10800

O10800WB - a little holiday modelling by 10800 original page on Old RMweb Go to comments __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:13 am While I have them with me for safekeeping during Eridge's rebuild, I thought I'd put up some pics of the Eridge goods shed, built a few years ago (it's the one on my avatar) showing some more details of its construction. The model was based on photographs and a drawing of a very similar shed (but brick-built) elsewhere on the Cuckoo line. Basis of construction was stripwood, Evergreen sheets for the main walls, Wills slate sheets for the roof, and lots of plasticard strip of various sizes. The roof was a bit of a problem because of the small size of the Wills sheets, which I attempted to deal with (not entirely successfully) by solvent-welding sheets together. It's not as bad in the flesh as it seems here. This shows the interior and the stripwood frame. The platform is just ply timbering for pointwork, and the crane is another Wills product. The roof was based on a plastic strip A-frame concoction. Finally, some paint and weathering experiments with the humble Ratio P-way hut. __________________________________________ Comment posted by number6 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:14 pm Lovely. I would have liked to see how a small shed like this worked back in the day... - you could get quickly overloaded inside if you didn't tranship stuff quickly. Lots of brute force required too. What was the gallows on the end wall for? I particuarly like your building corners. Raphael __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:29 pm Cheers Raphael The corners were tidied up by yet another application of thin microstrip! It took me ages to find out what the gallows thing was. I understand it is a gauge used by the p-way department when realigning and reballasting in the station, to make sure the rail-to-platform height is maintained. Previously I had thought it was something to do with wagon loads and door access, so I may need to take it off and review its length! There was also one hanging on the signalbox at Oxted. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:15 am Nothing especially exciting, but for anyone who hasn't seen it here's how you change the wheels on a Heljan 33 (same process applies to other Heljan locos). The raw materials - in this case Kernow limited edition green 33/0 and Ultrascale P4 conversion pack. Pull off bogie side frames from the pins which also hold the pickup strips. Be careful with the 33 because you have to negotiate around the lifting lug on the solebar positioned mid-bogie (not an issue with the Hymek or 47). With the aid of a small screwdriver, gently lever off the bogie cover plate, exposing the wheelsets and gear assembly. Lift out original wheelsets. At this stage I also nipped off the RTR coupling pocket. With needle nose pliers, bend out the pickup strip to ensure contact with the wider-spaced P4 wheels. Check back-to-back of replacement wheelsets. Drop them into place, ensuring the gears mesh and the pickups are not caught on the outside of the wheel. Snap back cover plate and refit side frames. Rewheeled bogie to the left, original to the right. Repeat process on other bogie. The first bogie took about half an hour, mainly due to the photography and being interrupted by The Archers. The second one took about 5 minutes. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:38 am Excellent Rod, my blue one will be there tonight for the double-heading!... __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:39 am 10800 wrote: and being interrupted by The Archers I don't answer the door to 'em now... __________________________________________ Comment posted by craigwelsh on Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:44 am I didn't realise Ultrascale had full metal backs on their newer conversion packs, much better for pickup than the older ones that just had a metal tyre. I should probably swap some proper Ultrascales into my Hymek at some point and put the Black Beetle wheelsets into something that should have 14mm dia wheels. ps I see your B2B gauge is as tarnished as mine although the cutout in my Exactoscale B2B allows the gear to drop down so the whole wheel is against the gauge. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:23 am craigwelsh wrote: ps I see your B2B gauge is as tarnished as mine although the cutout in my Exactoscale B2B allows the gear to drop down so the whole wheel is against the gauge. I think you probably have the later version, Craig. Mine is the same as Rod's gauge.... __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:37 am craigwelsh wrote: I didn't realise Ultrascale had full metal backs on their newer conversion packs, much better for pickup than the older ones that just had a metal tyre. They must have changed some time ago Craig - the wheels on my Hymek and 47, which must have been purchased at least 2 years ago, have full metal backs. __________________________________________ Comment posted by craigwelsh on Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:17 pm 10800 wrote: craigwelsh wrote: I didn't realise Ultrascale had full metal backs on their newer conversion packs, much better for pickup than the older ones that just had a metal tyre. They must have changed some time ago Craig - the wheels on my Hymek and 47, which must have been purchased at least 2 years ago, have full metal backs. I must admit most of my Ultrascale purchases so far have been second hand to avoid the wait (and save some money!) so I haven't had any new production. Good to know though, will definiately have to change the Hymek wheels and put the 14mm ones in something else. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:56 pm Captain Kernow wrote: Excellent Rod, my blue one will be there tonight for the double-heading!... And very successful it was too! viewtopic.php?f=25&t=19496 Faultlessly smooth running from both 33s I must say. I still prefer the green one though! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:40 pm It's been far too long since I looked at these, so I thought I ought to try and finish them before the Eridge MkII track is completed! So out they came for a rinse and a health check. This is what they looked like at the current stage of progress - from left to right: down inner home bracket (SR railbuilt post, lattice dolls); combined up advanced starter and splitting distants for the next box - also railbuilt post and lattice dolls; and up platform starter bracket (LBSCR lower quadrant arms, lattice post and dolls. Some minor repair work needed to the counterbalance pivot on the latter and the movement-limiting wire on one of the distant arms, and a couple of the spectacle plates have gone (these will probably be replaced with Kristal Klear and coloured pen). And from the back Horrendously cruel enlargement of some of the crank and wire arrangements. Real signals have cables and pulleys, so this is a compromise of course, but when all the detail is added and the signals are painted it shouldn't look such a mess. I'll also trim off the tails on the control wires (0.33 mm brass wire) a bit closer when I'm happy with everything. I didn't plan sufficiently for the actuation arrangements, so the short sections of bearing tube that the control wires pass through (the three-arm signal in this case) were too close to the plug-in cylindrical section for the method I now want to use. I didn't want to unsolder the cylinder 'casings' because of the knock-on effect on the signal itself, especially in respect to the whitemetal railbuilt posts, so I have now removed them by carefully snipping them into sections with tin snips and levering the sections off. The tubes will now be replaced by new ones in a more suitable position. The diagram below (not to scale) shows in cross-section how I now plant to actuate the signals, using Tortoise motors mounted so the movement is vertical rather than horizontal, but most importantly enabling the signals to be removed easily for safety. The basic idea is that the 3/16 inch brass bar acts as a counterbalance enabling the control wire to be pulled down by gravity, and pushed up again by the action of the Tortoise. There will be additional limit stops added for the Tortoise arm itself to prevent too much movement being imposed on the signal arms, and the brass 'weights' will be lubricated with graphite (4B pencil). If necessary the wire/bar assembly could be removed for maintenance by detaching the control wire from the signal. The black bits on the diagram are fixed, the red are the moving parts on the signal assembly, and the blue the moving parts from the Tortoise(s). __________________________________________ Comment posted by pinkmouse on Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:19 am Looking good Rod, I look forward to seeing them in the flesh. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:03 am Thanks Al - next stages are: 1) Finish off all the crank and wire fitting 2) Solder on all the safety rails and ladders 3) Fit the details - counterbalance weights, lamps, finials, strengthening plates on the railbuilt posts, track-circuit diamonds if appropriate etc etc. To avoid bits falling apart when soldering, these will probably be glued with epoxy (and some bits will be plasticard anyway) 4) Paint 5) When I have the track boards, build and fit the actuating mechanisms __________________________________________ Comment posted by Horsetan on Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:17 am 10800 wrote: ......next stages are: 1) Finish off all the crank and wire fitting 2) Solder on all the safety rails and ladders 3) Fit the details - counterbalance weights, lamps, finials, strengthening plates on the railbuilt posts, track-circuit diamonds if appropriate etc etc. To avoid bits falling apart when soldering, these will probably be glued with epoxy (and some bits will be plasticard anyway) 4) Paint 5) When I have the track boards, build and fit the actuating mechanisms Any plans to illuminate them, Rod? __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:24 am No Ivan, Eridge only runs in daylight! And TBH I'll be more than pleased to have the arms go up and down. Mind you, on the down inner home and up starters the backblinders are there to stop the signalman seeing the white backlight when the signal is pulled off ... __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:41 pm Slowly but deliberately steadily progressing with the rod and crank arrangements. I'm using the cranks that come on Alan Gibson signal bracket frets, which come in two sizes - trying to use the small ones where possible but sometimes they just don't give enough throw so have to use the larger ones. There's a lot of trial and error, and moving of position to get the most reliable and efficient configuration. Also lots of frustration with the wire fitting - especially with the bending of the tails once fitted, where you can cause a bit of damage if not careful. For this reason I'm only doing a bit at a time, but the worst is now done Otherwise it would soon be a case of "right so you want to bounce do you, let's see how much you bounce off that *!@!** wall over there!". One useful tip is to use dividers and Bill Bedford's handrail bending jigs to prepare the wires. Saves the error of multiple measurements on something that rarely keeps very still. Just offer up the dividers to the crank-crank separation concerned, and adjust to fit: Then transfer the dividers to the jig and find the length that matches: and prepare and cut the wire accordingly. Works every time. __________________________________________ Comment posted by timlewis on Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:04 pm 10800 wrote: There's a lot of trial and error, and moving of position to get the most reliable and efficient configuration. Hmm, don't you just love trial and error. Nice to see these again: looking rather good. I always think that good signals really make a layout: it seems to be the thing that everyone leaves till last (maybe you know why!) and then it's not always easy to get right (one of the advantages of modelling a real place, assuming you have a signalling diagram that is). Tim __________________________________________ Comment posted by Hamilton on Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:23 am There are some really usefull little tips there thank you very much that I will take on board for my next signal construction project (after building some points and a loco and some rolling stock!) __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:18 am timlewis wrote: Hmm, don't you just love trial and error. Best way to learn and improve, although sometimes it doesn't seem that way I should have started with some simple single-post examples (which I now have two of to do now that the layout has extended a bit at the station end) but hey life is for living __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:24 am Hamilton wrote: There are some really usefull little tips there thank you very much that I will take on board for my next signal construction project (after building some points and a loco and some rolling stock!) Mick Nicholson of this parish has suggested pre-heating the wires with a match to make bending easier. Bending the tails round is just about my least-favourite task in modelling because of the potential damage you can do and the all-round fiddliness. I had thought about using a 1-2 cm length of tubing as a lever but the smallest I had available was 0.7mm bore and so there was still too much slop over the 0.33mm wire to make it effective. So it was back to the needle-nose pliers, perspiration and blue air! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:38 pm The good news is that all the wire and crank fitting is done! Not so good is that the various crank bearings (or rather my method of doing them) means that they (and the counterbalances) protrude too far forward and so the landing rails would be inboard of them on at least two of the signals Hmmm ... OK, just another challenge and part of the learning process I guess - what I will do is graft another plank worth of landing on the front of the existing landing to provide the space and clearance without the whole thing looking stupid. I could cut off the rear of the landing and move that to the front, but then I'd have to drill more holes for the uprights in the next plank in and I don't fancy doing that in situ; I could unsolder the dolls and move them back a shade - no I couldn't, not after all that effort in getting the wires working . So the landing will just end up being a little wider - another compromise, but the least of several evils I think. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:31 am Now that they're 'working' I've decided to take each one through to completion separately. So starting with the ex-LBSC up starter, this now has ladders on the landing and the rails added (authenically wonky! ). Starting to look more like a real signal now! There's just about enough room to squeeze the lamp in between the doll, arm, ladder and backblinder on the left hand one. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Horsetan on Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:00 pm The signal arms seem very similar to the GSR / CIE arms, Rod. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:02 pm Indeed so Ivan, straight out of the Saxby & Farmer catalogue! __________________________________________

So wouldn't that be better in a Conversation rather than a blog?

Pardon? I didn't understand that.

Hi Jim Yeah, we'll see how it goes - hopefully any clunky running will be behind the scenes as I've deliberately left the scenic bit with plain track only!

I managed to organise my work schedule around another visit to my 'other' area group last week to catch up on progress and do a bit more myself. Here is Mark, Mike and Al (Pinkmouse) not getting in each others' way as the Eridge trackwork gradually gets more extensive Chris had meanwhile pre-chaired all this rail before going on holiday - whether this is cause and effect we don't know . When he comes back we'll show him the Colin Craig FB etches that Mark bought at Scaleforum! This array of track gauges is probably a bit OTT!

Eridge (P4) rebuilding by 10800 original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ Comment posted by pinkmouse on Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:27 pm Yup, first board done in very fetching pink and black. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:31 pm pinkmouse wrote: Yup, first board done in very fetching pink and black. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat May 02, 2009 5:02 pm Steady progress being made on ballasting and tracklaying on all the plain track sections. This was all done before the discovery of the use of Johnson's Klear for ballasting Once the plain track is done, the P&C work will be done ex-situ and ballasted after fitting. In fact the first bits are under way now, so there may be some pics of that soon. When the trackbed boards were cut we were using a Templot printout based on A3 sheets joined together. Despite care in joining the individual sheets, there was a offset discrepancy of about 2 inches over the 25 ft overall length discovered when we used a single roll-plotted printout. Fortunately the turnout on the left foreground here is only a trap point so we can just get away with it. __________________________________________ Comment posted by martin_wynne on Sun May 03, 2009 3:51 am 10800 wrote: When the trackbed boards were cut we were using a Templot printout based on A3 sheets joined together. Despite care in joining the individual sheets, there was a offset discrepancy of about 2 inches over the 25 ft overall length discovered when we used a single roll-plotted printout. Hi Rod, That's an error of 0.67% which I would regard as significant. Templot includes a printer calibration function for the highest accuracy when printing directly. But it's not available for exported DXF files, and using it with commercial PDF printing firms means a double trip to the print shop. For DXF files you can make your own correction via the print scaling function, but again it means two trips to the printer (and adding some background reference lines to the file). The most likely causes of a mismatch are: 1. Use of a laser printer instead of ink-jet or other cold printer. Laser printers heat the paper, causing it to shrink and distort slightly. Ink-jet printing is recommended for the highest accuracy when printing from Templot. 2. Uncalibrated roll printer. Over a 25ft length any variation from the quoted dpi figure can be significant. On a heavily-used commercial printer the most likely cause is wear of the print roller. 3. Wide variation of ambient conditions in which the paper or printouts were stored. For laser printing, paper which has been stored in damp conditions will shrink noticeably when printed. Sorry to hijack your topic, I'm never quite sure of the correct form to adopt when responding to a side issue like this. The layout is looking good! regards, Martin. __________________________________________ Comment posted by pinkmouse on Sun May 03, 2009 8:49 am Martin, I doubt very much that any of us involved in Eridge consider it a hijack. This is however interesting information about the issue of laser printers, it is something I had in the back of my mind from using a laser to create PCB artwork, but as I don't work with the very tiniest of SMT components with the tight tolerances involved, it was never an issue, however I can now see how it creates problems with a design on such a large scale as this. Still, nothing we can do about it now, just something to bear in mind for Eridge MkIII. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun May 03, 2009 1:07 pm Hi Martin Maybe you misunderstood me, or I expressed it badly, it wasn't an error in overall scaling, just a lateral shift due to (my) cumulative errors in sticking a lot of A3 sheets together when we cut the baseboard tops compared with the single roll plot being used now for trackbuilding. Lengthwise it was spot on. __________________________________________ Comment posted by craigwelsh on Mon May 04, 2009 10:23 pm Looking good Rod, we'll be going through all this in a couple of months when we start relaying the main lines on Slattocks following the S4 Soc AGM.. I've had access to a 42inch wide roll plotter so we used that to print out the yard and it will be used for the main section, it certainly is a lot easier than sticking bits of A3 together. We've been relaying the yard but keeping the points in place and it proved 'interesting trying to tie the Templot print out to the points that had been laid. Hopefully it'll all be working again by the AGM though. Interesting how you ballast all the sleepers before laying the rail.. I assume these are all still 1/2 height sleepers? __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon May 04, 2009 10:54 pm Thanks Craig Yes they're half-height sleepers with rivet holes, which help in placing the rail (once ballasted you can't see the Templot print any more ) although rivets aren't being used on the plain track, just Exactoscale chairs glued to the sleepers. P&C work is being done separately before ballasting and using rivets at crossing vees etc. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:51 pm Some pointwork now being installed in between the lengths of plain line And a couple of shots showing the board-end "track strengthening" process - PCB with brass bar onto which sleepers are threaded (if we remember ) and rail is soldered to. The sleepers are currently loose but will be bedded into the ballast and cosmetic half-chairs added in due course. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:21 pm 10800 wrote: the board-end "track strengthening" process - PCB with brass bar onto which sleepers are threaded ................. and rail is soldered to Hmm, interesting.... food for thought, I think... __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:07 pm The idea is that (unlike just soldering the rail to copperclad) you can still use chairs and maintain a gap between the rails and the sleepers. __________________________________________ Comment posted by jim s-w on Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:32 am Looking great Rod Are you sure the check rails and wing rails wouldn't be combined in a crossing though? I dont know about your era but they sometimes are now a days. Cheers Jim __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:01 pm Jim, presume you mean extending the wing rails to be the check rails for the opposite crossing? It seems logical in some respects, but I haven't seen it done much in the 50s/60s even if it only means leaving a short gap. __________________________________________ Comment posted by jim s-w on Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:04 pm Thats right Rod I did wonder if it was a more recent thing. Cheers Jim __________________________________________ Comment posted by Andy G on Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:27 pm It was quite common in the Manchester area in the 50s and 60s and Slattocks will feature them, but it does seem to be a case of checking the prototype at the appropriate date. Andy __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:49 pm While having a few days off I'm cracking on with building some of the Eridge pointwork ex situ. This is the crossover from the down loop into the goods yard, with trap point and entry to the end dock. Here's the Templot printout laid out with ply sleepers already in position (rivets on a few of them). This is actually the bit nearest the camera in the very first photo in this topic on the old version of the layout. After planning out and threading on the chairs - including key direction, as this is bidirectional I opted for alternating except next to fishplates where the keys have to be pointing the other way - I decided to solder on the brass fishplates before laying the rail (in places where only a cosmetic rail join is needed). Despite the Brassmasters packet these are old Colin Waite ones. The steel rail is quite old too, hence the rust - realistic huh? First 'straight' stock rail fixed, covering two turnouts. First vee (1:8) in position, gauges in place (the block gauge just acting to stop the nose of the vee going tight to gauge with respect to the stock rail). And the vee in place. The red marks are where physical rail joins are required, not just cosmetic ones (for polarity control). Hopefully more to come tomorrow (off out to the jazz tonight ) __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:44 pm It's really spooky to see someone else's version of the same prototype! Ralph Burrows' depiction of Eridge in MRJ 192 is very nice indeed, but he did have six years start on us, and I presume he hasn't torn it all up and started again either! It doesn't say what gauge it is, although I guess it's 00 just from the references to moving straight from Peco to copperclad and to using RTR stock without mentioning conversion - so that would speed things up as well. It says something for the operational interest in the prototype, because that is four versions that I know of - this one, ours, Vivien Thompson's somewhat disappointing one that was in RM a couple of years ago, and another home-tied EM version somewhere in Cheshire (which I think is set in LBSCR days). __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:26 pm More on the turnouts The Martin Wynne (well that's where I got it) method of forming obtuse angles in wing rails - couple of rail offcuts, small screwdriver, jeweller's hammer, light tap and there you are (only two hands and no tripod available so no action shots!) Wing rail being fitted using flangeway, triangular and block gauges - spot the mistake (rectified later ) in the last chair on the right! Exactoscale insulated fishplate in place for the switch rail Switch rail fitted, and completed common crossing (will do check rails later) __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:03 pm A couple of shots showing a bit more tracklaying progress - now almost got one line complete end to end __________________________________________ Comment posted by Dave Holt on Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:06 pm Rod, This is looking very nice, indeed, look forward to further progress. The sweep of the curve on the main line is just crying out for a re-built West Country with 12 on, flat out! - And I've got just to loco!! Keep up the good work. Dave. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:28 pm Thanks Dave, we might borrow your WC one day! It would have to accelerate pretty sharpish out of the (extended!) fiddle yard though, and the 12 on might have to be mainly Gresley or Thompson (?) bogie pigeon vans for authenticity - passenger services usually only went to 7 or 8. __________________________________________

