SteveBedding

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)

I would be careful about using cork underlay for the trackwork - other 2mm modellers have reported that it can be a bit too flexible for 2mm track, and Easitrac is nowhere near as stiff as soldered track, so might be a bit prone to moving about. I would suggest thin balsa or plywood. If you do decide to use cork, I would varnish it so that it doesn't soak up the glue you use for ballasting.

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!!!

:lol:

 

Good progress Steve - look forward to see the track going down...presume you are going the easitrac route, turnouts included?

 

EDIT - Doh - reread the thread again and it answered my question...that's what comes from reading posts on the iPhone...the iPad would solve that one...

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:

Well, that's the cunning plan... I hope this makes sense, shout if you thinks I'm going off down a rabbit hole (again)

Steve, have you considered putting the road in the correct place but moving the point towards the factory? I don't know how this would impact on the plan but it looks like this could be possible. If you were to do this then it may be desirable to make this a curved point. Although the OS map has it as a straight unit the photo makes it look like it could have been curved.

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:

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.

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

With interruptions such as having to go off on a 3-day training course, and an essential visit to TINGS, very little time has been available for working on the railway. Fortunately, the next steps could be done in small blocks…

Having been rumbled by SWMBO on ordering the Easitrac, I felt that some appeasement was most definitely in order. In most cases this would involve combinations of flowers, chocolates, or in extremis, a world cruise – however, SWMBO is very particular and this time I was able to dig myself out of the hole with a well timed Farish 61xx in GWR livery (who knows, it may even migrate from N to 2mm at a later date… ) I quite glad I didn't find too many bargains at TINGS - otherwise it would probably have cost me an Ixion Manor

Building the Baseboards

With the legs/supports completed, attention now turned to the actual baseboards; the logic behind building the legs first was to ensure that the track bed could aligned and levelled across the boards when they were set on their stands.

The first step was to fix each of the cross braces. Previously I have fitted softwood blocks at each corner but having looked at other layouts I decided to try using ‘hot glue’. This turned out to be extremely quick and easy and simply involved clamping the brace in the required position and squirting the glue down the joint; allowing to cool; remove the clamp, and then doing other side… …sounds simple enough, doesn’t it?

As with everything, there is of course a ‘however’… I did say this was quick and easy – I’ll caveat that claim by saying it is a skill and needs practice. My first attempts, whilst structurally sound were abysmal to look at! (They also included several burnt fingers ! ) Fortunately, once set, it is quite straightforward to cut out the glue and sand down the joint before doing it again By redoing one side of the ‘T-joint’ before the other and allowing it to set, it wasn’t necessary to re-clamp the cross piece, and so it was quicker the second time round .

Several lessons learnt:

… You may have guessed that the early attempts were not too successful, messy, and painful !

Once the cross braces were done, it was a simple (there’s that word again) matter of fitting the 3mm ply ‘floor’ for the scenic foam that covers the bulk of the layout. It is easier to attach the foam to a flat surface (ie the thin sheet ply) rather than the edge of the frame pieces; additionally, this extra surface adds further rigidity to the structure for very little additional weight. Lastly, this surface acts as the ‘floor’ for the baseboards that will rest upon the uprights.

Putting it all together, we get…

It all fits and lines up as anticipated (hoped…). Board 3 is yet to be done, but I don’t anticipate any issues with this as it is supposedly the simple one.

The track beds are currently being primed underneath before being fitted. I intend stick a simplified Templot printout (mirror image) on the underside and this is best done before the track bed is fully fixed down. Also, I’m going to put copper tape (for track/signal busses) the length of the track bed before it is fixed; this should simplify the wiring.

In the process of fitting it all together, it became very apparent that in all of my measuring and cutting, I had omitted to allow any tolerance in fitting the boards to the uprights – whilst they fitted, it is extremely tight and if/when painted or varnished it would become too much of an interference fit.

I have a view with respect to carpentry that there isn’t anything that cannot be solved by the application of filler and/or a belt sander and this is certainly a case in point . At the next opportunity, I’ll ‘fettle’ the uprights to give a little slack easing assembly – better too tight than too loose at this point!

The next step will be to set the track beds on boards 1 & 2, so I'd better get cracking on...

