWR propellor wagon) in to Calne couldn't have happened ; The RAF stations at Yatesbury and Lyneham, and the Maintenance Unit at Melksham could easily justify the potential for such a routing. If you're running a 'steam special' in the 80's, well, the world is your oyster when it comes to picking excuses...

I stand corrected . Whilst I'm still getting to the point where I need them, I have been getting increasingly concerned over the shortages with the 9mm drivers since they are the predominantly required size needed for GWR conversions (57xx/8750, 45xx, 42xx etc) - having a complete mental block, I never considered that 9.5mm would be a more accurate fit (but as you noted, the flange clearence will need to be considered). Thanks again, that's two useful bits of info I've learnt today

The 15xx, like the 94xx had 4'7.5" wheels and would also need the 9mm association replacements (same problem) but the 14xx/48xx had the 5' (10mm) wheels... ...if it is to be non-powered, how about converting the Dapol to be an open cab 517 or even reverse the chasis (2-4-0T) for a 'Metro'?

Pete Looks like an interesting idea, but a word of warning on converting the 94xx to 2FS... ...it needs 9mm wheels and those are like rocking horse sh!t! I've tried unsuccessfully 3 time over the past year to get some - each time out of stock I did eventually manage to get a set at Oxford this year, but Mitziblue now wants to 'borrow' them for his 1F... How about one of the 'small panniers'? The GWR 54xx (similar to the 57xx but with 5'2" (10mm) wheels at different spacing, or the BR (ex-Swindon) 16xx which had 4'1.5" (8mm) wheels - could be an interesting conversion project

Andy Thanks for the clarification - it's starting to make sense now ... I need the ballast shoulder on about a third of the length of the layout, hence the planned use of cork 'underlay' (plus the benefits of being able to recess the platforms and buildings into the ground within the station and factory areas); so having given your comments some further thought, I'm now going to look at the possibility of using 2mm ply (normally for model a/c and boat construction...). This is available in wider sheets than balsa and in 1200mm lengths. Unfortunately the works IT system prevents access to the 2mm VAG (probably just as well as I’d be distracted far too often...) so I’ll have to wait till I get home tonight before plumbing that goldmine; I have several other questions on Easitrac that I wanted to air on that forum and I’ll update this when I’ve got the answers. Thanks again (another pothole identified and possibly avoided)

Andy Thanks for the observation; I’ve not heard about this with cork before. What exactly do you mean by ‘flexible’? I’ve used normal cork tiles (both as full tiles and cut into strips) on N and OO layouts before and have not had any issues previously. I had been intending to use 3mm cork tiles fixed to the 6mm ply surface (using normal PVA wood glue), but as I expected to have to sand the surface again (smooth out joints and other discrepancies…), I know that I would have to size the surface (like wallpapering) to prevent excessive glue absorption later. I can understand balsa as an alternative (I have also used this for specific areas on layouts) but why ply as an ‘underlay’ when it is already on a ply surface? Also as to ‘varnishing’ the surface, how does this affect the adhesion of the PVA used when fixing the Easitrac and ballast given that it is a smooth non-absorbing surface… These may be fairly basic questions but as I alluded to earlier, this is a big step for me in moving from layouts that are more RTP/toy train to one that could be considered ‘finescale’ – please feel free to slap me if I’m completely missing the point… Cheers

Kris, thanks for the top tip I had considered building the turnouts 'off-line' by sticking the sleeper strips to acetate sheets (OHP film) but suspected that this would cause issues with 'thickness'; your prompt advice has saved me future nugatory effort - Many thanks Track-Bed Underside (Continued) With the undercoat & varnishing completed on framework for board 2 it was ready to fix the track-bed. Some minor adjustments with the sander were required to get the cross pieces to the right height – having stuck the track plan and copper tape, and varnished the underside of the track-bed, it was now slightly ‘thicker’ than before – still, easily compensated for… Board 2 track-bed fitted – still needs final cork layer… Board 2 frameworks primed and sealed – the other boards will be pre-treated in the same manor – it’s a lot easier to paint the major bits before the whole thing is fixed! Detail of underside – shows how the mirrored track plan and copper tape electrical ‘buses’ run the length of the underside of the track-bed; this would not have been possible to do if the track-bed had been fixed to the framework first. Now board 2 is ‘structurally’ complete and the top surface sanded ‘true’, it can be used as the baseline against which to set and fix the track-beds for boards 1 and 3. The joints between the boards can be ‘fine-tuned’ with the bolts and brass interlocking dowels fitted. Finally, the profiles for the end panels at the joints (including the ‘spares’ for board 3) can be shaped to match the terrain. At this point, the cork underlay and ‘final’ Templot track plan can fixed down. When this is all done, except for the front fascia and scenic back panels, the major construction & carpentry should be finished… …at which point I crash out of my comfort zone and have to start learning new skills! But before I go any further, a hallelujah moment is needed! OK, I measured the car, planned/sized the boards accordingly, BUT, does it actually fit? HALLELUJAH – it does The intention is to make transit panels that will fit to the ends of the boards; 1 & 3 facing inwards, with 2 in the middle – the overall ‘height’ of the package is anticipated to be around 40†or less which clears the top of the doorway and as can be seen, the width fits nicely in the boot. There is still space for stock boxes, tools, legs etc. Well, now it's in the car, and it's club night... ...I'm taking it to show off and be smug!!!