Eridge (P4) rebuilding by 10800 original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ Comment posted by London cambrian on cambrian</STRONG> on Sat Dec 20, 2008 2:38 pm More south west and central engines were they then. Shame. mid hants are planning to turn their 'douglas' into a Black motor look alike. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:49 pm London cambrian wrote: More south west and central engines were they then. Shame. mid hants are planning to turn their 'douglas' into a Black motor look alike. Yes, ex-LSWR design, tended to stay on ex-LSWR metals __________________________________________ Comment posted by London cambrian on cambrian</STRONG> on Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:52 pm Fair enough. Saves moving the things too far! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:15 pm Boring myself stupid at the moment wiring up the LEDs on the panel for the 'route selection indicators' (no sniggering at the back now Mr Skipsey). At least I can do it in the dining room listening to music (Grace Jones, Kevin Ayers and the Ting Tings so far today), but I can only do a couple of hours at a go and it's too early to get the whisky bottle out. Was pleased that the first section worked exactly to plan first time though . Will alternate with connecting up some of the tag strips for variety . __________________________________________ Comment posted by pinkmouse on Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:55 pm Moon Safari - Air Yohimi Battles the Pink Robots - Flaming Lips Seventh Tree - Goldfrap The Soul Sessions - Joss Stone Oh,and I've put in my order to Exactoscale, so you can do a bit of Templotting if you want a distraction. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:03 pm I can't remember what it was you wanted Templotting, Al? For the moment I've got plenty enough to do for Eridge, but by all means remind me __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:33 pm Some work in progress photos: Some of the forest of LEDs pushed into the pre-drilled holes Two sections (fortunately two of the 'longest' ones) wired. I had tried to anchor the LEDs by drowning the backs in Copydex, but that didn't work. Now they are wired, easiest way to stop them tending to work their way out is to tape the wires down between them as a restraint. Some of the tag strip connections done. Trying to keep things as neat as possible as I go. And one of the sections lit for Controller A. Should have done this before Christmas and used it as part of the decorations! Tomorrow I'll lay a couple of busbars to connect all the LED power feeds to, so that I can then test them together rather than just one section at a time. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Brinkly on Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:43 pm That is wonderful! Rod you must teach me! I want a pannel like that! Nick __________________________________________ Comment posted by pinkmouse on Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:50 pm Looking good Rod. Hot melt glue may well be the best way of securing the LEDs, and if you use low temperature, it can easily be removed for servicing. __________________________________________ Comment posted by philip-griffiths on Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:04 am Well Rod, I think you've just put up a good advert for DCC ! I've spent some quality time reading Nigel Burkin's book on the subject, a nice present (even if I had to buy it myself!). I've have always liked the idea of DCC but not found the decisive clincher in anything. Sound is good but too expensive and anyway there are not any modules for a Super D or a Coal Tank. My desire for prototypical operation leads me to a mechanical interlocked signal box (whether it is working signals and turnouts using electric motors is one thing, to capture the feel of a locking mechanism in a real box is the objective). So DCC has not had much to recommend it, until you come on the scene with your Strowger look-alike panel. I started to consider the turnouts in the fiddle yard and all the wiring required. I think I've found good enough justification!!! Have a Happy Devon New Year regards Philip __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:06 am I thought it was going too well - just realised tonight that the tag strips around the edge are all a mirror image of where they should be! Nothing fatal, options are 1) unsolder the work done so far (only three strips used so far out of eight) and start again; 2) put up with longer wiring because the tags are at the opposite end to the D-connector sockets from where they should be; 3) unscrew the tag strips used so far and move them to better (though not ideal) positions and reconfigure the reference schedule. Obviously 3) is the correct answer, half an hour editing on Excel and reprinting should do it without too much drama! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:11 am philip-griffiths wrote: Well Rod, I think you've just put up a good advert for DCC ! <snip> So DCC has not had much to recommend it, until you come on the scene with your Strowger look-alike panel. I started to consider the turnouts in the fiddle yard and all the wiring required. I think I've found good enough justification!!! Have a Happy Devon New Year regards Philip Hi Philip, I know, at one point we were thinking of doing the rebuild with DCC but there wasn't the driving consensus to justify the initial outlay in hardware. Fortunately I have a masochistic attraction to the intellectual (to me anyway) challenge of doing this, maybe it just satisfies the logic part of my brain. And the lights are pretty ... And a very happy New Year to you and the family as well __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:15 am Brinkly wrote: Rod you must teach me! I want a pannel like that! Thanks Nick . I'll bring it along to the next DRAG meeting - should be done by then as far as I can without the layout itself - and go through common return/cab control with you if you like, so you have the option of choosing which way you want to go. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Penlan on Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am 10800, Is there a reason why you have chosen 3 individual coloured leds for each track section rather than a tri-coloured led. It would reduce the wiring slightly and if using other than say 2.5V, the number of resistors too. But otherwise, like you I enjoyed the challenge of designing and putting together the panel, even wrong way round tags - got the T shirt...... My panel from the front - which you can see at SWAG 2009 at Taunton. The two rotary switches are for the Yard and Platform magnetic uncouplers - the ammetre is for the yard controller. There are 3 hand held controllers, Up, Down and Yard. The Up and Down controllers plug into positions near their respective fiddle yards (Up, Down) by their own ammetres. Actually I've just realised looking at the photo, one of the spare (white) levers has now been allocated another signal. Penlan __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:21 am Penlan wrote: 10800, Is there a reason why you have chosen 3 individual coloured leds for each track section rather than a tri-coloured led. It would reduce the wiring slightly and if using other than say 2.5V, the number of resistors too. But otherwise, like you I enjoyed the challenge of designing and putting together the panel, even wrong way round tags - got the T shirt...... These LEDs are 12V and have built in resistors - there didn't seem to be a tricolour option for this size of LED (3mm diameter) that would have the same spec, but no doubt someone will prove me wrong! My panel from the front - which you can see at SWAG 2009 at Taunton. Look forward to seeing it there (and you, and the layout!) __________________________________________ Comment posted by Brinkly on Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:44 am 10800 wrote: Brinkly wrote: Rod you must teach me! I want a pannel like that! Thanks Nick . I'll bring it along to the next DRAG meeting - should be done by then as far as I can without the layout itself - and go through common return/cab control with you if you like, so you have the option of choosing which way you want to go. Excellent! Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:38 am Some more work spread over the last few days has got me to this stage. I haven't connected any more of the route selection LEDs yet, concentrating on getting the other internal wiring out of the way. Although I have laid the two busbars for the power feeds; this is just copper wire stuck down with blue or red insulating tape (tape doesn't stick well to the rough side of hardboard, but it's OK if you prime it with Copydex or PVA first). Tried to minimise the number of cable routes and keep them gathered together where possible, but it's still bit of a cat's cradle. Still, not unexpected when I have chosen to use more intermediate tag connections than strictly necessary just for the sake of order and management of cable distributions to the layout boards. And with 15 sections each selectable by four controllers, plus 12V DC and 16V AC power distribution, 38 points and signals (not started on those yet) and various isolator and PTM switches around there is a lot of wiring to do. I'm glad I planned most of it in advance and colour coded (and documented) everything!. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Brinkly on Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:48 pm That is very impressive Rod! I am looking forward to seeing on the 12th! Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:14 pm At the risk of boring you all stupid, here are some more photos of work in progress on what looks to the uninitiated more and more like a growing tangle of wires. All the 'internal' wiring is now done, leaving just the route indicator LEDs and the connections to the outbound D-connectors (which I will do one at a time as I get the boards themselves). I have used copper wire to 'bus' the outer terminals of the point/signal switches, but I am a bit concerned about connections breaking with temperature fluctuations so I will keep an eye on them in case I have to revert to a set of more flexible omega loop-type connections. The loops connecting all the controllers with the 15 rotary switches have deliberately been kept 'high' to facilitate access to the route selection LEDs. I have installed the input plugs for the external 12V DC and 16V AC supplies using mains-rated choc-block type connectors. The supplies may come from a variety of sources so this will be the most flexible arrangement. Plugs because the 'live' sockets will be on the wandering leads coming from the transformers and 12V power supplies. The supplies required are 12V DC - two for the bipolar Tortoise supplies, and two for the LED circuits 16V AC - four controllers and a utility supply for uncoupling magnets __________________________________________ Comment posted by Penlan on Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:58 am At Taunton, we saw the top of the Control Panel - though not shown in any of the day's photo's (so far) at viewtopic.php?f=43&t=33785&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=175 Bearing in mind the leds still needed wiring on the view below, what does it look like now? Had I realised the potential to view the underside at Taunton, I would have had peek. Nice to chat to you there, 10800. Penlan __________________________________________ Comment posted by ajdown on Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:11 am I remember building a similar control panel to that years ago but accidently wired one of the point push buttons into the route indicator lights (which were only 3v with one resistor on the input feed... yes I know it was wrong). First test... changed a point... BANG 40 LED's explode as 36v from a CDU pass through them. They were very bright though, albeit briefly. I guess it wasn't helpful using a 100m reel of red wire for absolutely everything. __________________________________________ Comment posted by The Fatadder on Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:24 am Penlan wrote: At Taunton, we saw the top of the Control Panel - though not shown in any of the day's photo's (so far) at viewtopic.php?f=43&t=33785&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=175 Bearing in mind the leds still needed wiring on the view below, what does it look like now? Had I realised the potential to view the underside at Taunton, I would have had peek. Nice to chat to you there, 10800. Penlan Glad to see that the wiring is no longer looking so perfect as it did the last time I saw it!!! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:24 pm ajdown wrote: I guess it wasn't helpful using a 100m reel of red wire for absolutely everything. never do that, you can never trace anything when there's a fault! Penlan, nice to chat to you too , I haven't wired any more LEDs yet since the photos above, so it looks the same - only a couple of sections of LEDs are wired at the moment. I ought to get back and finish before I lose the will to live ... __________________________________________ Comment posted by Penlan on Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:32 pm 10800 wrote: ajdown wrote: I guess it wasn't helpful using a 100m reel of red wire for absolutely everything. never do that, you can never trace anything when there's a fault! I rewired a layout for a friend a few years ago, a couple of other people had had a go before me. In the previous attempts, at some stage they had run out of Black wire for the DC common return on the tracks and substituted white, then it seems they found some black and used it for the point motors AC com., (previously green), meanwhile it appears there was so much white it was used where ever there was a short 'jumper' wire required, be it the track common return or section feed, or on the point motor circuits. It would have helped if they had started at one end and completed each board as they went along, but no, it seems they followed the, say, Up line all the way through, then the down line and then various siding as it took their fancy. There was also plenty of wire left looping about under the baseboards in case of changes...... Basicaly it was a mess with very little colour coding evident. I understand the original 'temporary' wiring was pretty good with coding, it was somebody else who came along to 'fix-it' that resulted in a mess. Basically, I had to start almost at zero and colour code everything making sure I had plenty of wire. Never mix colours, I always keep a specific colour to a specific function. This was helped when I had about 30 metres of 64way cable come my way a long time ago., every wire covering has a differnt coding colour combination. I have some left, plus numerous lengths of 32 way cable as well. Penlan Penlan __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:15 pm I'm using six colours which all have defined functions, and this will carry onto the layout from the panel (in fact Pinkmouse may already have done this for the first board). See halfway down page 4 of this topic for a portion of the tag strip schedule. I'll be up in Kent later this week so should be able to post a progress report after that. __________________________________________