Thanks for the job offer Mark - who know's in 18 months I may take you up on it Psst.... Don't tell SWMBO, but I've ordered the first instalment of Easitrac

Trackwork - Some Thoughts

I have previously built a small 2mm test track using the traditional (basic) method of soldering rails to PCB sleepers in 120ft (240mm) lengths. This was fine for a starting point; the absence of chairs isn't really noticeable in 2mm scale, but with the advent of Easitrac, there is now no excuse for this omission. I have therefore decided to go down this route, but, rather than use the milled turnout bases, I'm going to use individual ABS sleeper strips. This is not an indication of any skill of mine, but rather a judgement of economics, since I need 14 turnouts on the layout... ...however, when it all goes 'Pete Tong' I'll probably have to revert to the milled bases.

Before this happens I must finish the boards and there are some cosmetic changes to the Templot plan that need to be made...

So much to do and so little time - now that the summer holidays are over, and the kids are back to schools, I can't use the excuse of 'child minding' so much to get to work from home! Oh well, I suppose work, pays for the trains, so I can't complain...

Building the Supports/Legs (Finished – Well Almost…)

“No plan survives first contact with the enemy†and so went my anticipated work on the legs over the past few days...

I had anticipated that the extensions about the centre ‘block’ (board 2) would require that the boards (1&3) be roughly assembled to accurately place the outside legs. However, by chance, the 125mm x 6mm ply ‘planks’ that I had saved for this purpose had been cut to 4ft (1220mm) rather than the 1200mm that I had ‘standardised’ on. This placed the positioning of the locating pillars on the uprights sufficiently clear of any cross pieces to remove the need to work on the boards

The horizontal braces for the centre section have been completed; vertical strips now connect the upper and lower horizontals, and the ends outside of the interlock have been doubled up (I ‘cross-grained’ the ply for added strength).

When assembled, this has given far grater rigidity than I had anticipated, even without the addition of the extension pieces…

The centre sections, with the doubled-up ends and vertical strips ‘lock’ with the uprights to form a fixed joint; the horizontal ‘planks’ which support the extensions to either side act as wedges that hold the centre section joints in place.

The completed ‘support system’ – it takes less than 5 minutes to assemble and can be comfortably carried by one person

Well I have probably now finished constructing the legs/supports for the layout; other than painting/varnishing them and some minor cosmetic ‘fettling’ (and I think I have a cunning plan to make clip-on ‘extensions’ to raise the track height to 1200mm – thanks Pete for the suggestion ), I can crack on with the boards themselves…

...PS - One final thought as I look at the completed structure - I could add shelves that could be used to hold the command station, power supplies, stock boxes, tool kit, coffee cup, lunch box (including an bacon sarnie!) etc

What a fantastic 'playroom' - I'm highly envious !!! (I can't but think how much of a 2mm layout could fill the space.... )

Seriously, you've done a great job of converting the 'outhouse' and the baseboards and supports look substantial and well crafted. Looking forward to see how this develops - keep up the good work

Great, the server's back up and everything is looking good - congratulations Andy!

Building the Supports/Legs (Continued)

A lot of work but very little to show – except for an awful lot of splinters in my hands (Note to self – must remember to sand off the blood stains later! ) The uprights are now finished with the locating pillars attached and the adjustable feet have been temporarily inserted; these will need to be removed when the uprights are varnished.

Completed ‘upright’ support – only another 3 to go…

The horizontal braces were roughed-out and the interlocking notches cut, the intention is to strengthen the ends to minimise risk of splitting the plywood in use.

Detail of ‘interlocking’ joint (open)…

…and ‘interlocking’ joint (closed) – I just happened to have some ‘spare’ adjustable feet from a previous layout I built for my father

With the main parts of the centre support (for board 2) completed, I just had to give it all a trial fit; still need to fit the ‘receiving sockets’ on the base board, but with the careful application of a few clamps, nothing is impossible…

First test fit – and very pleasingly, it all worked !

I still need to add the vertical reinforcing braces at either end of the horizontal planks, these will press up against the inside edge of the uprights and will add to the rigidity of the completed structure. The next stage will to get the cross members and scenic supports in place for board 2 - this will allow me to 'finalise' the centre section of the supports and give an exact datum to build the 'extensions' outwards that will support boards 1 & 3.

Cutting the horizontal 'planks' took longer than expected and so I didn't get as far as hoped... However, the first one does fit and things are starting to look promising

As to the height, having built one set of 'legs' at 1000mm track height, it shouldn't be too difficult to knock-up a second set of 'uprights' at 1200mm and re-use the original horizontal planks - but I'll cross that bridge if/when I get to it. For the moment, 1000mm is probably better for me for ease of access during construction - since I'm a 'short-a$%e', I need every bit of help I can get

Building the Supports/Legs

Hi all, thanks for the interest

More steady progress this week. The frames of the three boards have been glued together using the jig – this was a very slow process as I allowed the full 24 hours for the glue to cure before moving on to the next board. Since this took up the hole of the middle of the garage, there wasn’t much space to do anything else !