Pete Apologies for not answering you earlier, I got caught up in the discussions with Kris regarding the entrance to the private sidings and clean forgot to answer your post ... ...the track-work... As you identified, I'm intending to use Easitrac (code 40 Bullhead & wooden sleepers) for the layout, but with some some slight variations: 1. Points will be made (in situ ? - TBD) using the individual ABS sleeper strips rather than the association milled turnout bases (for reasons of economy...), 2. Turnout tie-bars to be made from 'thinned' PCB sleepers rather than the Easitrac mechanism - economy, simplicity, and easier to throw using Tortoise motors, 3. Milled PCB sleeper blocks, with 'Versaline' etch plates and cosmetic chairs, over the board joints (these are going to be home-made - there's another learning experience for me ), 4. Single PCB/Versaline chair combinations to provide power feeds to individual sections of track rather than the brass Easitrac sleepers - again partly for economy but mostly because I remember how cack-handed I used to be trying to solder droppers to OO set-track and melting the plastic chairs... 5. The north side of loading or cattle dock (closest to station/platform) was embedded in concrete (to make cleaning up easier after wagon loads of worried pigs that had just realised where they were off to next... ) and kept it's original Flat-Bottom track when the station track was relaid in the early 1900's. This will probably be laid directly on PCB as the sleeper work was covered. Well, that's the cunning plan... I hope this makes sense, shout if you thinks I'm going off down a rabbit hole (again)

It's looking super, nicely 'worn' but well kept - perhaps a man with a broom off to one end? Seriously, how about adding some small spillages, I'm sure not everything went down the pit and some may have been left on the surfaces? On a slightly different tack, how are you handling uncoupling for the wagons that are pushed up onto the stage?

Being born on the IoW (that makes me a corkhead ), those pictures make me smile (though I'm not quite old enough to remember when the islands railway was steam...) As to the scenic back boards, I would have to have to agree with Kris on the thickness (ie 3mm) but would myself consider ply rather than MDF/hardboard. As Kris said, it does all depend on the radius in the corners; I believe 3mm ply will bend (carefully, and may need steaming) to a radius of about 6"/150mm - I hope I'm right as this is what I'm intending for my layout...

It's looking really good ! I've been watching this build with great interest and although you've had your moments with this project, the way in which you have persevered (without resorting to getting another set of etches)has been great to watch. I'm looking forward to seeing it with the motor unit in - the difference between this and Farish equivalent is quite impressive - keep it coming please...

Kris you must be a mind reader! Having posted the picture I saw, as you did, what could have been a slight curve on the point. After a little bit of further jiggling and replacing the 'entry' point with a curved A6 it can be made to look like the prototype. In order to achieve this, I have to accept a min radius of 17.9" on the upper leg of the point (marked Harris 1a), but considering I had been going down the rabbit hole of 16-17" radii earlier, this is quite tolerable Many thanks to you all for the encouragement and observations, they have helped me enormously in getting this element if not 'right' then at least not too badly wrong...

Hi Redgate, The loco's will be (normally) small GWR 6-coupled tanks, primarily 57xx/8750 but possibly 36xx, 54xx, 56xx (if/when I can get round to making them), also, if I was to take the layout to the 'end of the line' (ie c1965) then BR Class 03's would be in use. The original plan was to look at A5/18" min radius but this clashed with the access track, hence deliberation on options; it didn't help my visualising the access track in the wrong place to start with! A further possibility is A5/17" or 16" min radius which I'm going to look at later - these are private sidings and I think could be forgiven for their 'tightness'

Thanks Andy & Kris - they're good points and well worth addressing. Seeing some of the layouts at TINGS was more inspiration to get my act together and crack on with the layout... A bit of further digging (I thought I had a picture that showed the area…) I found this picture that showed entrance to the private sidings during some work in 1932. Entrance to Private Sidings, Calne, c1932 (Calne Town Council) As can be seen halfway up the picture on the far left side, the access track was hard up against the end of the loading dock and actually crossed rails before the turnout. For some reason, I had it in my head that the access track was parallel to the fence-line (leading from the weighbridge), rather than straight across the rails from the goods shed . Oops – that isn’t going to be possible!! OK, back to the land of compromise (modeller’s licence called for here…). Not criticising the OS for their hard work, without which I would have been completely snookered, but I consider that there may be some ‘discrepancy’ between the map and reality. That coupled with any errors that I may have introduced in the merging of the OS Map and the GWR 40’ plan and the compression of the layout, make an exactly ‘true copy’ of this detail not possible… Prevailing thought (I’m still open to suggestions) is to go use the A6 turnout BUT, move the access track a ‘little’ towards the south east… … same functionality but minimises difficulties in having the road interfere with the turnout blades. I suspect that I’m going to have to be creative with guard rails. One thing that is becoming blindingly obvious to me in this discussion is that I need a glossary or dictionary of railway terms! I suspect that I am frequently getting confused/wrong the names of bits of track so please bear with me whilst I go back and try to learn the correct names .