Eridge (P4) rebuilding by 10800 original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:27 pm Yes, physical work is almost complete, test trains due before the end of the year, official opening next Spring. Spa Valley will use both the down main and loop platforms. NR/Southern will sell joint tickets to Eridge and the Spa Valley and promote tourism to Groombridge Place, Tunbridge Wells etc. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Nov 08, 2008 7:20 pm Not the whole layout you understand! Last Thursday night we had a bit of a play with some of the Eridge loco stud (and some interlopers) on a powered-up bit of the plain track. First though, just to update on sleepering and ballasting progress: Pointwork will be built off the layout and ballasted after emplacement. Then Mike brought out his nearly-complete J class, which performed beautifully (about time we had a proper Brighton loco on Eridge) We also gave runs to the D and the Standard 4 Mogul Pinkmouse's M7 was also there, unfortunately I don't seem to have taken any pics of it. Then there was this nice little High Level industrial before the diesels made an appearance The difference between a 33/2 slim jim and a 33/0 is quite obvious here At this rate we'll be able to run the layout in a hypothetical blue diesel mode __________________________________________ Comment posted by timlewis on Sat Nov 08, 2008 7:59 pm Excellent: looking good Rod. And Mike's J looks fantastic, nice to see something a bit out of the ordinary. Are you using the 'dilute PVA applied with dropper' technique for securing the ballast, or do you lay sleepers and ballast into PVA in one hit for plain track? (one of the many things I'm currently pondering how best to do). __________________________________________ Comment posted by number6 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 8:42 pm Honestly you P4 boys! Obsessing constantly about the width of your rail thingies but quite happy to have black lamp brackets on a Crompton! The J is lovely. When is he doing the other one?! cheers Raphael __________________________________________ Comment posted by Penrhos1920 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 8:58 pm 10800 wrote: Not the whole layout you understand! Last Thursday night we had a bit of a play with some of the Eridge loco stud (and some interlopers) on a powered-up bit of the plain track. First though, just to update on sleepering and ballasting progress: 061108_eridge 002.jpg How do you manage to get the rails in the right place, can you see through to the track plain with all that ballast? __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:35 am timlewis wrote: Are you using the 'dilute PVA applied with dropper' technique for securing the ballast, or do you lay sleepers and ballast into PVA in one hit for plain track? (one of the many things I'm currently pondering how best to do). The latter I believe Tim, especially given the amount of excess ballast that gets swept off and recycled, but I'm not the one doing it so I can't be 100% sure - Pinkmouse might be along later to confirm though. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:38 am number6 wrote: The J is lovely. When is he doing the other one?! That will be down to me Raphael - at least Mike's made my job a little easier by doing the Walschaerts one! One day we will be able to run double headers with two I3s or J+I3 __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:41 am Penrhos1920 wrote: How do you manage to get the rails in the right place, can you see through to the track plain with all that ballast? Good question. On the plain track the sleepers are prepunched for rivets (even though it is all-glued) so the rivet holes are used together with the track gauges as a guide. Pointwork will however be done before ballasting (which will use the dilute PVA/dropper method) so that issue won't arise. __________________________________________ Comment posted by david_ford_85 on Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:19 am Love the pics. I'm amazed at how good EM looks, wouldn'd have thought that the extra 2+mm would have had such a huge effect! Can't wait to see how the layout comes along. David __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:53 pm Er, David, as it says in the thread title it's P4 not EM - glad you like the pics anyway! __________________________________________ Comment posted by david_ford_85 on Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:57 pm 10800 wrote: Er, David, as it says in the thread title it's P4 not EM - glad you like the pics anyway! Whoops Sorry David __________________________________________ Comment posted by pinkmouse on Sun Nov 09, 2008 3:13 pm 10800 wrote: - Pinkmouse might be along later to confirm though. Indeed I can confirm the latter method. The strange thing is, despite nearly finishing all the straight track ballasting, we seem to have just as much, if not more ballast left in the bucket! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:46 pm Last week, with tracklaying on the first board virtually complete, Mike's C class appeared on a short trip goods working And Pinkmouse brought along his Caprotti Black 5 which is coming along nicely (it's not likely to see much use on Eridge though!) When I'm next up in the New Year I should be able to collect this board for return to Devon for wiring and first signal installation. __________________________________________ Comment posted by pinkmouse on Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:00 pm 10800 wrote: ...it's not likely to see much use on Eridge though! Yeah, one run a day with an RCTS railtour headboard on I think. Still I could build one of these instead! Oh and as it looks like Rod forgot to take a pic of the M7 again, here's one with its nice new lining. I should really have wiped off the dust and fingerprints first though, the harsh winter sun really shows them up. __________________________________________ Comment posted by beast66606 on Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:41 pm Where's the pacers __________________________________________ Comment posted by dave_long on Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:55 pm 10800 wrote: Last week, with tracklaying on the first board virtually complete, Mike's C class appeared on a short trip goods working I hope the PW gang have spotted the missing chair? __________________________________________ Comment posted by pinkmouse on Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:42 pm dave_long wrote: I hope the PW gang have spotted the missing chair? Yup, I'm just waiting for the chair threading crew to break the correct facing one as they put it on. So far, the only ones have been wrong handed. __________________________________________ Comment posted by pinkmouse on Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:44 pm beast66606 wrote: Where's the pacers What's a pacer? __________________________________________ Comment posted by jim s-w on Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:54 pm Its a white and green chewy mint. Like a chewitt Remember 'em? Cheers Jim Good work on the layout chaps! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:56 pm pinkmouse wrote: Oh and as it looks like Rod forgot to take a pic of the M7 again, here's one with its nice new lining.winter.jpg sorry Al - the M7 was running very nicely too! __________________________________________ Comment posted by pinkmouse on Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:58 pm jim s-w wrote: Its a white and green chewy mint. Like a chewitt. Gotcha' - spearmint! __________________________________________ Comment posted by pinkmouse on Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:08 am 10800 wrote: sorry Al - the M7 was running very nicely too! 'S okay Rod, you're forgiven. Still can't find a cause for that minor clicking noise though... __________________________________________ Comment posted by Horsetan on Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:59 am The loco pics are amazing. They almost could be 7mm scale.... __________________________________________ Comment posted by London cambrian on cambrian</STRONG> on Sat Dec 20, 2008 2:08 pm Thats very nice. Interchangabiltity would be nice but I don't know if its been said before, you'd either have to make a detachable tree scene or ahve removable trackwork! depending on the state of Eridge at that time! Do you have a black Motor to go on that freight train? __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Dec 20, 2008 2:33 pm London cambrian wrote: Do you have a black Motor to go on that freight train? Nice though they are, Black Motors (700 class) never got over here. We make do with C and (eventually) C2X for most goods trains, with a K to come sometime as well. __________________________________________

Eridge (P4) rebuilding by 10800 original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ Comment posted by ian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:40 pm Or a push-to-break momentary button that you push whilst changing the rotary. 15 of those would be a bit cheaper than converting to DCC __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:38 pm martin_wynne wrote: The simple solution is to add on-off section switches for each section, and remember to switch a section off while changing controllers. Not a bad idea Martin, could also be linked into the LEDs to act as another visual indicator as to whether the section is 'live'. Although to be honest we had the same system on Mk1 and never had any problems with momentary connections. [EDIT] But thinking about it further, this is possibly because of our system of only driving trains towards the operator, either at the panel or in the fiddle yard - so down trains would be driven out of the FY on controller B (panel) and then passed to controller D (fiddleyard) once stopped in the station; and up trains would be driven out of the down FY by controller B before handing over to A. If we wanted to have trains arriving at the station simultaneously from both directions (which we do) the down FY operator could come to the panel and drive out with his controller D. Controller C is there mainly to allow yard shunting to be going on independently of the running lines. So the possibility of momentary contact is minimal (but not impossible). DCC would be the eventual solution of course - but not yet probably. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:43 am Basic panel now constructed - very simply from white-surfaced hardboard, covered with transparent self adhesive film (the sort used by students to cover books etc) and framed with superstore pine. When finished there will be a removable hardboard rear. Most switches have now been installed, and holes drilled for all the 3mm LEDs for route selection indication - these will be push fitted and fixed in place on the rear with copydex or epoxy. In passing I must compliment Rapid Online for providing unsolicited next-day delivery for all the LEDs (about 50 each of red, yellow and green at 16p). The three large pointy knobs on the rotary switches will be replaced by the neater type when I find some more (Squires seem to have dropped them from their catalogue). Also some more red mini-toggle covers need to be fitted on the lever frame (seems to be a nationwide shortage of them at the moment). Tag strips have been fitted to the upper and lower frames ready for the wiring, and D-connector sockets will be fitted to the left and right ends for distribution to the boards etc. A tag reference schedule has been devised, and wiring will be colour-coded to facilitate testing and fault-finding. I cannot stress enough the importance of planning and documenting the wiring if confusion in the future is to be avoided, especially if the layout gaffer is absent for any reason when something goes wrong. Everything looks neat now - no doubt that will change when the forest of wires invades it! We will see how neat I can make it __________________________________________ Comment posted by pirouets on Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:41 am Rod What did you use to create the red, blue and yellow on the control panel? __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:49 am Hi Steve It's a product called TrimLine by Model Technics of Shoeburyness. For about ??????‚??3 you get a 2.5m roll of self adhesive coloured strips in widths from 0.5mm to 10mm. It seems to be aimed at radio-controlled car and aircraft modellers for making fancy go-faster stripes (I came across it in a model shop specialising in those areas). I have previously used Word to make coloured stripes printed on to self-adhesive label paper but this was easier! (the grey platform areas were done in Word by that method however). __________________________________________ Comment posted by pirouets on Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:00 pm Many thanks __________________________________________ Comment posted by beast66606 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:01 pm Beast66606 can look away temporarily He was - rather too long though You know my thoughts __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:19 pm beast66606 wrote: You know my thoughts Indeed so Dave - there wasn't the will or the budget in the team to do it any other way, so we'll just have to pretend that all the interlocking and individual loco control is there rather than actually having it. Hopefully from the viewers' side - and with a bit of concentration on our side - operations will look authentic enough! __________________________________________ Comment posted by pinkmouse on Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:45 pm Looking good Rod! Just a thought re. the switching - I notice you seem to have an off position at each end of the switch, couldn't you rejig the logic to prevent most inadvertent circuit connections? Though it might not be needed, the switches may well be break before make, as a lot of rotary switches are. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:02 am Hi Al Not sure what you have in mind re 'rejigging the logic', but that's probably a step too far for my meagre electrical brain anyway! As you say the switches are break before make, so moving the position of the off locations is probably not going to change things significantly. I put them at the ends of the run so that operators had a positive 'feel' for where the off locations were, probaby 'safer' than say A-off-B-C-off-D (what do you think?). I think the main 'protection' is actually the operating procedure as described a few posts back. Cheers __________________________________________ Comment posted by Penlan on Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:19 am 10800 - Quote "...(Squires seem to have dropped them from their catalogue). " Squires have been promising an 'elctronics' cat for some time now, they dropped a lot of the electrical stuff from this years cat. which caught me out - my mother-in-law being a keen recycler, dumped the previous issue a day after the new one arrived, only for me to then find the electrical bits and pieces I wanted are not in the new cat. I sorted it out with Squires over the phone and referencing old invoices I had from them. It would help if Squires had different colours for their cat.s. The 'Tools etc' and 'Arts and Crafts' are both green (I think, I'm writing this up in the local library). Re. the tapes on the control panel, I have used tapes from car/auto finishing suppliers, they are longer than 2.5m to start with, but then I suppose you do not need that much for a control panel. I agree with the control knobs having a 'Off' at the end of the travel, it is more positive location, especially for 'occasional' operators. Penlan __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:41 am Penlan wrote: Squires have been promising an 'elctronics' cat for some time now, they dropped a lot of the electrical stuff from this years cat. which caught me out - my mother-in-law being a keen recycler, dumped the previous issue a day after the new one arrived, only for me to then find the electrical bits and pieces I wanted are not in the new cat. I sorted it out with Squires over the phone and referencing old invoices I had from them. It would help if Squires had different colours for their cat.s. The 'Tools etc' and 'Arts and Crafts' are both green (I think, I'm writing this up in the local library). I think they change colours for different years, not subjects. As you say it's easy to get caught out by this, when the arts & crafts catalogue arrived I assumed it was a new tools catalogue and recycled my old one before I realised. Apparently lots of people did that according to the Squires receptionist! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:47 am As part of my insistence (to myself if nobody else) on documentation of wiring etc here is one of the pages from the tag strip reference. There are eight strips on the panel altogether (lettered A-H) each of 28 tags. So the tag reference is on the left, then the wire colour, description and what tag it is linked to. I suppose I could drop some of them and run directly from switches to the connector sockets, but I find having intermediate tags helps to group and organise things better. __________________________________________ Comment posted by ian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:52 am Good man Rod. Despite it being a mundane and boring job, documenting the wiring will pay dividends the first time that there is a mysterious electrical fault or someone casually asks "Where did this wire go before I accidentally pulled it out?" __________________________________________ Comment posted by nevardmedia on Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:32 am No... lost me there Looks very pretty though - I'm sure it will work beautufully too __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:21 am nevardmedia wrote: No... lost me there Me too! But I agree, it looks like a right splendid piece of work! For my latest control panel (for Callow Lane), I did a Microsoft Powerpoint track diagram in colour, printed it off, laminated it and glued it to a piece of white plasticard, before fixing the whole thing to a wooden framework that hooks onto the baseboard. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Penlan on Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:02 pm Re. CK's use of Powerpoint - I only have the standard MS Office software, thus Word and Excel, I used Excel with WordArt and Autoshapes for my Track plans, you can set Excel 'Page Set-Up' to whatever size you want, thus my control panel was printed off at 127% size, whereas the 'Bible' of wiring diagrams is printed off at 85% to give me an A4 sheet. Presumably CK you can dictate the page set-up size in Powerpoint, or I suppose you can save it as a Adobe .pdf file and adjust the size after that if rquired. I expect in the end I will find everybody else manages to design their panel diagrams full size and don't need to adjust them. Penlan __________________________________________ Comment posted by shortliner on Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:08 pm Re mini-toggle switch covers - ring Townfoot Models 01434 601453 - they had them at the St Andrews show at about 10p __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:48 pm Thanks Jack, I'll give them a bell __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:50 am Penlan wrote: Re. CK's use of Powerpoint - I only have the standard MS Office software, thus Word and Excel, I used Excel with WordArt and Autoshapes for my Track plans, you can set Excel 'Page Set-Up' to whatever size you want, thus my control panel was printed off at 127% size, whereas the 'Bible' of wiring diagrams is printed off at 85% to give me an A4 sheet. Presumably CK you can dictate the page set-up size in Powerpoint, or I suppose you can save it as a Adobe .pdf file and adjust the size after that if rquired. I expect in the end I will find everybody else manages to design their panel diagrams full size and don't need to adjust them. Penlan Sandy, can't quite remember what I did, will have to look at the document and work it out, I'll have to let you know! __________________________________________ Comment posted by pinkmouse on Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:09 am A teaser. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:59 pm __________________________________________ Comment posted by Brinkly on Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:46 pm 10800 wrote: I hope my track looks that good when its done! The control pannel is coming along very nicely too, for a 'basic' one it looks like the 'finished' one that I would have built! Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:05 pm 'Eridge expands in unique NR joint venture' it says on the front of the new 'Rail', and 'Eridge on edge of a new future' it says inside. For a moment I thought the guys had done a very smart deal, but it's the real one (Good news for the Spa Valley though ) __________________________________________ Comment posted by number6 on Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:13 pm ...so they will be able to run into Eridge then? Pray do tell. Raphael __________________________________________