With the frames under way, I started to look at the supports for the layout – big questions such as how and what height for the track needed to be considered. Having previously helped Mitziblue with ‘driving’ his layout ‘Witney Euston (Old RMweb - 1/3 down the page for the legs...)’, I was very impressed with the plywood sheet method used – simple, light, and very easy to assemble on the move. It was also suggested that the height of the track be set to 1000mm; similar to ‘Witney’, Missy’s ‘Highclere’ (old RMweb), and the Oxford 2mm Area Group’s WSI layouts. The reasoning behind this diversion to ensure that when fixing the track-bed to the frames, I got the height/level constant...

However, as with everything I make, I ‘over-engineered’ the solution. An important criteria was to reuse whatever was available in the garage/wood store; since I didn’t have sufficient spare sheets of ply available, the design was revised to use ply ‘planks’ and PSE bracing. By using off-cuts of ply and PSE, the jig was reused to hold the ‘uprights’ during construction – this ensured that they were square and the correct width to fit the baseboard frames.

Frame assembly gig 'packed' to build support uprights...

Details of 'packing' (6mm ply and 18mm PSE)between jig and 'vertical' beam of the the upright...

...and in true Blue Peter tradition, here's one I prepared earlier...

They just need their 'feet' and locating pillars fitted and then I can test them on the boards... ...well (late) lunch break is over, can't waste the sunshine any more, I hope to have the cross braces finished by the end of the day

Steve

Peter

I have just 'found' your thread and I have to say that the layout is absolutely beautiful! I shall continue to watch with enthusiasm as I am most impressed by the balance of attention to detail with overall 'effect' - you make it look so simple

Keep the photo's coming please...

The Assembly Jig - Continued

OK. I know that starting assembly of the baseboards is going to have to wait for a while; I don’t like gluing when there is too much ‘damp’ in the air, and at the moment, it is more like a few bubbles in a river!

That said, I couldn’t wait to see if the jig actually worked – yes, it measures up ok, is square, and has been set level, but does it actually work?

Board 2 is central/key to the layout, so a dry-run was called for…

Looking good so far - the ends and sides fit snugly and all seems to be ‘true’…

Still good… …the track-bed supports/cross members all fit in the right places…

…and finally the track-bed resting on top (this still needs 6mm to be trimmed off both ends).

Steve

Thanks to everyone for your kind words and encouragement; at this stage I’m still in my comfort zone – when the layout eventually gets to the later stages (scenery, track laying, rolling stock etc), that’s where I shall be facing the really steep learning curve!

Now that the excessive overindulgence of the weekend has settled, I can move on with the really important tasks (the ironing will just have to wait a bit longer!)

The Assembly Jig

Having dodged yet more showers, I can see some tangible progress being made! The assembly jig, which will be used to ensure all of the boards are built to exactly/approximately/almost (delete as appropriate ) the same size, is now finished!

Finished 1200mm x 675mm assembly jig

The jig was built in four stages: Firstly one or two pieces of 50mm sq PSE were screwed to a length of ply to produce 2 side and 2 end pieces. Then one ‘long’ and one ‘short’ (side and end) were glued and screwed to form two right-angled ‘L’ shaped halves of the jig. Once the glue had cured, the 2 halves were brought together and joined; a diagonal brace was fitted to prevent distortion. The PSE blocks were trimmed back from the corners to allow access to the outside of the joints and holes drilled in the ‘floor’ under the joint position to allow any excess glue to drip away.

Lastly, the ‘rough bits’ around the edges and under-side were all sanded as I so hate getting splinters!

Drainage hole for excess glue

So far I can say that I was feeling quite pleased with myself – and not a little smug ! But now for the moment of truth…

Well b%$^&r me! It actually is square…..!!!!

I know that despite having planned out exactly what I wanted to achieve, it still gives a warm fuzzy feeling when it actually works! B) Now that the jig is complete, I can start to assemble the actual baseboards - but that will have to wait...

Steve

Cutting and More Cutting…

As with cricket – rain stops play, and Wiltshire has most certainly lived up to its reputation over the past week or so! That said, some progress has been made on the baseboards; I have become quite adept at quickly moving the benches and saw in and out of the garage between showers!

(By the time I got hold of the camera to document the progress, glorious sunshine appeared!)