(It's a good job that SWMBO approves of this and even better that she wants to get involved is the scenic side of things - I feel that Father Christmas may well be bring her an electrostatic grass thingy... ) Kris Thanks for your comment - I have aimed to use A6/A7 as much as possible but given my compromise on overall length (14.5' squeezed into 10'), I had anticipated that there would probably have to be some hard choices around the Harris' factory area. The considerations are: 1. Traffic to coal sidings would normally be 4-wheel (9' - 12' wheelbase) RCH/PO coal wagons, 2. Traffic to Harris' factory would normally be 4-wheel (9' - 12' wheelbase) standard box vans/MINKs, but could include 4-wheel 29' SYPHON C, 40' bogie SYPHON F, or even 1 off 50' SYPHON G, 3. The 'run around' at the end of the 2 Harris sidings should normally cope with a small 6-coupled loco, typically a 57xx (or if I wanted to cover the whole spectrum a BR Class 03 ), 4. There was an access road/track (probably just compacted ballast/cinders) across the entrance to the private sidings that allowed vehicle access from the station entrance to the sidings on the south-side of the goods area. I wanted the start of the first 'point' to be as close to the fence-line as possible, but given the curves into the factory building, this had to be set back a bit further towards the loading dock - net result is that the access road crosses directly over the point! I had elected to accept a minimum radius of 18" within the privates sidings (not unreasonable?) and so A5 would have matched this. The problem with this is that whilst the point is closer to the fence-line, it means that that the road/track crosses over more than 75% of the switch blades! If an A6 point is used, The start of the point comes right back to the end of the loading dock, BUT, the road/track only crosses about 30% of the switch blades. To me this is better from an 'engineering' perspective, but I'm not 100% happy with the accuracy to the prototype . That said, if I was to follow the OS plan directly (the GWR 40' plan doesn't cover this area ) I would have used a 12" minimum radius and A4 points!!! In drafting this reply, I think I've actually answered my own question, I knew from the start that there were going to have to be compromises, any form of compression will have its disadvantages! I think that the best option will be to use the A6 option, but I'll sit on the fence a little longer before committing to allow any 'experts', 'rivet counters', or anyone who can provide some guidance... Cheers (Now, breaks over, back on my head...)

Thanks for the observation; I'm afraid I can't claim any originality to the idea - I saw it on a thread a couple of weeks ago and thought that it was a brilliant idea (I'm not proud, I'll plagiarise anything... ). However, it does have it's down sides - you really have to be 110% certain that the track plan is finalised! Because it sits between the track be plank and the cross braces, it is not practically feasible to 'amend' once its fitted I was OK with board 2, but I still have some revisions to do around the By-Products Factory private sidings before I can commit to board 1 - basically can I get away with an A5 point (nominal 18") or have to stick with an A6 which gets in the way of the roadway across to the main station sidings... Its a tough call but I hope to have got it sorted in the next day or so. Then, it's full speed ahead for board 1...

Track Bed Underside Lots of time and effort with very little progress to show for it! (…and no excuses to give… ). Work has been focused on the track bed for board 2, the track plan and copper tape needed to be fitted to the board before it was fixed to the full framework; this was so that the drawing and electrical connections could run the full length of the baseboard without interruptions/breaks. The underside was primed and sanded; I can strongly recommend the B&Q ‘grey’ water-based primer – this is easy to use (like any normal emulsion), very thick, quick drying and sands off to a nice finish. I have used the ‘white’ primer before but found that this does not have the same degree of ability as a ‘filler’ as does the ‘grey’. The mirror image of the Templot plan was fixed to the now smooth underside with normal Spray Mount and allowed to dry. And now a message from our sponsor – use of the dining room for modelling purposes is by kind permission of SWMBO When dry, the whole of the underside was given a very thin coat of satin varnish to fix the track plan in place. Although the Templot printout (from an ink jet printer) had had over 4 hours to dry, applying the varnish did cause the ink to run in a couple of places. It also caused minor ‘bubbling’ in the surface, but as this is for the underside and only indicative of the track above this was acceptable . (When it comes to fixing the track plan to the upper surface (to lay the actual track to) I need to think of a better way to fix it down ) The track power lines were applied using a mixture of 10mm and 6mm copper tape; the 10mm strips are primarily for the main supply distribution and the additional 6mm strips are to provide ‘local’ links to minimise the droppers from the rails themselves. The track bed was frequently ‘sanity checked’ against the overall plan for the board to make sure that it was going right… …never assume, check! I'm quite happy with how this has worked in principle; I now need to carry out the same process for boards 1 and 3. Then with all 3 boards structurally completed, I can sand the top surfaces true across the length of the layout before fitting the cork track underlay... ...There's certainly no shortage of jobs to keep me out of mischief