Eridge (P4) rebuilding by 10800 original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ Comment posted by OgaugeJB on Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:25 pm Looking good... I don't think those boards are going to bend at all..! A quick question on the ply you are using if that's okay, as you seem to be pretty well versed on the best timber to use now, and more specifically, what NOT to use... I see you are using 6mm russian ply, but looking on the B&Q website, I noticed some 12.5mm Tropical softwood ply. Would this do the job? The application is a 7mm test track. Any info appreciated. Thanks. Jonathan. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:02 pm Hi Jonathan Only comment I would make is that 12.5 mm might be a bit OTT even for O gauge, and also that received wisdom suggests that DIY superstore plywood is rarely of good enough quality for flat and stable baseboard needs. I would seek out advice from a proper local timber merchant, who likely as not can also cut it for you as well to whatever plan you provide. HTH __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:24 pm 10800 wrote: maybe even some drinking in one of them Ah, so you'll be having a cup of tea in the old station masters house, will you?... __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:35 pm Captain Kernow wrote: 10800 wrote: maybe even some drinking in one of them Ah, so you'll be having a cup of tea in the old station masters house, will you?... Doubt it, there's a bl**dy fierce-sounding guard dog in residence! __________________________________________ Comment posted by OgaugeJB on Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:36 pm Thanks for that Rod (10800). Jonathan. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:16 pm Latest developments - the trackbed boards have now been kitted out with Exactoscale camping mat foam trackbases And an impression of the track plan with a draft Templot print out on top Over-centre catches hold the boards together (there are dowels for alignment as well of course) The support frames are fixed together in pairs by x-pattern struts. This makes them extremely stable. The fixing points are slotted so that the retaining wing-nuts only need to be loosened slightly to dismantle them, rather than laboriously unscrewed altogether. Mike's prototype for a system of strengthening rail fixings and board ends. Two pairs of brass rod pass through the ply and a piece of copperclad ###### to it. They also pass through the ply sleepers (only one so equipped in this demo piece) and are then soldered to the rail. Ballast is then built up. Why is this any better than just soldering the rail directly to brass pins or copperclad you ask? - well, it means the end sleepers can be properly chaired and ballasted, without (hopefully) compromising on strength. Regarding the plug-in scenic boards, which will be very lightweight using foamboard carcasses, Chris had the excellent idea of using magnets to attach them to the trackbed boards. There then followed an increasingly silly conversation of using mini rare-earth magnets to hold the trackbed boards together, and ideas of from how far away you could throw the scenic boards at the layout when assembling it at shows __________________________________________ Comment posted by ullypug on Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:43 pm Mmm interesting. I've used the cast brass chairs at baseboard ends myself but your solution's got me thinking... I wondered whether your system could be modified to allow a degree of re-adjustment by soldering threaded bar to the underside of the rail, passing through a larger tube through an oversize hole in the baseboard with a plate/captive nut underneath. Then I wondered 'but would you need to?' It's one thing I worry about with P4 exhibition layouts (I haven't done a show with mine yet ). Best of luck with your project __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:22 pm Thanks Andrew - as you say, not sure why any 'adjustment' would be required; the function of the soldering is to hold the rail firmly in the same place and avoid risk of catching them on carpet, trousers etc (there will be end-protector plates as well). The expectation is that the soldered connections will be stronger than the alternative reliance on soldering to rivets and/or glue holding the sleeper to the trackbed. __________________________________________ Comment posted by philip-griffiths on Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:25 pm Rod, I like the X-struts and their fixing mechanisms, excellent. Novel, or plagiarised? regards __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:11 am Thanks Philip. The x-struts weren't my idea, so I don't know whether it was a new or 'plagiarised' concept. Doesn't really matter, we all take inspiration and ideas from others, and we're not marketing it commercially! Regards __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:49 pm There may be a bit of a hiatus at the Kent end of Eridge (Reconstruction) plc due to summer holidays, but down here in south Devon (where it's always holiday time! ) there is still plenty of design work going on, mainly for the new panel. Beast66606 can look away temporarily , but Eridge will continue to be DC/Cab Control for the time being, although there will be some refinements to the earlier boards - nothing too fancy, but the option of route selection LEDs on the panel indicating whether or not a section is switched in, and to which controller, seems to carry favour. I have also developed a conceptual lever frame, based as closely as possible on the real one, and which coincidentally also comes out at 32 levers. This will be represented by a bank of switches along the bottom of the panel, although in the future it would be nice to replace it with an actual model frame. DCC may happen in the future also, especially when steam sound chips improve, and the wiring will be done so that the changeover is a doddle. So I will set to work on the panel down here, and will bring each 8 foot trackbed board down to the south west once tracklaying is completed (plus TOUs and rail droppers) so that I can do all the wiring and testing at home in relative leisure. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Brinkly on Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:43 pm Hi Rod, I was just looking through your thread and there is some excellent information here. I saw the orginal Eridge in Railway Modeller and thought how excellent it was, along with your advice reading lofts and model railways! I am currently thinking of planning and building a layout built to P4 standards and I look forward to seeing Eridge MK2 progressing. Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:05 pm Hi Nick Bit of mistaken identity there - I am not Vivien Thompson and Eridge Mk1 was not the one that appeared in RM! __________________________________________ Comment posted by Brinkly on Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:21 am 10800 wrote: Hi Nick Bit of mistaken identity there - I am not Vivien Thompson and Eridge Mk1 was not the one that appeared in RM! Oh Whooops! Very sorry! Well Rod your version of Eridge is very good and I hope that it will also appear in a railway modelling magazine in the future! She certainly is a beast! What will the total lenght be once completed? __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:41 pm 10800 wrote: Bit of mistaken identity there - I am not Vivien Thompson Not even when he's at DRAG!.... Edit - go on, you were expecting some inconsequential bo**ocks from me like the above, weren't you?! __________________________________________ Comment posted by 50007 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:44 pm That is going to be a great layout with those huge boards! Can I please ask what the black mattings purpose will be? Is it for noise reduction? Thanks __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:16 pm Brinkly wrote: 10800 wrote: Bit of mistaken identity there - I am not Vivien Thompson and Eridge Mk1 was not the one that appeared in RM! Oh Whooops! Very sorry! Well Rod your version of Eridge is very good and I hope that it will also appear in a railway modelling magazine in the future! She certainly is a beast! What will the total lenght be once completed? No problem Nick, and thanks, although as I mentioned on here when the RM article came out I was a bit disappointed with Vivien's rendition given her pedigree as one of the top modellers of buildings from the 70s and 80s. But at least hers is finished and she is building up a huge fleet of locos and trains to run a day's authentic service. Total length of our scenic section will be 26ft, and with an 8ft fiddle yard at each end that will be 42ft in total. Not sure when we will be ready to exhibit, although we are booked at least for Scaleforum 2011 already. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:20 pm 50007 wrote: Can I please ask what the black mattings purpose will be? Is it for noise reduction? It's just an alternative trackbed material to cork - not specifically for noise reduction, which in exhibition conditions is a bit pointless, but should be easy to carve out a ballast shoulder in due course. It's like camping mattress material, although this comes from Exactoscale. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:22 pm Captain Kernow wrote: Not even when he's at DRAG!.... Edit - go on, you were expecting some inconsequential bo**ocks from me like the above, weren't you?! I would have been mightily disappointed otherwise __________________________________________ Comment posted by 50007 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:28 pm 10800 wrote: 50007 wrote: Can I please ask what the black mattings purpose will be? Is it for noise reduction? It's just an alternative trackbed material to cork - not specifically for noise reduction, which in exhibition conditions is a bit pointless, but should be easy to carve out a ballast shoulder in due course. It's like camping mattress material, although this comes from Exactoscale. Oh i see. Thanks for explaining it to me. That stuff must be easy to cut and provide a smooth line. Is it cheaper than cork? __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:45 pm 50007 wrote: [is it cheaper than cork? This stuff is ??????‚??5 for a sheet of 1.5m x 0.5m x 1/8in and is called 'Foamlay' - see http://www.p4track.co.uk/ I don't know what the equivalent in cork sheet would be. __________________________________________ Comment posted by 50007 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:02 pm 10800 wrote: 50007 wrote: [is it cheaper than cork? This stuff is ??????‚??5 for a sheet of 1.5m x 0.5m x 1/8in and is called 'Foamlay' - see http://www.p4track.co.uk/ I don't know what the equivalent in cork sheet would be. That's really good. So you could do a whole layout, then lay your track and just cut away the foam. I dont like when with the cork you have to lay your cork as you lay the track! __________________________________________ Comment posted by Brinkly on Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:35 pm 10800 wrote: Brinkly wrote: 10800 wrote: Bit of mistaken identity there - I am not Vivien Thompson and Eridge Mk1 was not the one that appeared in RM! Oh Whooops! Very sorry! Well Rod your version of Eridge is very good and I hope that it will also appear in a railway modelling magazine in the future! She certainly is a beast! What will the total lenght be once completed? No problem Nick, and thanks, although as I mentioned on here when the RM article came out I was a bit disappointed with Vivien's rendition given her pedigree as one of the top modellers of buildings from the 70s and 80s. But at least hers is finished and she is building up a huge fleet of locos and trains to run a day's authentic service. Total length of our scenic section will be 26ft, and with an 8ft fiddle yard at each end that will be 42ft in total. Not sure when we will be ready to exhibit, although we are booked at least for Scaleforum 2011 already. I am sure that it will be ready on time Rod, bags of time between now and 2011! Captain Kernow wrote: 10800 wrote: Bit of mistaken identity there - I am not Vivien Thompson Not even when he's at DRAG!.... Do I need to know something about DRAG CK!? I don't want to have to wear Hannah's clothes! Nick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:48 am Here's a pic of the front of the new Eridge control panel before I cover it with transparent film and start drilling holes in it for switches, LEDs etc. Everyone has their own needs, ideas and preferences on panels ranging from Chris Nevard's tobacco tin to Railroad&Co 'no panel required' - this is a 'conventional' panel for DC cab control. Each section (15, separated by black marks) will have a rotary switch which can be allocated to any of four controllers. The 'lever frame' emulates the real one as far as possible in terms of numbering, and the appropriate numbers for points (doubles for crossovers where appopriate) and signals are marked on the diagram. There will also be a LED-based route indicator system linked to the rotary switches which will show which sections are linked to which controller - not essential, but something indicated as a 'nice-to-have' by team members. The red, blue and yellow sections of the track diagram mean nothing other than a convenient visual separation of up, down and yard sections. I'll put up more on the behind-the-scenes progress as I work through it if this is of interest. __________________________________________ Comment posted by martin_wynne on Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:23 pm 10800 wrote: Each section (15, separated by black marks) will have a rotary switch which can be allocated to any of four controllers. Hi Rod, That's not always a good idea. It means that you cannot change a section from controller A to controller C without momentarily connecting it to controller B. Which may be in use at the time. The simple solution is to add on-off section switches for each section, and remember to switch a section off while changing controllers. Other solutions are latching push-buttons (as in old-style car radios) where pushing one releases all the others. Or you can emulate that with solid-state circuits and/or relays, but doing that 15 times over would be a lot of work. Another solution is a plug panel. 4 jack sockets in a row. Insert a shorting jack plug into whichever one you want. This doubles as an on-off switch by removing the jack plug and putting it into a 5th dummy socket, or your pocket. er, DCC? regards, Martin. __________________________________________

Eridge (P4) rebuilding by 10800 original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:49 pm Bye bye Eridge Mark 1 (and long live Mark 2!) __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:05 am Some progress on baseboard construction this weekend. Templot plan cut to give 1.5" margin from the sleeper ends and used as a template for cutting the trackbed surfaces from 6mm Russian birch ply. The two further boards have already been cut (each 8ft long) - Mike is marking out the third. Simon keeps his wine rack in the garage hence the handy use of bottles as weights to hold the track plan down ! First two boards with transverse ribs in place (8" deep). First board with side frames glued, pinned and clamped in place. This is the only one where the sides themselves are curved - the others will have rectilinear boxes (and triangles on the wider bits) with longitudinal strengtheners as well, so there will be some bits where the trackbed overhangs the box-frame sides slightly (not sure what the bottles were being used for at this stage!). The trackbed boards will sit on wider trestles or goalpost-type supports at 4ft intervals (but with the board joins mid-way between supports to avoid any tendency to sag from that point). Scenic add-ons will plug in from the sides, probably built on super-lightweight carcasses made from foam board shaped to fit. __________________________________________ Comment posted by nobby on Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:13 pm You guys obviously like a "drink" with your layout building __________________________________________ Comment posted by 7F 2-8-0 on Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:50 pm This is now starting to get interesting, I will be keeping tabs on this one even more now __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:52 pm Current thinking is for the overall layout to be 3 ft 9 in across, the difference in width over the trackbed being made up by the plug-in scenic modules. Not hugely different in appearance from Mk1, but there will be more scenic width at the 'London' end for viewers to look across in front of the tracks, maybe up to 2 ft 6 in, down the slope to the cutting, and hopefully giving a stronger impression of trains in the landscape. We will also be 'closing the loops' at the 'country' end with the opportunity to include the station master's house, water tank and with a bit of lateral compression 'The Huntsman' pub. This will involve another short scenic section of about 2ft length which will bridge to the down fiddle yard; and there will be two additional turnouts, one more trap point, two more running signals (down starters) and one more ground signal. Should be worth it though (and it will make the fiddle yard entry more straightforward). __________________________________________ Comment posted by 7F 2-8-0 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am I have been thinking about this most of the day and surely this method of baseboard construction must make the operation of the layout that much better as you are reducing the number of baseboard joins by half? Shaun __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:11 am Well that's what really started us off Shaun, the previous boards sagged between the joins creating the familiar ski-jump effect at the joins themselves. In P4 this was a disaster, although there was never much problem with the trackwork itself. Given that we need a Luton type van to carry everything anyway - possibly because we never got round to designing carriers properly - we thought we might as well make use of the space and at the same time improve the robustness of the boards by making them deeper at the sides and having fewer of them. It also meant that there were fewer (now virtually none) constraints on the detailed track plan - turnouts over joins etc - and most of the turnouts would all be on one board. Obviously at 8ft long they couldn't all be open frame full-width construction, hence the solid boards as narrow as practicable for the track, and lightweight scenery add-ons that don't need to be as robust because they are not carrying any trains. Here are some sectional sketches of how we think it might finally look at the moment - they go left to right from the operator side, or London to country on the prototype. The red lines are the trackbed boards, and the heavy black lines mark the supports and extent of the scenic add-ons. The grid is 1ft (overall length about 26 ft). Thanks for your interest . __________________________________________ Comment posted by number6 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:55 am Very interesting. The staggering of joins in the baseboard will also help hide them I guess - as they won't often cross the whole width of the boards. You could possibly have alternative seasonal landscape add-ons! Winter, Spring, Snow etc! Ok maybe not... Remind me why the baseboards are so deep? Does this add to the structural strength? Raphael __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:01 am number6 wrote: Remind me why the baseboards are so deep? Does this add to the structural strength? That's the principal reason Raphael, but also they have to accommodate Tortoise motors, signal operating units and above all some lower level scenic features, especially the river crossing. It is probably a bit OTT though, something like 4 inches would probably have worked, but we just wanted to make absolutely sure! There will not be a Mk3! __________________________________________ Comment posted by 7F 2-8-0 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:25 am It does make sense, as a group if you are building an exhibition layout why stick to the time honoured tradition of 4 foot boards due to weight, as a group there will be more than 1 of you at an exhibition to help with lifting? Shaun __________________________________________ Comment posted by jim s-w on Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:33 am Hi Rod Will be following this with interest. The solid trackbed light scenic idea is what I am using on New Street. OK it doesnt look that way ATM but its all track! Cheers Jim __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:35 am 7F 2-8-0 wrote: as a group there will be more than 1 of you at an exhibition to help with lifting? Two usually! We will have to be careful about access to some shows - I wouldn't want to take it in this form to Brighton Modelworld for instance! Upstairs, and only one small service lift! __________________________________________ Comment posted by jim s-w on Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:43 am 7F 2-8-0 wrote: It does make sense, as a group if you are building an exhibition layout why stick to the time honoured tradition of 4 foot boards due to weight, as a group there will be more than 1 of you at an exhibition to help with lifting? Shaun Exactly. When you fill a van with layout there is always wasted load space at the top. Longer boards means more efficient storage. Cheers Jim __________________________________________ Comment posted by number6 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:50 am 10800 wrote: There will not be a Mk3! I'm very impressed by your devotion to the rebuild and replace cause. I think I may have been tempted to try another subject but I can see the appeal of Eridge. Raphael __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:54 am The most work will of course be the trackwork. Other than that, we have most of the buildings, canopies etc done, and a lot of trees (not nearly enough yet!). Scenic ground cover doesn't take long, and we hadn't really started on the fine infrastructure detail anyway, so there's not as much lost as you might imagine. __________________________________________ Comment posted by EM in Chelmsford on Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:00 pm <Drool> <Dribble> Keep going! __________________________________________ Comment posted by 7F 2-8-0 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:15 pm drool? well the original Eridge has given me some ideas on what I want to achieve anyway. Shaun __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:02 am A couple of hours with plane and spokeshave last night in Simon's garage before we retired to the convivial surroundings of the Bell in Smarden for some of Shepherd Neame's finest . The boards will probably be moved to the clubroom this weekend for setting up together on the supports - I'll try and call in and take some photos next time I'm up there (Tonbridge show weekend). Meanwhile I called in at the real Eridge briefly this morning (viewtopic.php?f=7&t=17286) mainly to take some initial photos of the additional buildings we will need to do. The stationmaster's house (without the upper level pebbledash, back to some proper LBSCR decorative brickwork!): Some more cottages just over the river from the goods yard: And last but not least the Huntsman pub: __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Apr 05, 2008 2:33 pm The mortal remains of Eridge Mk1. The old boards ended their days in the firebox of a Burrell traction engine before their ashes were blown out of the chimney - a fitting end somehow, certainly better than being thrown on the tip. Thursday night we completed the support frames (which will also carry the lighting pelmets eventually) and here is one of the three main new boards in rough position. The means of connecting the support frames to each other for rigid support is still provisional and the subject of ongoing discussion. __________________________________________ Comment posted by nevardmedia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:30 pm I was in a lucky position to see this bench work yesterday whilst on a secret mission down the Cobdown clubrooms. This is one serious project and highly innovative. I can't believe that there are many layouts that are being given such a new lease of life with such a major rebuild! Local club? Top stuff __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:05 am Sorry to have missed you Chris, although I don't get there very often nowadays (a bit far from Devon) - how did you come to be passing? I hope whoever was there looked after you OK! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:29 am My Kentish colleagues have been very busy and advanced the board construction to a point where trackbed preparation and tracklaying can commence. I will hopefully be up there next week and can take some more photos. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:51 pm Looking very encouraging, Rod, top class joinery there on the part of you and your colleagues! Are you going to be constructing the houses and pub in the earlier photos yourself? __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:18 pm Captain Kernow wrote: Looking very encouraging, Rod, top class joinery there on the part of you and your colleagues! Are you going to be constructing the houses and pub in the earlier photos yourself? Ta CK, mostly colleagues to be fair! We'll probably divvy up the buildings so that we do one each - need to do another field trip to do some more detailed photos and some measuring, maybe even some drinking in one of them __________________________________________ Comment posted by pinkmouse on Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:55 pm As the newbie in the KAG, I have to say the boards so far are excellent. You can pick up the thin ones and carry them quite easily with one hand. However now they have me to cope with, progress will probably slow right down. __________________________________________