Several sheets of plywood have miraculously transformed into what might appear to the uninitiated as a pile of kindling – to the more discerning observer, they are the basis of the frames for the three boards… One of the benefits of having done a series of cutting plans for each of the board was that an overall cutting list could be produced; from that it was obvious that there were a ‘standard’ dimensions that were repeated across many of the parts.

The advantage of this was that the number of times that the settings of the saw needed to be adjusted; once the three ‘large’ dimensions (1188mm, 675mm, & 663mm) had been cut giving ‘sheets’ of the required length/width, then it was a simple matter of running through the required number of parts at the appropriate height (175mm, 125mm, 119mm, & 113mm). Lastly, the 75mm setting was used to produce the final four ‘side’ panels, and to part-cut the 17 cross braces and end-panel inners to the ‘scenic’ baseline height (the final part of the cut was completed using the trusty jigsaw).

Three major learning points came out of the preparation of the baseboard frames:

• 
   
  
• ‘DIY-Store’ plywood is of appalling quality – no matter how fine the saw blade - it splinters significantly on the edge! (The jigsaw was far worse than the circular saw.)
  
• DON’T TRUST the accuracy of the in-store cutting! I’d made allowances for potentially inaccurate measuring, but I was very disappointed when I found that their saws didn’t cut square or even a ‘true’ straight line.
  
• The old adage of ‘measure twice – cut once’ is most certainly valid. However, do make sure that when you measure, you look for the right number – fortunately, I only cut one small panel at 636mm rather than 663mm (other than the minor discrepancy in dimension, I was a very nice bit of cutting I thought…)
  

In my defence, I had looked to source better quality plywood, but I did find that there was a distinct lack of ‘good’ timber merchants in my local area, and those that could provide nice birch ply, wouldn’t rough cut it to fit in my car! I don’t mind driving like the hunchback of Notre Dam for a short time, but 30miles/1 hour is too far/long to be comfortable or really safe!

For all the cosmetic shortcomings of the ply, it will be mostly hidden by a proper facing and no one is going to look under the boards . Also, there isn’t anything that cannot be hidden by the judicious use of filler followed by a good sanding down, and when it is fully painted, who’s going to even look for it…

The design calls for ‘standard’ sizes for all three baseboards and whilst all the parts have been meticulously cut, I thought it would be prudent to use a ‘jig’ to ensure that each board was assembled consistently. Using some scrap 9mm ply and 50mm sq PSE I have started on making a frame in which each of the boards can be put together – more on this later.

1200mm x 675mm assembly jig.

Also at this time, with the frame components assembled and before each complete baseboard frame was glued up, it was time to mark out and pre-drill the holes for the connecting bolts and interlocking pins. Also, each of the cross members was drilled (using a hole-cutter) to reduce the overall weight and facilitate later cable runs; I sure that later on I’ll find that the wiring positioning will require additional routing but that will be addressed if and when it arises…

One final consideration needed to be addressed in this pre-production stage; the overall layout length will be 3600mm and one of the original design constraints was for it to be able to fit in a ‘house/garage /reasonable sized shed’… …Well it just so happens that SWMBO has a 12’x7’ shed (currently flat packed…) that is intended for her proposed N-gauge ‘roundy-roundy’ layout. With a small adjustment (and permission from SWMBO of course), Smokey Bacon could be made to fit in this shed – the solution is to make 2 versions of Board 3. One would be full size at 1200mm and include the fiddle-yard for normal operation, and a second would be fixed in the shed (at a nominal length of 1100mm) and whilst would provide ‘home-operation’ – this has yet to be designed (no rush). However, in order to make life a lot easier later on I have made a ‘spare’ end-panel for Board 3 that can be used later on for this alternative…

… and whilst I was making one spare end-panel, I had a thought of ‘What if’?

One day, it may be possible for Smokey Bacon to grow! The next stop along the Calne Branch was Black Dog Halt; this totally inappropriate (and unauthorised by SWMBO…) thought of expansion/project creep could lead to a second option for Board 3 (leaving Calne), a simple single track Board 4 (compressed scenery between Calne and Black Dog) and Board 5 for Black Dog Halt itself, and lastly some form of ‘universal’ fiddle yard… …with this in mind, it was just as easy to make two ‘spare’ end-panels for Board 3 (just in case) .