Eridge (P4) rebuilding by 10800 original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat May 19, 2007 1:37 pm As mentioned on the 'Eridge revisited' thread viewtopic.php?t=394" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and at the end of the 'Heckmondwike' thread viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2858" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; we have decided to rebuild Eridge because of unacceptable baseboard deterioration and consequent negative impact on running and general reliability. The rebuild will involve scrapping all the track and scenery, but retaining the buildings, platforms etc. Full-width baseboards (3'6" wide and up to 4'3" long) will be replaced by a system of 'solid' boards just covering the trackbed width with lightweight scenery modules plugging in from the sides, the whole lot being supported on an independent framework. The whole design is in fairly fluid brainstorming mode at the moment, and I'll put up some sketches later for comment. The biggest board may well be about 7ft long (but only 1ft wide at one end and about 3ft at the other). This isn't a problem in length terms because we would still have to hire a van for transport in any case, but has the big advantage of getting all the turnouts except three onto a single board. The length of this board can be seen from the photos below, extending from the far crossover to just this side of the platform ends. The only turnouts on the layout that would not be on this board are the three nearest the camera on the first photo. It may also be desirable/possible to split the trackbed sections lengthwise into two across the station and goods yard, so that the loops on the right and the siding extreme right are separated from the tracks to the left, with the right-hand platform sitting across the gap between them - otherwise we end up with boards as wide as they are now. We also want to be able to shunt the yard properly, so we're thinking of moving the operator side from the left where it is now to the right. Turnout operation will by necessity have to change from tube-in-wire to electric, and signals (not finished yet anyway ) will also be electrically operated. The layout is currently DC/cab control operated, and we see no reason to change from that for the rebuild. The rebuild will also allow for features such as point rodding runs and signal mounts to be designed in from the outset. Hopefully the outcome will be an Eridge that looks much the same but is more robust and future-proofed to give it a decent exhibiting lifespan. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat May 19, 2007 6:33 pm Some sketches of what in conceptual form might be involved. The 'trackbed boards' would be in the form of an inverted U-channel in section, depth to be decided but certainly enough to accommodate Tortoise motors, signal mechs, and sub-track scenics (there is a stream going under the tracks on the section shown). The support framework will obviously be a bit more than a collection of wooden goalposts but you get the general idea. Scenic modules would be supported by the same framework but just plug in from the side or sit between boards 4/5 and 5/6. This is a possible configuration of the boards. The siding (4) has been included as a separate board because otherwise the maximum width of (3) and (5) would be too much. Any comments even at this outline design stage would be welcome. __________________________________________ Comment posted by MooUK on Sat May 19, 2007 6:37 pm Interesting concept for those separate scenery boards. Should make moving it etc and replacing sections of damaged scenery (if such ever happened) a lot easier, I'd expect. The whole sectional thing appeals to me, especially since that general idea is what I'm intending to use (at a smaller scale, likely). __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat May 19, 2007 6:47 pm Looking at it again there are probably good reasons for keeping 5/6 together as a single board as long as it's not too unwieldy. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Re6/6 on Sun May 20, 2007 5:50 am Wow Rod Richter 7 situation there Excellent proposals but can you not save the superb looking trackwork by careful removal . It would be such a shame to loose all that work Perhaps since you are scrapping the baseboards could you not soak the whole lot in water (if PVA was used to secure track) Very inovative method with the scenery, nay revolutionary Have these nagging doubts about the MDF (unsealed) baseboard tops, they all seem to suffer from 'ajoining end lift' on Matford. problem all seems to stem from living above that b***** creek, all that salt moisture getting into everything. As you know I have the layout semi-permanently erected in my dining room, prior to Exeter show & depending on the moisture & temperature the performance (excluding known faults) is highly variable, in damp periods the 'end lift' problem seems to rear its ugly head, then it seems to settle down Hence my paranoia about DRAG's test track mk2 being thoroughly sealed from the outset with either 'Danboline' bilge paint which is very tough & knock resistant, it has to protect in an extreme environment in the bilges of a boat with salt water, diesel & lubricating oils swilling around or 2-pack epoxy yacht primer (or similar). I had never thought of 'future proofing' except for T/T mk2 which will have to take a lot of abuse being assembled & taken to bits far more than your average layout. Just received my new Vitrains cl37 in EWS maroon. Well I'm very pleased with it it looks fairly straightforward to convert to P4 (famous last words ) . Well it looks like a 37 to me, not a Black 5, so it must be one ---------that's another thread I think. __________________________________________ Comment posted by cornelius on Sun May 20, 2007 7:26 am Definitely a very interesting concept. I suppose in theory* you could even have alternate plug-in boards to modify the scenery for different eras. * Duplicated amount of work and hassle notwithstanding. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun May 20, 2007 10:28 am I don't think there's anything particularly new about lightweight plug-in scenery - Vincent de Bode did it on 'Flintfield' and wrote it up in MRJ or Scalefour News (can check out the refs if anyone's interested), and I think 'Lee-on-Solent' is another one. There are some minor mods to the trackplan we want to bring in John, so the (nice) idea of soaking it all off would not help much anyway. On the current version some turnouts had to be moved because of the positions of the baseboard joints, these can now be put where they should be. In particular I was never happy with the alignment of the up loop rejoining the main road (centre foreground of second photo above). You could have alternative scenery boards Cornelius, although it wouldn't do much for us because they're not 'era-specific'. You would have to change all the buildings as well (and the stock of course!). There is a layout in Scotland however that has alternative drop in scenery modules for doing different seasons - springtime, snow cover and so on. __________________________________________ Comment posted by John B on Sun May 20, 2007 3:52 pm 10800 wrote: I don't think there's anything particularly new about lightweight plug-in scenery - Vincent de Bode did it on 'Flintfield' and wrote it up in MRJ or Scalefour News (can check out the refs if anyone's interested), and I think 'Lee-on-Solent' is another one. [snipped] Lee on the Solent, as Rod says, uses the same system of a trackwork spine with lightweight plug-in scenery. When we were given the original layout by Colin Hayward (he built it in the 1970s) it ran like a dog, and there wasnt much scenery past the trackbed. The buildings were lovely, though, and they remain. The rest of the layout, trackwork and all, was scrapped, and a new start made. The track "spine" is an inverted U-channel made out of MDF, sealed with varnish to prevent damp expansion. It's solid, deep enough to house tortoises, and can be set up in isolation of the whole layout for testing / playing purposes. (None of us had a room large enough to erect the whole layout, apart from the clubrooms.) Track was hand-laid - ply and rivet, a mix of bullhead and flat-bottom to replicate the extremely light construction of the prototype (code 40 FB rail used on the "loop"). The "spine" sits on a framework which flat-packs for transport. (This is the part of the layout that while setting up and knocking down at exhibitions draws most commnt from fellow exhibitors, amazed we can get a 18ft x 3ft layout, plus lighting rig, into two small cars..) The framework / legs are no more than pieces of jig-cut birch plywood, 6mm thick, all lettered / numbered and sealed, which ###### together with captive nuts and bolts like a giant meccano set. Powered screwdrivers are de-riguer for the operating crew... This setup gives us a very stable base for the narrow spine, and support for the lightweight scenery modules which plug into the spine on either side. It was so successful that a similar system is being used for the (eventual) successor, "Cosham", another local South Hants prototype, a big mainline roundy this time though instead of a bucolic light railway branchline terminus... __________________________________________ Comment posted by Pudley Wonderer on Sun May 20, 2007 4:25 pm Steering away from the current subject matter a bit for a mo, I see in the new edition of the Toddler that the next issues gonna feature Eridge, by Vivien Thompson!! Could this be the same Vivien that built Eastbourne all them years ago Puds __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun May 20, 2007 4:42 pm It would be a bit of a coincidence if it wasn't the same one! Glad to see she's still around I look forward to those with considerable interest! __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Tue May 22, 2007 1:01 pm Whatever else happens, I wish you the very best of luck, Rod and the rest of KAG with what must be a daunting prospect, from the point of view of having to virtually rebuild most of the layout from scratch. You Men of Kent (or are you Kentish Men? ) must be made of stern stuff! __________________________________________ Comment posted by MartinWales on Tue May 22, 2007 2:57 pm Captain Kernow wrote: You Men of Kent (or are you Kentish Men? ) must be made of stern stuff! Depends if they're north or south of the Medway! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun May 27, 2007 4:22 pm Captain Kernow wrote: Whatever else happens, I wish you the very best of luck, Rod and the rest of KAG with what must be a daunting prospect, from the point of view of having to virtually rebuild most of the layout from scratch. You Men of Kent (or are you Kentish Men? ) must be made of stern stuff! Strangely enough we don't see it as 'daunting', just an exercise in improving our skills, developing new techniques and getting the layout into a condition where we can really enjoy it rather than fight with it. Of the four main KAG members, only one is a 'Man of Kent' (east of the Medway) as far as I know - one is a 'Kentish Man', one is from Norfolk and I'm a sarf lunnoner originally (south side of Westminster Bridge next to what was County Hall). Ta for the good wishes in any case! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:45 pm One of the issues with the rebuild is integrating the fixed infrastructure we have now with the updated track configuration that we have the opportunity to do. By this I mean that the alignments of the main roads through the platforms are defined by the platforms, which ain't gonna change, and all this (and the pointwork) was done B.T. (Before Templot). I'm now doing the layout beyond the platform ends with Templot, using the 6-inch OS and 1:480 plan that we have (courtesy of Alan 'Cuckoo Line' Elliot), but the platform roads will of course have to be exactly as they are now. So this section of the existing trackwork has been 'brass-rubbed' onto paper - one of the advantages of having a clubroom associated with the former Reeds Paper Mills is that we have a huge roll of 3ft wide paper which is ideal for this. This was then sent to me in Devon and I nervously plotted out the Templot bit adjoining it, but lo and behold they matched almost perfectly so a short session finetuning one or two of the track joins next time I'm up in Kent should sort that. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:55 pm Just picked up a copy of the new RM with Vivien Thompson's 'Eridge' on the cover and featured inside. Some of the buildings are very nice as you'd expect (apart from the grossly oversize canopy support columns) but overall I was disappointed. The scenery in particular is very dated looking, and the whole thing is too bright - somehow I was expecting more, especially remembering her architectural models of Eastbourne etc from the late 60s and early 70s. Still, she's finished her Eridge which is more than we can say! __________________________________________ Comment posted by sunshine coast on Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:19 pm Rod , I know what you mean about Vivien's layout ,I have a copy of April 1971 RM featuring her Eastbourne layout and the modelling looks identical especially the scenery,apart from being in black and white,almost as though time had stood still .......most odd ? Regards Trevor.... __________________________________________ Comment posted by Pudley Wonderer on Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:14 am See Rod, I might be a bit NUTS , but I told you it was gonna feature in the next issue of Toddler Have to say, you dont actually hear much of the lady in question hese days, a bit like you dont hear much of Shirley Rowe, and they bith were rather highly regarded modellers then Spooky also how only the other day I picked up a copy of Viviens book for Trev Puds __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:33 pm Before designing and building new baseboards, first task is to (re)confirm the track plan. We are very fortunate in having an official 1:480 scale plan for Eridge covering more than the whole of the layout as modelled, so what's the problem you say? Well, it dates from 1979 by which time all the goods yard had disappeared and the down loop had been truncated, much the same condition it is now, and our model based in the 1950s includes the goods yard. The best basis for the track plan including the goods yard is this 6":1 mile OS map from 1950 (so now out of copyright) which, although it is not fully accurate is pretty good, and we would have happily used this in the absence of the 1:480 BR plan. The track plan for the first version of Eridge was done by scaling up the 1:480 plan to 1:76.2 and using that as a template. The goods yard was scaled in from the OS map as best we could, and the lines through the platforms were defined in detail by the platform dimensions which we measured for real in the field. Some of the pointwork was also moved to avoid the baseboard joints we had at the time. At this stage we didn't have Templot, although Templot was used for the last two boards away from the station to the 3-arch bridge, which were done later. This time, in order to avoid manual transfer, I wanted to do the whole layout on Templot, and a first pass was done by building the trackwork onto the 1:480 plan, having scanned and imported it into the programme. This is a section of the result, plotted at full size but with rails only for clarity at this stage, and stitched together (I only have an A4 printer at home). The crinkles are just a function of the glue and registration process (my errors, not Templot's). However, the defining markers from Eridge Mk1 are the platforms, and so the new Templot version, as well as enabling some pointwork to be moved to more authentic alignments, will have to be jiggled a bit to make sure the platform roads are spot on. The best way to check that was to do a 'brass rubbing' of the current trackwork in the station throat area to compare with the Templot version: Not too bad, but a bit of work required in places. Rather than trial-and-error, I will probably scan the brass rubbing in and adjust the track over the Mk1 alignments on computer screen. As far as baseboards are concerned, we are pondering with the idea of having just three solid trackbed boards of 8ft length each, which will cover the whole scenic section of 24ft. This stems from the concept of having a middle board on which nearly all the important P&C work was situated. These will be kept as narrow as possible with scenery on lightweight sections plugged in from the sides as per the sketches at the beginning of the thread. We are also pondering widening the scenery by up to a foot either side of the trackbed (limited by the reach required for uncoupling and coupling when shunting the yard from the front of the layout) to make it look even more like a landscape with a railway set in it. Progress will inevitably be slow, but I'll update as we go. __________________________________________ Comment posted by sunshine coast on Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:13 pm Looks like you have got yourselves a lot of work there Rod,,but it will be interesting to follow,when your team gets to the scenic parts please give me a shout I may be able to help out. Regards Trevor.. __________________________________________ Comment posted by number6 on Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:14 pm This is going to put that P4 Lewes on the back burner then?! I had my first ever ride up from Uckfield the other day. Amazing really seeing as I've lived nearby pretty much all my life. It is easy to forget this line was heavily engineered and not really the bucolic branchline it is today. The tunnels and bridges give it away - all fairly heavily engineered and when you reach Ashurst the junctions to Tunbridge and East Grinstead and Three Bridges give a real sense of this network of lines that is now all missing. If the line was still intact I got the sense I would always chose to travel up this way to London if I had the time! Eridge is very over-grown these days - I'd visited here a few times when the Groombridge line was open and when climbing at Harrisons Rocks nearby. Nice to see all the buildings and canopies intact. How did that happen as everywhere else is bus shelters? The killer reason for closure of the Uckfield line was given to be the weak bridges over the old goods yard in Lewes. I've never worked out why this couldn't have been infilled as an embankment as there was no reason for the bridge at this point anymore. The real reason for closure was actually being the internal ringroad built in 1968 crossing at right angles and at the same height as the line... Best of luck and look forward to seeing that module approach develop. regards Raphael __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:19 pm sunshine coast wrote: Looks like you have got yourselves a lot of work there Rod,,but it will be interesting to follow,when your team gets to the scenic parts please give me a shout I may be able to help out. Cheers Trevor, I must drop into your shop one day for a natter __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:25 pm number6 wrote: This is going to put that P4 Lewes on the back burner then?! Just a little! I'm not sure if the group will want to do it realistically. At the moment if we ever do something beyond Eridge it might be London urban based around Factory Junction and Wandsworth Road. I still might do just the main junction at the eastern end of Lewes platforms for myself as a masochistic exercise in trackbuilding! Eridge is very over-grown these days - I'd visited here a few times when the Groombridge line was open and when climbing at Harrisons Rocks nearby. Nice to see all the buildings and canopies intact. How did that happen as everywhere else is bus shelters? I've a feeling the buildings have a listed status? Best of luck and look forward to seeing that module approach develop. Thanks Raphael Might even have to organise a SAG visit one day! __________________________________________ Comment posted by Pudley Wonderer on Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:14 am sunshine coast wrote: Looks like you have got yourselves a lot of work there Rod,,but it will be interesting to follow,when your team gets to the scenic parts please give me a shout I may be able to help out. Regards Trevor.. I'll second that favour Puds __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:01 am There have been some developments and the rebuild is gathering pace. The middle (longest) trackbed board has been constructed to test the methodology of all-glued construction using 6 mm ply and MDF top. I've seen some photos of it and it looks impressive - especially given that it's about 12 inches (whaaaattt! ) deep - I'm not sure why that was done, other than Mike saying "this one ain't gonna sag", and apparently it doesn't make much difference to the handleability. At that size we could store all the stock and other stuff inside it during transport! There will be some weekend sessions coming up to build the rest of the boards before starting on trackwork. I'll post pictures as soon as I get electronic copies of them or take some myself. The Templot version of the whole layout has been adopted (with possible some minor tweaks to come) since it won't affect the buildings and canopies already constructed, and the platforms themselves can be adjusted or at worst done from new if necessary. A rails-only version has been exported to DXF and printed out full-size and in one piece on a roll-plotter so that board construction can continue knowing where all the point motors, signals etc are going to be. Another decision made without any further prompting from me is to go DCC on the rebuild, which suits me fine as it will much improve compatibility with Camberhurst. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:06 pm Dismantling of Mk1 has now commenced, with switches, magnets and salvageable wiring being recovered last night from underneath. No turning back now! __________________________________________

All loaded up from the old RMWeb (thanks to Martin for the app) - almost gives me enough inspiration to start building the thing! (One thing's certain I won't be short of stock to run on it!).

00 roundy-roundy - Tawbridge by 10800 original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ Comment posted by beast66606 on Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:17 pm Captain Kernow wrote: beast66606 wrote: In signalling one can never say never just say unlikely - not sure Andrew does a range of RTP signals ... I think it would have been worked, Rod. A fixed distant would normally be provided in situations where the stop signals ahead of it would never have all been cleared throughout for a non-stop train As this thread has been resurrected I have only just noticed this Fixed distants were provided when the speed limit was 40mph or less (in theory) - although some goods line had working distants with far lower limits. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:37 am Thanks for the clarification Dave - all this probably means there won't be one __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:08 pm Just for a bit of fun (and some checking) I dug out some of the proposed stock for Tawbridge to put on the draft Templot covering the curved fiddle yard entry at one end. Apart from getting a feel for scale it was also a useful exercise in seeing how tight the curves could be off-scene without compromising vehicle separation on the straights too much (and the coupling extension devices used by Bachmann and Hornby on their coaches are helpful here). At the moment the ruling radius is 30 inches but I reckon I could come down to 27 without causing too many problems. __________________________________________ Comment posted by westrerner on Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:48 pm Its good to see its beginning to lift of the planning stage. __________________________________________ Comment posted by The Stationmaster on Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:15 pm Captain Kernow wrote: beast66606 wrote: In signalling one can never say never just say unlikely - not sure Andrew does a range of RTP signals ... I think it would have been worked, Rod. A fixed distant would normally be provided in situations where the stop signals ahead of it would never have all been cleared throughout for a non-stop train. You can only clear the distant signal if all stop signals in the line of travel at that particular block post have already been cleared. It signifies a clear run ahead to the driver. If you are modelling a double track main line or secondary route to the north of Dartmoor, I think it's highly unlikely that they would have provided a fixed distant. And yes, I did mean a flat accommodation crossing! When we use the term 'crossing' at work, we invariably mean a level crossing (although 'accommodation' and 'occupation' crossings are normally referred to as 'user worked crossings' these days). If you don't want a farm type crossing with gates etc. (Ratio do the bits, mind!), how about a nice footpath crossing with kissing gates?! From what of that line I knew and can otherwise recall I don't think there were any fixed distants and a quick check confirms that there were no fixed distants on the mainline between Cowley Bridge Jcn and Devonport (nor were there any colour light distants - I think the most westerly colour lights on the LSWR mainline prior to singling were either Crewkerne (after the new 'box opened) or possibly a distant signal in the vicinity of Honiton Tunnel. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:30 am westrerner wrote: Its good to see its beginning to lift of the planning stage. Spaceboard purchased last week, now into the details of board design and configurations - trip to the timber merchants for ply and 'no more nails' soon, then firing up the bandsaw in the garage. __________________________________________ Comment posted by number6 on Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:50 am Exciting stuff! Can't wait. You can make all the mistakes and I'll learn! cheers Raphael __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Aug 02, 2009 11:53 am number6 wrote: Exciting stuff! Can't wait. You can make all the mistakes and I'll learn! cheers Raphael As was said no doubt by most first generation industrialists outside the UK ... The main design issues are having the foamboard for the two main scenic boards at the front dropped by 100mm or so to allow for the river crossing and associated scenery, with the trackbed carried across these on ply supports. Board ends probably of 9mm ply to accommodate the dowels, with 6mm for the sides and trackbed. Ply surrounds will be deeper than the foamboard for wiring and to allow for the scenic drops. At the moment I am looking at just one long loop at the back for each of the two lines. One road in each direction will accommodate ply cassettes (two per track) so that shorter trains or sections of trains can be lifted in and out. Not really enough room for lots of sidings and pointwork. Cassettes will be up to 1 m long with 9mm bases and 6mm ply sides glued so that the ply directions are in opposition for rigidity. The back boards will therefore have to drop a few mm with respect to the 'running boards'. I'll try and put some sketches up when I know exactly what I am planning. __________________________________________ Comment posted by westrerner on Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:05 pm The loop and cassette idea seems very much an Ian Rice idea. Was hoping to do it on wencombe but settled for 5 loops. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Aug 02, 2009 11:21 pm westrerner wrote: The loop and cassette idea seems very much an Ian Rice idea. Might have been - not much in this game that's really new. I'm just thinking through what I need to do for my own purposes. __________________________________________

00 roundy-roundy - Tawbridge by 10800 original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ Comment posted by westrerner on Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:37 pm I'll try and get Dave to see what happens with his spamcan and Pullmans on Epsom tonight if I remember. I'll post results. It'll definitely take 8 Bulleids and bogie van, the Pullmans I'm not so sure about. __________________________________________ Comment posted by westrerner on Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:24 am We did'nt do it but I was reminded by Dave that it certainly pulled 8 Pullmans with little problem. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:33 am westrerner wrote: We did'nt do it but I was reminded by Dave that it certainly pulled 8 Pullmans with little problem. Thanks everyone for the testing! I think there should be no problem especially if I take the working brakes (i.e. the lighting pickups) off. I've been thinking again ('never a good idea - just get on with it! ') about what I will be running on this layout, and totting up the stock I already have for it and what will come in the future, and decided that: 1) I need more track storage in the fiddle yard to reduce the amount of crane shunting (with or without cassettes) 2) Having got the tape measure out again I reckon I can make it 2ft longer, i.e. 14ft x 7ft with a longer scenic section at the front, and still just about be able to get it up in the dining room 3) With more locomotives on the track at a given time it definitely needs to be DCC So it will be redesigned at the back to have at least six roads, two dedicated to each line and two 'common' in the middle, always (at home at least) leaving a road for each line clear so I can just sit back and watch the trains go round and round. The scenic section will still just be plain track in the countryside, with a river crossing. Set somewhere in Devon on the north side of Dartmoor, there will be two sorts of traffic - Southern Withered Arm (steam) and diverted WR diesel hydraulic trains on the assumption that the southern route between Exeter and Plymouth is closed for engineering. Just have to be careful not to run the Devon Belle at the same time as the Western-hauled Royal Duchy/Mayflower/Cornishman with chocolate/cream stock And none of those Swindon green coal-burning things neither To spread the DCC capital cost, I can start with having one line set for DCC and the other for DC as I gradually chip the locos, then change the DC line to DCC when I'm ready. As long as I'm diligent in keeping the two systems electrically independent ... It will be DCC for running the locos only, no sound envisaged. Probably Dynamis. __________________________________________ Comment posted by stubby47 on Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:37 am If your layout is a simple roundy-roundy, with no scope for shunting, and you're not interested in sound, why are you considering going for DCC ? Just curious, no axe to grind either way. Stu __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:47 am stubby47 wrote: If your layout is a simple roundy-roundy, with no scope for shunting, and you're not interested in sound, why are you considering going for DCC ? Just curious, no axe to grind either way. Hi Stu There could be 10 or more locos on the track in the fiddle yard, in a wide variety of locations depending on train make-up. The alternative to DCC would be to have loads of isolating sections everywhere, which starts to get inconvenient with that much motive power. __________________________________________ Comment posted by stubby47 on Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:55 am Rod, Thanks for the answer, makes lots of sense. Stu __________________________________________ Comment posted by sunshine coast on Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:21 pm Rod , sounds like a good plan especially the extra tracks in the yard ... however I would be a bit wary of using the Dynamis...only because it requires line of sight to the receiver ...I can see you operating this from the back and front ,or moving back and forth .... just a thought .. Regards Trevor ... __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:27 pm Hi Trevor Probably operate from the middle actually (no choice at home without standing outside the window or knocking a wall down - bit like the old Steptoe & Son snooker table episode!). Even if exhibited think I could avoid those issues, but thanks for the heads up anyway __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:22 pm Using 'Tawbridge' or 'Tawtonbridge' as a possible name for this. Trying to formulate some scenic ideas now - regular viewers will recall that this is to be a no-frills roundy roundy so I can watch trains in the landscape. So no pointwork, no station, no signals, no buildings apart from maybe a P-way hut, just a twin-track railway passing through the landscape and crossing a river. Scenic section is 14 ft long and 2ft deep. The backscene will have this kind of appearance, representing somewhere on the Southern on the north side of Dartmoor: And the visible section of the layout something like this: The main focal point will be the river crossing, probably a twin span affair using Wills curved-top girder sections on granite piers. The river will curve to the right and have stands of trees to disguise its disappearance into the backscene. The right bank as viewed will be a 'bluff' with bits of sloughing into the river below, the left bank will be flat with cows wandering down to drink with the railway on a short stretch of embankment which dwindles out as the land rises. Maybe a 'natural' pond next to the river for cattle to stand in and ducks to swim in. Left hand exit will be a minor road or occupation overbridge, right hand just a 'hole in the backscene' disguised by more trees. Land will rise slightly to a high point just short of the backscene and then fall away so that you don't see the join, probably marked by hedges and shrubs. Beyond that I haven't decided, but it will inevitably be a lot of grass and scrub. Suggestions invited! As discussed before, trains will be of two main types covering the period 1953-1963 - Southern 'Withered Arm' steam, and early Western hydraulics on diversion between Exeter and Plymouth. Passenger services could range from a nine-coach Ilfracombe portion Devon Belle to a T9 with Maunsell P-set or a Class 22 on a four coach local of chocolate/cream and maroon Mk1s. Freight could include some short china clay trains (hooded and return empties), ballast with walrus and dogfish, and pick up goods. The idea is for all stock to be RTR (I have my P4 projects to indulge in kit-building and conversion) and apart from loco renumbering, couplings, corridor connections and weathering no detail work will be done on them. Except maybe the walrus conversions from sealions. Trains won't be standing still so you won't be able to read the coach numbers easily! __________________________________________ Comment posted by Graham_Muz on Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:02 pm Looks good to me Rod. is the proposed backscene Cosdon Beacon and Belstone Tor? __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:13 pm Graham_Muz wrote: is the proposed backscene Cosdon Beacon and Belstone Tor? That particular view is, yes There are a couple of places on a ridge just north of the A30 where you can get virtually 180 degree panoramas, this is just one shot of about 15 taken on a reccy about a year ago. The idea would be to do it properly in decent light and with a tripod and stitch the pictures together. Not easy facing south, but you always get the purply colour of the tors in the distance. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Graham_Muz on Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:56 pm Yes Rod I know the area well and have hiked over most of it, and spent many a night away from it all there too. Dartmoor is one my most favourite places in the UK. Certainly would make an excellent backdrop and will be doing something similar when I finally get around to my plans for Lydford Junction! I really love the concept behind Tawbridge and look forward to seeing it progress. __________________________________________ Comment posted by sunshine coast on Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:59 pm Rod , I would think that in this case ,less is more, possibly a distant signal .. intimating something further up the line , other than that all the effort can then go into the quality of the scenic work,well done telegraph poles,p/way hut ,lineside details ,vegetation etc... Regards Trevor ... __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:52 pm sunshine coast wrote: possibly a distant signal .. intimating something further up the line , other than that all the effort can then go into the quality of the scenic work,well done telegraph poles,p/way hut ,lineside details ,vegetation etc... Hi Trevor I had also thought of a single distant signal somewhere, and it is appealing. CK also suggested one of the early Southern colour lights, but I don't know when they came in exactly and where (anyone?). __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:23 pm 10800 wrote: sunshine coast wrote: possibly a distant signal .. intimating something further up the line , other than that all the effort can then go into the quality of the scenic work,well done telegraph poles,p/way hut ,lineside details ,vegetation etc... Hi Trevor I had also thought of a single distant signal somewhere, and it is appealing. CK also suggested one of the early Southern colour lights, but I don't know when they came in exactly and where (anyone?). Don't forget, you promised me an accommodation crossing as well!! __________________________________________ Comment posted by sunshine coast on Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:16 pm Captain Kernow wrote: 10800 wrote: sunshine coast wrote: possibly a distant signal .. intimating something further up the line , other than that all the effort can then go into the quality of the scenic work,well done telegraph poles,p/way hut ,lineside details ,vegetation etc... Hi Trevor I had also thought of a single distant signal somewhere, and it is appealing. CK also suggested one of the early Southern colour lights, but I don't know when they came in exactly and where (anyone?). Don't forget, you promised me an accommodation crossing as well!! And a "Tea Shoppe" if I know the Captain ..... Rod, just had a look in a Southern signal book and them new fangled colour lights do not seem to exist at all !!!! stick with an up and down flappy thing on a lattice post,much nicer than a pole with a bulb on....... regards Trevor.. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Graham_Muz on Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:24 pm 10800 wrote: I had also thought of a single distant signal somewhere, and it is appealing. CK also suggested one of the early Southern colour lights, but I don't know when they came in exactly and where (anyone?). Well the Southern Railway introduced the first four aspect coloured light signal as far back as 1926. These were mainly confined to the commuter network rather than places like the withered arm. I agree with Trevor, and feel that a nice ex LSWR style lattice post fixed distant would look great just as the line heads into the scenic break by the trees. I think you need to place an order with MSE as soon as possible __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:18 pm Captain Kernow wrote: Don't forget, you promised me an accommodation crossing as well!! You've got one on the bridge at the left end - or did you mean a flat crossing? __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:25 pm Graham_Muz wrote: I agree with Trevor, and feel that a nice ex LSWR style lattice post fixed distant would look great just as the line heads into the scenic break by the trees. I think you need to place an order with MSE as soon as possible I like the 'fixed' bit! I'll have a word with that nice Mr Hartshorne at Railex. __________________________________________ Comment posted by beast66606 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:32 pm 10800 wrote: Graham_Muz wrote: I agree with Trevor, and feel that a nice ex LSWR style lattice post fixed distant would look great just as the line heads into the scenic break by the trees. I think you need to place an order with MSE as soon as possible I like the 'fixed' bit! I'll have a word with that nice Mr Hartshorne at Railex. Why "fixed" on a double track __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm beast66606 wrote: Why "fixed" on a double track How did you know we were talking signals now? Would that never happen then? (making it work is no problem of course, if it was appropriate to have). __________________________________________ Comment posted by beast66606 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:02 pm 10800 wrote: beast66606 wrote: Why "fixed" on a double track How did you know we were talking signals now? Would that never happen then? (making it work is no problem of course, if it was appropriate to have). In signalling one can never say never just say unlikely - not sure Andrew does a range of RTP signals ... __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:29 pm beast66606 wrote: In signalling one can never say never just say unlikely - not sure Andrew does a range of RTP signals ... I think it would have been worked, Rod. A fixed distant would normally be provided in situations where the stop signals ahead of it would never have all been cleared throughout for a non-stop train. You can only clear the distant signal if all stop signals in the line of travel at that particular block post have already been cleared. It signifies a clear run ahead to the driver. If you are modelling a double track main line or secondary route to the north of Dartmoor, I think it's highly unlikely that they would have provided a fixed distant. And yes, I did mean a flat accommodation crossing! When we use the term 'crossing' at work, we invariably mean a level crossing (although 'accommodation' and 'occupation' crossings are normally referred to as 'user worked crossings' these days). If you don't want a farm type crossing with gates etc. (Ratio do the bits, mind!), how about a nice footpath crossing with kissing gates?! __________________________________________ Comment posted by westrerner on Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:29 pm Just wondered how this layout is getting on? I do like the concept of a series of trains running through well modelled scenery. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:08 pm Hi Alan Thanks for the interest Things have been a bit hectic on other matters this year - work, new kitchen etc - but I had planned to start building soon, probably using spaceboard as the basis of the boards. Watch this space. __________________________________________