On a final note (and slightly off-topic) ‘Missy’ raised the serious question of what constitutes a valid excuse not to model going to see real trains is most certainly valid! It doesn’t take much lateral thinking to justify it as research. However, I would like to propose a further (possibly better) excuse/justification… This weekend we visited the Kent & East Sussex Railway, to partake of the Wealden Pullman experience – this combined the essential items of trains with exceptionally fine dining.

First the 'research...'

BR (Ex GWR designed) 16xx Class No 1638 - From my 'biased' perspective, it is good to see that these GWR panniers get everywhere...

The 'Wealden Pullman' - WD 'Austerity' 0-6-0 Saddle Tank K&ESR No. 23 Holman F. Stephens (formerly WD 191 Black Knight, ARMY 91), 2 Pullman carriages (Barbara and Theodora), a BR Mk1 Kitchen/Dinning Car, and an SR Maunsell NBO.

...and now the really special bits...

... the service was excellent, the food outstanding, and the atmosphere sublime - I can highly recommend this to everyone!

And so whilst still suffering the effects of overindulging I shall now have to go and lie down...

Harris' By-Product Factory

The hangar at Calne was a part of the factory complex belonging to C. & T. Harris (Calne) Ltd (producers of bacon, sausages, and general pig by-products etc). The main factory, including the abattoir, was up in the town centre but the 'By-product' part of the factory, was sited on the private sidings off the main part of the goods yard. The hangar itself was an old WWI hangar which was purchased by Harris' from RAF Yatesbury when the flying training was reduced there after the WWI and relocated to Calne (the hangar, not the flying training...). I'm not certain of the date of this but it was present on the 1923 OS Map (although no private sidings existed at that time). Once Harris' built their own sidings, they fitted an awning and a small loading dock with island platform to the north side of the hangar.

View of Harris' Factory from Station Road c1950 - Frithe Collection

As to the type of the hangar, I suspect that it was an early type of General Service Flight Shed which was the standard RFC description/name for this type building (they were predominantly known as 'aeroplane sheds' in those days - the term became 'aircraft shed' between the wars, and eventually 'hangar' became the common term by the early 1930's). A number of sheds/hangars remained on the site of RAF Yatesbury up till the present day - many of which have now been restored/refurnished for commercial use. The 2 pictures below are of broadly similar sheds which give a perspective of the construction and finish of such buildings.

Examples of early RFC/RAF Aircraft Sheds at RAF Yatesbury - http://news.webshots.com/album/555198779cpjjNd?start=0

Steve

Firstly, thanks to everyone for you comments – I was somewhat surprised to get interest so quickly! Mark, you need to get to bed earlier & Missy, you need a lie in!

Beast – I think it was Chris Hewitt’s layout that I was aware of, it is being shown at the 2011 Calne Model Railway Show (http://www.monitor-computing.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bmrg/exhibitions/calne/index.htm) and I hope to get to have a good look to see what can be ‘plagiarized’. I have both books titled ‘The Calne Branch’ (Maggs & Tanner) and several references on local history – but I very interested to see how someone else has developed their model. Also of interest, a 00 Layout of Black Dog Halt will be at CMRS 2011, this was the next stop along the line.

Construction Planning

A free weekend at last! Great expectations of baseboard construction and real progress; after too much time spent in ‘conceptualising’ I was looking forward to using tools and materials to actually produce something… … however the vagaries of Wiltshire’s weather put paid to any cutting (and certainly no gluing) – it’s not known as ‘Wet Wiltshire’ for nothing. Whilst I had some fairly precise ideas on how I wanted the baseboards to come together, the enforced delay made me rethink the designs.

Having studied other layouts, I had come to the conclusion that I wanted to combine an ‘open-frame’ ply construction with foam blocks – this would give a reasonable degree of structural strength with the benefit of the lightness of the foam. One other feature I wanted was a continuous ply track bed; I have seen methods of point operation that would work through a thickness of several inches, but since I have semi-decided to use Tortoise motors (I reserve the right to change my mind as no plan is finalised until after it is completed – and even this may change…), a minimal thickness will simplify installation.

Following a real ‘Blue Peter’ session – 30 sheets of A3 Templot output, Pritt stick paper glue, and sticky tape, I assembled full size mock-ups of the three boards. This allowed me to assess each part that need to be cut, and prepare a cutting list/sequence so that all cuts of the same dimension/size would be done at the same time. In this way, any tolerances or measuring errors would be consistent across each part.