00 roundy-roundy - Tawbridge by 10800 original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ Comment posted by <H3 class=first><A href="#p313532">Re: Proposed 00 Withered Arm (or anywhere) roundy-roundy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:59 pm A solution to this is to file a soldering iron bit to the shape of the wheel profile, and run it along the top of the rail. This will melt just enough plastic off the top of the chair jaws to clear the wheels. Or you could use SMP and save 50% of the cost? Tim __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:26 pm Last week I started looking for places to take a photographic panorama from for the backscene. After studying OS maps for likely viewpoints I found a couple and took some trial shots. This is just one of 15 in a possible 180-degree panorama that gives the impression of what I am looking for. I may go back and repeat them later in the Spring in varying light conditions, but the muted effect at the moment is quite good, with the Dartmoor hills coming out purplish which is just right. I also note the view is very similar to that on Jon Winnett's father's layout 'Chagford' (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=16682) which is not surprising since these were taken near Drewsteignton. I also took some photos at Fingles Bridge near Castle Drogo (what is this, Lord of the Rings? ) of the River Teign which shows the width and form of the river that will be crossed on the layout. Forget the bridge here, nice though it is, and the wooded valley - I'm just looking at the colour, rocks and patterns of turbulence characteristic of a peat and humic acid-laden moorland stream. Sometimes the bed is almost bronze in apparent colour - has anyone ever used metallic bronze paint as a component of the stream bed colour, or mixed in with varnish for the water itself? __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:46 pm 10800 wrote: beast66606 wrote: it will be DC From the decoder to the motor only I hope No final decision yet on that one Dave! Initially this one will probably be DC throughout, but who knows later on! With the trackplan the way it is, wiring it in such a way that it is easily switchable from DC to DCC will be a doddle, which is exactly the same as what we will be doing on the DRAG Mk2 test track. So guest appearances, whether chipped or not, will be easily accommodated - even DC on one line and DCC on the other. __________________________________________ Comment posted by SweeneyTodd on Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:57 pm Probably shouldn't post this , but i've been watching and reading all post's in the layout topic area for weeks and i thought i'd say what a perfect layout idea this one is .... It's got everything , a scenic area , a fiddle yard , a bench , it looks part portable , and it's a roundy where trains can run round and round for ever if the mood takes ... So i'd like to say "Brilliant" will be watching this develope. Shaun __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:21 am Alan Smithee wrote: A solution to this is to file a soldering iron bit to the shape of the wheel profile, and run it along the top of the rail. This will melt just enough plastic off the top of the chair jaws to clear the wheels. Or you could use SMP and save 50% of the cost? Tim I agree, this seems to be the more obvious solution, particularly if Rod doesn't need to depict the full thickness of the sleepers, which the Exactoscale stuff would provide (would not be an issue if modelling fully ballasted track, well-maintained with proper shoulder etc.) __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:47 am Captain Kernow wrote: I agree, this seems to be the more obvious solution, particularly if Rod doesn't need to depict the full thickness of the sleepers, which the Exactoscale stuff would provide (would not be an issue if modelling fully ballasted track, well-maintained with proper shoulder etc.) This is the plan - I have some Carr's chamfered cork strip somewhere which I will probably use for this. Incidentally, just checked one rail of some Exactoscale P4 fast track with a Bachmann N, and there don't seem to be any clearance problems with that, nor even the Limby 121. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:57 am 10800 wrote: Incidentally, just checked one rail of some Exactoscale P4 fast track with a Bachmann N, and there don't seem to be any clearance problems with that, nor even the Limby 121. That makes the problem with C&L track all the more frustrating!! Grrrrr!!! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Apr 05, 2008 2:41 pm No, I haven't finished it already, but here is some of the fresh-out-of-the-box stock posing on 'Wouldham Town'. Ivatt tank on passenger (Van C, Bulleid SO and two Maunsell BSKs) N rescues failed Bubblecar __________________________________________ Comment posted by davidpk212 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:26 pm Bloody hell, I thought that was it for a moment. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Forevagrey on Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:15 am Nice layout __________________________________________ Comment posted by Metropolitan on Tue May 13, 2008 5:18 am So it's true! I never though I'd live to see the day! And what a great design Rod. You'll get plenty of fun for your bucks without doubt! It's not dissimalar to my layout. If you are going to go DCC I'd do it from the start. Despite all my efforts I haven't been able to convert my layout from DC. __________________________________________ Comment posted by nevardmedia on Tue May 13, 2008 5:48 am I seem to have discovered this one a little late Fab idea, simple is best! The time saved by not having to worry about complex pointwork etc could be put into some really hot scenery - a sort of super sized moving diorama........ I'd like to do something like this, but shoe horn Midford and the viaduct in - one day, and just one point where the double track becomes single. Wouldham Town ....mmm, probably my favourite 'biggy' this year, it's so fresh (despite its age) and photogenic. __________________________________________ Comment posted by D.Broad on Tue May 13, 2008 7:24 am There is a lot of hidden area in relation to the scenic part, and the crossover looks unusable, perhaps crossovers on the curves at the ends of the layout would be more practical. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue May 13, 2008 7:51 am D.Broad wrote: There is a lot of hidden area in relation to the scenic part, and the crossover looks unusable, perhaps crossovers on the curves at the ends of the layout would be more practical. Hi, and welcome. The scenic part is relatively short because I don't want any sharp curves on view. The crossover is only there to enable me to 'shunt' trains occasionally from one circuit to the other without handling - operation will just be a sequence of runpasts. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:11 pm I'm mulling over the potential for running the Ilfracombe portion of the Devon Belle in due course, using Hornby's past, present and future Pullmans. Based on recent issues of BRILL and my Pullman bible, I've come up with the following formation for the late period of the Belle (1953-ish). Whilst not all of these cars ran together at this time, they all ran on the Devon Belle at some point and the configuration is correct. So, from the locomotive for the down train: Brake 3rd 54 (new Devon Belle add-on pack - the info on the box is right, the publicity saying 64 is wrong, different type of car) Kitchen 3rd 61 ('old' Devon Belle train pack with Watersmeet) Kitchen 1st IBIS (from VSOE pack but bought singly) Parlour 1st ROSEMARY (from Bournemouth Belle add-on pack) Parlour 3rd 208 (actually a Guard 3rd - from new add-on pack) Kitchen 1st MINERVA (from VSOE pack but bought singly) Kitchen 3rd 31 (from Bournemouth Belle add-on pack) Brake 3rd 27 (from new Devon Belle set with Wadebridge) Observation 13 (from new Devon Belle set) MINERVA was actually rebuilt for the Golden Arrow in 1951, but the layout will also be a fictitious place, so there! The question now arises, before I get too carried away, on whether the West Country will pull nine coaches? I can improve the rollability by removing the pickups for the lights which I don't really like anyway - too yellow, dinner by sodium light! - but since I haven't got a Bulleid Pacific yet can anyone advise on their haulage capability? If marginal, is there space inside the casing to stick slabs of lead sheet to increase the weight? __________________________________________ Comment posted by Graham_Muz on Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:51 pm 10800 wrote: The question now arises, before I get too carried away, on whether the West Country will pull nine coaches? I can improve the rollability by removing the pickups for the lights which I don't really like anyway - too yellow, dinner by sodium light! - but since I haven't got a Bulleid Pacific yet can anyone advise on their haulage capability? If marginal, is there space inside the casing to stick slabs of lead sheet to increase the weight? Hi Rod I have had a Hornby West Country pulling 6 Hornby Pullmans along with my 00 works brass observation car on my club layout with no apparent issues. I know that a friend of mine George Reeve had one struggle with a full 14 coach Belle rake on his garden railway but that included a gradient or two (he has since fitted a Teshendo Spud in place of one of the bogies on the Brake 3rd Pullman and the rake copes fine!) I would have thought that nine up would be OK especially if you do remove the coach light pick ups. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:59 pm Graham_Muz wrote: I would have thought that nine up would be OK especially if you do remove the coach light pick ups. __________________________________________ Comment posted by sunshine coast on Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:09 pm Rod , I can check out the haulage of the West Countrys on my circuit in the loft later on this week with a pile of Pullmans ....it is currently running a T9 6 wheel tender with 12 Maunsells on ..! 70'+ round and round ... Regards Trevor... __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:34 pm That'd be great Trevor, cheers! __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:20 pm 10800 wrote: I'm mulling over the potential for running the Ilfracombe portion of the Devon Belle in due course, using Hornby's past, present and future Pullmans. Brake 3rd 54 (new Devon Belle add-on pack - the info on the box is right, the publicity saying 64 is wrong, different type of car) Kitchen 3rd 61 ('old' Devon Belle train pack with Watersmeet) Kitchen 1st IBIS (from VSOE pack but bought singly) Parlour 1st ROSEMARY (from Bournemouth Belle add-on pack) Parlour 3rd 208 (actually a Guard 3rd - from new add-on pack) Kitchen 1st MINERVA (from VSOE pack but bought singly) Kitchen 3rd 31 (from Bournemouth Belle add-on pack) Brake 3rd 27 (from new Devon Belle set with Wadebridge) Observation 13 (from new Devon Belle set) And just think how long it would take to convert that lot to P4......!! __________________________________________ Comment posted by nevardmedia on Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:02 pm Captain Kernow wrote: 10800 wrote: I'm mulling over the potential for running the Ilfracombe portion of the Devon Belle in due course, using Hornby's past, present and future Pullmans. Brake 3rd 54 (new Devon Belle add-on pack - the info on the box is right, the publicity saying 64 is wrong, different type of car) Kitchen 3rd 61 ('old' Devon Belle train pack with Watersmeet) Kitchen 1st IBIS (from VSOE pack but bought singly) Parlour 1st ROSEMARY (from Bournemouth Belle add-on pack) Parlour 3rd 208 (actually a Guard 3rd - from new add-on pack) Kitchen 1st MINERVA (from VSOE pack but bought singly) Kitchen 3rd 31 (from Bournemouth Belle add-on pack) Brake 3rd 27 (from new Devon Belle set with Wadebridge) Observation 13 (from new Devon Belle set) And just think how long it would take to convert that lot to P4......!! Could always stick to OO and build a whole layout instead in the same time I'm running for the coat stand ....... __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:03 am nevardmedia wrote: Captain Kernow wrote: And just think how long it would take to convert that lot to P4......!! Could always stick to OO and build a whole layout instead in the same time I'm running for the coat stand ....... That's the beauty with this layout - due to commence construction sometime soon - instant gratification (Eye level viewing, no pointwork in the scenic section, no-one will ever know ... ) __________________________________________ Comment posted by BlazeyBridge2 on Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:31 am Hmm the North Cornwall Line... Engines the wrong shade of green..... Signals that go Up, not Down.... But apart from that its perfect! __________________________________________ Comment posted by Jim49 on Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:17 pm Rod, you shouldn't have any problems with a Spam Can hauling 9 Pullmans. Mine will comfortably handle 10-12 Bachmann Mk1s which are fairly heavy and not the most free-running coaches available. Jim49 __________________________________________ Comment posted by sunshine coast on Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:55 pm Rod, experimental haulage with Unrebuilt W/Cs on my circuit which is not perfectly flat ,with 9 pullmans on ..they do not like it !! 7 no problem ..8 beginning to slip ...9 slip to a halt in a couple of areas with slight adverse grade .... suggest more weight required... surprisingly the T9 ...had the same results ... will do more tests with other locos later on .. Regards Trevor ... __________________________________________ </H3>