Smokey Bacon – Cutting Plan - Baseboard 1

Smokey Bacon – Cutting Plan - Baseboard 2

Smokey Bacon – Cutting Plan - Baseboard 3

One significant benefit of this was the ability to assess the positioning of each of the cross members. On the surface it would appear that 4 cross members in a 1200mm length would fall at 240mm intervals (centres); however, Sod’s Law thoroughly applied in this case and that using these intervals would place almost every cross member almost directly under a point tie-bar! Careful repositioning gave intervals that mostly fell between 200mm and 250mm but one came in at 270mm – this should be acceptable, but it may be that some additional bracing is required – I’ll address this if it does become a problem.

Something I should stress at this time (another disclaimer... ) is that the progress (?) I have described so far is the result of over 3 years of random research and study; I have now almost exhausted my fund of instant output and now will have to work at producing something tangible. I don't have a timetable for Smokey Bacon, but I would like to have it ready for the Diamond Jubilee of the 2mm Association - since that will be in 2020, I might just make it!

Steve

Initial Layout Planning

With the concept set in stone, details of the real site are needed – there are several good reference books available on the Calne Branch and these have been invaluable. Also OS maps and track diagrams give the size and perspective of the site.

This is where the concept being ‘set in stone’ becomes more like ‘set in thick custard’! As much of the rolling stock would need to be kit built, or heavily modified RTR, and good old Peco Code-55 not providing all of the exact point work needed a re-think was required. I was aware of 2mm Finescale and when I saw ‘Wansbeck Road’ at an exhibition, I was persuaded to make the leap to this standard. Having joined the 2mm SA and become involved with the Oxford Group at Abingdon I have had much encouragement and guidance in this direction (Big thanks to ‘Mitziblue’, ‘Missy’ and the rest of the group )

With the concept back on track, the basis for the plan could take shape. Using maps of the site…

1936 OS Map 1:2500

1940s(Late) 40ft Track Plan

Judicious use of a photo editor package allowed for a composite ‘map’ to be created that superimposed the later track plan (post 1942) on to the 1936 OS map. The key differences from the ’36 track layout was the increase in length of the platform (all the way up to the signal box) and the addition of another siding near on the south side by the Harris ‘by-product’ factory.

Composite Track Plan (Showing Post 1942 Platform & Sidings)

Even in 2mm scale, a full size layout would come out at about 14ft x 3ft - oops too big! Reality check - head for the land of compromise! [As an aside, I'm aware of an 'EM' layout of Calne that comes in at about 28ft x 3ft - that's quite some size!] Addressing the design considerations (much better than limitations or constraints):

Taking all these into consideration, the layout design came out to be 12ft (3600mm) x 2ft 3†(675mm) overall across 3 boards; the running length was to be 10ft (3000mm) with 2ft (600mm) for the fiddle yard. This is a compromise – to get the depth of field and spacing on the sidings, the compression across the width fell out less than that across the length. The purists may care to question this distortion, but I think that it still retains the character and functionality of the station.

Another steep learning curve was to use Templot to translate the maps to a real ‘model’ track plan.

Templot Representation of Calne 1942 in 2mm

I’m no expert at Templot and the track plan still needs a lot of refinement, but it is sufficient at this stage to be able to size and build the framework for the base boards, but that will be another saga…

Steve

Introduction

I have to start somewhere... Having been a 'consumer' of RMweb for several years, I feel I ought to put down my plans for posterity – I’ll add my disclaimer now – although I’m a technical comms engineer by profession, I’m a real luddite when it comes to this form of media.

Like many projects, the idea is formulated long before any real progress is made; some may call this planning, but often (as in this case) it is simple procrastination! Having been away from railway modelling for over 25 years I decided a while to actually get back into it – I had built several ‘plonk & play’ OO layouts and decided that a move to N gauge was called for – the principle of more trains per sq ft appealed. The initial concept was for LMS/S&DJR layout based around Mangotsfield Junction between Bath & Bristol, and several years of research and stock collecting ensued – but like all good intentions, this plan somehow never got off the drawing board!

However, following a change in domestic management, a new lease of enthusiasm has burst forward; SWMBO, who is also a railway fan (ex-FGW ‘trolley dolly’ ) has ‘authorised’ the existence of a model railway (on the condition she gets her own one as well…) but did insist on it being GWR/WR. Since we met in Wiltshire it seemed reasonable to look locally and Calne leapt out as an interesting subject.

Before the cries of ‘oh no, not another GWR branch line terminus’ I have to say that Calne has many features that make it ‘different’. Three distinct aspects make it stand out from the crowd…

Well, that’s the reasoning explained and the justification (if justification is ever needed for model railways…), it just needs to move forward from concept, to plan and… …to production!