00 roundy-roundy - Tawbridge by 10800 original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:25 pm It's a nice idea Alan, but doesn't feature in the plans at the moment __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:12 pm But Rod....... just think how nice it would be to have a cute little signalbox and a couple of working signals.... (interchangeable, to suit different company styles, of course).... __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:13 pm Captain Kernow wrote: But Rod....... just think how nice it would be to have a cute little signalbox and a couple of working signals.... (interchangeable, to suit different company styles, of course).... Get thee behind me, Satan! __________________________________________ Comment posted by John B on Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:13 pm 10800 wrote: Captain Kernow wrote: But Rod....... just think how nice it would be to have a cute little signalbox and a couple of working signals.... (interchangeable, to suit different company styles, of course).... Get thee behind me, Satan! And a cute little crossover and branch line junction to give reason for said box and signals __________________________________________ Comment posted by philip-griffiths on Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:20 pm Rod, The Ulster MRC built a layout with a similar philosophy, just for exhibiting, a few years ago, but then added some refuge loops. http://www.freewebs....exhibition2.htm It was built on doors as these were found to be very robust and didn't warp. Very successful. It replaced a similar layout which was yonks old, constructed in a similar fashion and called the 'Doors' layout! very original. regards Philip __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:27 pm Some interesting parallels there Philip, but a bit more complex than what I have in mind! Still, goes to show how few genuinely orginal concepts there are around. __________________________________________ Comment posted by philip-griffiths on Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:11 pm Rod, I've been planning and re-planning something similar with my botched 1883 entry - i.e. a roundy layout, but in P4. (Yeah, I've lost the "New Poster" label!) regards Philip __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:11 pm philip-griffiths wrote: ... but in P4. OK, make me feel guilty why don't you! __________________________________________ Comment posted by philip-griffiths on Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:13 pm Well it wasn't supposed to make you feel that way Rod. I should feel guilty in that I still am expressing my 1883 layout in the future tense. The baseboards are built and some of the trusses are constructed. I'm still trying to finalise the pillars, when I get them sorted I can build them, finalise the trusses and put it all together. I really would like to finish this. Though it has moved on a bit and the idea is to match a Crumlin type viaduct structure with a Bargoed setting. regards Philip __________________________________________ Comment posted by number6 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:33 pm Rod Are you sure about only having an 8ft scenic section? Seems a bit small for all that effort in construction and space. If you had one long gentle curve across the front you could push those scenic breaks out further. Trains always seem to run smoother on curves... or certainly you'd not be bringing attention to the curve to straight transition. I also wonder if you can't squash down those fiddleyard loops - if you are going to be using RTR its all very capable of going through less smooth pointwork and the big curved points could go? Maybe you've been in P4-land too long?! I'm not adverse to a the addition of a cute little diary, quarry exchange sidings and etc. off the country junction either. best Raphael __________________________________________ Comment posted by jongwinnett on Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:37 pm Rod, Not wanting to add to your dilemma/waverings etc, but have you seen the latest shots on nevardmedia's Catcott thread? If anyone ever wondered if 00 could look "the business" then this surely answers them! http://www.rmweb.co....=312155#p312155 Having a serious rethink about not-rewheeling my M7s etc. as I type this! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:59 pm number6 wrote: Rod Are you sure about only having an 8ft scenic section? Seems a bit small for all that effort in construction and space. If you had one long gentle curve across the front you could push those scenic breaks out further. Trains always seem to run smoother on curves... or certainly you'd not be bringing attention to the curve to straight transition. I also wonder if you can't squash down those fiddleyard loops - if you are going to be using RTR its all very capable of going through less smooth pointwork and the big curved points could go? Maybe you've been in P4-land too long?! Hi Raphael Well, I'm open to ideas on minimum radius in the non-scenic section which might enable the scenic section to be stretched a bit, but it would be quite a feat to bring it down to the layout frontage less a foot and a half at each end wouldn't it, giving nine feet or so? I'll have a play though - thanks for your interest! (Inevitably I am influenced by P4-land, which is still my real home!). __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:00 pm jongwinnett wrote: Not wanting to add to your dilemma/waverings etc, but have you seen the latest shots on nevardmedia's Catcott thread? Mmmmmmm ... __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:24 pm 10800 wrote: jongwinnett wrote: Not wanting to add to your dilemma/waverings etc, but have you seen the latest shots on nevardmedia's Catcott thread? Mmmmmmm ... You know you want it..... __________________________________________ Comment posted by number6 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:36 pm 10800 wrote: Well, I'm open to ideas on minimum radius in the non-scenic section which might enable the scenic section to be stretched a bit, but it would be quite a feat to bring it down to the layout frontage less a foot and a half at each end wouldn't it, giving nine feet or so? If you are adverse to the idea of a tighter curve out in the scenic section then you are stuffed but there must be a way with a more egg-shaped plan to have the trains coming out of the tightest part of the curve into the scene. And you could definitely get down to 2.5ft curves with no problems. That withered arm had a few kinks in it didn't it? Raphael __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:59 am Captain Kernow wrote: 10800 wrote: jongwinnett wrote: Not wanting to add to your dilemma/waverings etc, but have you seen the latest shots on nevardmedia's Catcott thread? Mmmmmmm ... You know you want it..... Badgering me in two threads at once isn't going to work you know - I'm made of sterner stuff! __________________________________________ Comment posted by SweeneyTodd on Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:35 am Hello Rod , Quote "roundy-roundy layout in 00" if you have the space it makes much more sence than a " parallel-parallel in OO" in my opinion The bench for beer time / pencil an paper time / fiddle yard time / looks great / model building / laptop time / whatever / is a fantasic idea ..... The no station no signals idea is super ... The fact that you will be able to run any loco pulling any wagon or coach on your layout is wonderfull , and be able to just watch them run around , with sound or not , and no theme , is as far as i'm concerned a utterly and brilliant idea and "theme" in its self .... Shaun __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:53 am Thanks Shaun - it won't be permanently erected unfortunately (not in the current house anyway) so will remain as an occasional bit of playtime and/or exhibition material, and also a learning programme for Camberhurst and Eridge Mk2 scenically. I may change the line of the curve at the front (following comments by Raphael and Alan Smithee), bringing it closer to the front edge, but possibly allowing for additional plug in scenic bits on the front to increase the depth. I'm also thinking about ways to disguise the river as it heads off the back. Might put up a revised plan later on. __________________________________________ Comment posted by beast66606 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:24 am it will be DC From the decoder to the motor only I hope __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:46 am beast66606 wrote: it will be DC From the decoder to the motor only I hope No final decision yet on that one Dave! Initially this one will probably be DC throughout, but who knows later on! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:14 pm I've had a further play with Templot and the frontage curvature and have decided to leave it as it is - whilst you can extend the scenic section a little and have a long curve, the radius of that curve is still about 5ft and less than what I would want. As is my wont, I've put together a 1/10th scale mockup of the layout with backboard (18in high) and proscenium arch. The arch is supported in the middle by a gantry extending from the rear (to avoid an obstruction half way along the front). Light-weight lighting (possibly halogen tracks) can be suspended between the outer arch supports and the middle gantry. It will obviously be a lot higher off the ground than the 1ft suggested by this I was out yesterday looking for possible scenic views that I can photograph, print and stitch together for the backdrop - some possibilities off the A30 between Crediton and Okehampton, but the weather was not very good! When I eventually get them, the photos could if necessary be adjusted for blueness to enhance the distance effect. __________________________________________ Comment posted by martin_wynne on Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:58 pm Hi Rod, I've just discovered this topic. Nice one. For a P4 modeller thinking of dabbling in 00, have you made any decisions about the track standard to use? Exactoscale are known to be working on something for 00: http://groups.yahoo....-SF/message/298 I don't know what standard Len has settled on, but 00-SF gives you the best pointwork appearance and running quality with no need to modify RTR wheels and interchangeability with Peco turnouts on the same layout, e.g. in a fiddle yard. Brian Tulley has just sourced some superb track gauge tools for 00-SF, although you may have missed the first batch. My guide to the available track standards for 00 is at: http://groups.yahoo....-SF/message/254 regards, Martin. __________________________________________ Comment posted by <B> Re: Proposed 00 Withered Arm (or anywhere) roundy-roundy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:37 pm Just a note of caution, C&L in OO does have a slight drawback, the rail fixings are just too high for some Bachmann items* whereas SMP rail fixings on their plain track are just that touch lower and much cheaper . Tim *surely Rod doesn't want to rewheel his stock otherwise it rather defeats the purpose of a simple OO layout? __________________________________________ Comment posted by martin_wynne on Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:10 pm Alan Smithee wrote: C&L in OO does have a slight drawback, the rail fixings are just too high for some Bachmann items A solution to this is to file a soldering iron bit to the shape of the wheel profile, and run it along the top of the rail. This will melt just enough plastic off the top of the chair jaws to clear the wheels. Surprisingly, after painting this is barely noticeable -- visitors who have seen this EM railway have never noticed it: regards, Martin. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:58 pm The pointwork in the fiddle yard (all six of them) will be Peco code 75. Plain line in the fiddle yard will probably also be Peco code 75. For the scenic section, I am aware of the C&L/Bachmann wheel issue, and may try either SMP or more likely Exactoscale fast-track bases (should be an interesting conversation with Andrew when I buy them off his stand!). As Tim points out, the whole basis of this is convenience and playing trains straight out of the box. __________________________________________ </B>

00 roundy-roundy - Tawbridge by 10800 original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:09 pm It's all Hornby's fault , coupled with an approaching birthday (making me more time conscious, not because of presents potential), where I live, and my attraction to all things of the green tendency. And maybe the Hull boys' recent layout project. I'm giving consideration - serious consideration - to building a relatively small roundy-roundy layout in 00 based somewhere in North Devon around 1960, using exclusively RTR stock. The scenic bit would be just a double track secondary line - no station, no points - passing through the countryside, or perhaps over a river bridge. All I want really is to be able to watch trains go by in the minimum of time and with the minimum of effort. Having only plain track on view, and at a high eye-level, minimises the trauma to the P4 side of my brain . Peco points will do for the fiddle yard at the back. Stocking it is (or will be) so easy - M7, N, T9, unrebuilt Bulleid Pacific, Ivatt 2-6-2T, Standard 4 2-6-4T, Standard 4 Mogul, Class 22, Bubblecar maybe, Maunsell coaches etc etc. I'm already hunting on Ebay ... Have I gone completely barmy? __________________________________________ Comment posted by noddycab on Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:16 pm Sounds like a nice little idea, i like the idea of just plain track and countryside... The river bridge would set it off nicely. When u going to get the kettle on and get the biscuits out to make a start on it? Andy __________________________________________ Comment posted by shortliner on Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:57 pm looks like the fiddle yard will be bigger than the layout, with that stock-list! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:26 pm Considerably, Jack! But at least the trains are short! __________________________________________ Comment posted by sunshine coast on Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:32 pm And why not ... There are ,after all only so many hours in a day ... Rod .............Ebay ......and ....Model shops ......! __________________________________________ Comment posted by Gordon S on S</STRONG> on Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:36 pm Sounds good Rod, but you don't need a fiddle yard....A decent traverser will easily do the job.. __________________________________________ Comment posted by johnteal on Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:38 pm How small is "relatively small" ??? John RJR __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:12 pm I'm thinking in the order of 10ft x 6ft, but without having sat down and planned anything yet on paper. Really governed by retaining a reasonable scenic length and not having excruciatingly small radii on the ends. It won't be permanently erected at home whatever size it is, but it could be put up in the dining room occasionally (subject to approval from the authorities and locking the cats away), or at DRAG if they will accept a non-P4 layout, or hopefully at exhibition. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:18 pm sunshine coast wrote: and ....Model shops ......! Gotcha Trevor! Next time I'm in the area, or even not ... __________________________________________ Comment posted by westrerner on Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:38 pm If you can get hold of it have a look at Iain Rice's 'Mainlines in Small Spaces' . It contains layout in 10ft x 7ft based on Port Issac Road, Whilst it is a station he has some interesting ideas on a fiddle yard. Basically Two long sidings facing opposite ways (for the ACE) two shorter sidings as cassettes (also facing opposite ways) with a continuous run between them, Going from cassette to cassette or long siding to long siding gives end to end running. The whole unscenic part of the layout is about 9ft and the scenic section is about 14ft. The main part of the visible bit of the layout is a long transition curve with the tightest radius being 30inches into the fiddle area. I hope all that makes sense. You could leave the station out I suppose, but on his layout it is used as a passing station on what was a predominantly single track line. __________________________________________ Comment posted by John B on Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:50 pm It has massive appeal, Rod..... I keep having similar thoughts of building something OO, just to "run in" things before the inevitable gauge conversion, of course... Plus there's the excuse for all the stuff you want that's just too Sou-Western to run on Eridge or Camberhurst! __________________________________________ Comment posted by Re6/6 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:03 pm 10800 wrote: or at DRAG if they will accept a non-P4 layout, or hopefully at exhibition. Anything goes at DRAG! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:08 pm John B wrote: just to "run in" things before the inevitable gauge conversion, of course... That will be the answer I give when the P4 detector van comes calling ... Plus there's the excuse for all the stuff you want that's just too Sou-Western to run on Eridge or Camberhurst! Dead right, I'm wondering if it was that damned Class 22 that tipped the scales - even the T9 is OK for Eridge (well there was one once). __________________________________________ Comment posted by davidpk212 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:46 pm Another person willing to "take the plunge" and build an MLRT! Yipee! At this rate we'll have caught up with SLT building by Christmas... __________________________________________ Comment posted by jongwinnett on Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:37 pm John B wrote: It has massive appeal, Rod..... I keep having similar thoughts of building something OO, just to "run in" things before the inevitable gauge conversion, of course... Plus there's the excuse for all the stuff you want that's just too Sou-Western to run on Eridge or Camberhurst! hear hear... __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:55 am 10800 wrote: John B wrote: just to "run in" things before the inevitable gauge conversion, of course... That will be the answer I give when the P4 detector van comes calling ... Plus there's the excuse for all the stuff you want that's just too Sou-Western to run on Eridge or Camberhurst! Dead right, I'm wondering if it was that damned Class 22 that tipped the scales - even the T9 is OK for Eridge (well there was one once). I see that you haven't taken Dr Kernow's psycological advice and locked yourself away in a small room with all the back numbers of the Scalefour News for at least 10 years...... Well, as they say on First Great Western local services.....'Welcome aboard'.... Shall I build that B7 crossover in OO after all, then?! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:23 am davidpk212 wrote: Another person willing to "take the plunge" and build an MLRT! Yipee! At this rate we'll have caught up with SLT building by Christmas... MLRT? Main line run through? __________________________________________ Comment posted by Barry Ten on Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:14 pm It's a really nice idea, Rod - chimes with similar thoughts I've been having recently. I've often thought I could be just as happy with a well-modelled diorama - just a single or double track running through, no sidings or anything - as with a more orthodox layout, provided there was lots of storage space for a variety of trains. And I've been thinking about some kind of Southern or S&D themed layout to go on the second level above my current project. Its just madness not to model the Southern right now, isn't it? __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:31 pm This project is starting to build up a bit of momentum now. It will probably be 12ft x 7ft, with a scenic section at the front of around 8-9ft. I started trying to be really complicated in the fiddleyard, with loops, sidings, crossovers, a double slip etc but concluded this was unnecessary. There will now just be a long loop for each of the two running lines, and all four roads can be subdivided into three sections (it will be DC) for holding short/medium trains, or one long and one short, or one very long; a trailing crossover between the up and down (in the FY!); and possibly a couple of stub sidings for loco storage. Baseboard construction will be conventional ply/softwood block sandwich type. The low-level river crossing, which is the main focal point, need only be a couple of inches above the water. I'm looking at three 4ft x 2ft boards front and back, and interestingly the side curve boards could be little more than 3ft x 15in drop-ins connecting the front and back runs. The scenic section will be framed by a continuous thin plywood/MDF backscene, curved at each end to come to the front of the boards about 12 in from the ends. I will need to determine by trial and error where it crosses the tracks to avoid the 'sharp curve just inside the tunnel' routine, but there should be around 9 ft of scenic travel. Now, because there is just rural scenery - no station, no signals, no buildings to speak of - this could be sufficiently generic to be almost anywhere in the wilder parts of the country, and at any time in the last century. So I'm thinking it could be the answer to my fantasies of having layouts based on prototypes I like away from the Southern, and for which I will just never have the time to convert stock to P4 - Eridge and Camberhurst will be all I need for that thankyou!. In 'Withered Arm' mode (or Devon diesel hydraulic mode) the backscene could have suggestions of Dartmoor tors on the horizon, but it could be made to have interchangeable slide in backscenes to change it quickly to (say) somewhere on the lower levels of the Waverley route - and change the stock to a V2, A1 and a couple of Claytons, some maroon Mk1s and off you go! As it says on the TV recycling ad, 'the possibilities are endless'. For those coming to the RMWeb day in Taunton at the end of April, I expect to have plans and mockups of the layout on display. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:21 pm We DRAGgers had better hope that the Provisional Wing don't catch up with us - they'll string us up by our Romfords if they do!! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:10 pm I'm temporarily without a scanner, so I've had to just photograph it, but this is the sort of thing being considered: __________________________________________ Comment posted by ian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:14 pm You could take it a stage further Rod and build two or more sets of front boards with different scenes on - urban approaches on a viaduct, tunnel approach in a cutting..... Sorry - I'll stop - you've got quitre enough on your plate! __________________________________________ Comment posted by sunshine coast on Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:27 pm Nice and simple .......set the trains running open a beer and watch .......excellent .... look forward to seeing you at the meet .... Regards Trevor.... __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:51 pm sunshine coast wrote: set the trains running open a beer and watch ....... Cheers Trevor - actually, there's space for a couple of handpumps on the fiddle yard boards ... __________________________________________ Comment posted by westrerner on Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:07 pm It's a nice idea. I like the idea of a changeable backscene and the idea of coming into the room and just switching and letting the tarins trundle round great. But just as a point of interest are you going to have automatic train control in the fidle yard. ie as one train leaves the fiddle yard the next one moves forward etc. and after the trains in that loop have completed their crcuit the points change and the next loop does it showpiece, That really would be good to watch with a G&T in hand(or a good pint of real ale). __________________________________________

This blog will document the planning, deliberations, prevarications, and hopefully construction and operation of a 00 roundy roundy layout for me to play with (occasionally) at home - when the kitchen/dining room is available for me to put it up. The fact that we have had the kitchen recently rebuilt so it is now the largest room in the house is of course entirely coincidental . First off is to import the pages from the old RMWeb using Martin Wynne's brilliant little device (see elsewhere on forum).

I thought we were going to paint it on?

Bistro area? Wot no bar?

This blog covers the doings in the Devon Riviera Group of the Scalefour Society, aka 'DRAG'. Not to be confused with 'SWAG', mind, which is the South West Area Group of RMWeb... There are several members of RMWeb in DRAG, including Re6/6, 10800, Metropolitan, FatAdder and Brinkly. We meet twice a month in the Teignmouth area. Although we are an official AG of the S4 society, most of us have various amounts of OO and R-T-R stuff squirrelled away. Our current project is 'TT2' (Test Track 2 - our 9m x 4m 5-track P4 test track. This logically enough will replace TT1. TT1 is a double track oval (pretty large) in P4, which was to be put up every evening we met in a local hall, to let us run our locos and stock. However, all things are part of the learning curve, and TT1 was no exception. Differing types of P4 track and poor quality timber led to boards warping and the track otherwise not keeping it's proper alignment. Consequently we could not be sure that any derailment was due to the stock or the track! The new TT is built using better materials and by people well-versed in carpentry. A consistent track standard is being used (Exactoscale Fasttrack and copper clad pointwork). A quadruple track oval, with various configurations of crossovers and pointwork will test our locos and stock thoroughly. The outer track also has two long passing loops and on the inside of the four P4 tracks is a circuit of OO P87 track... to enable us to run all our OO R-T-R purchases so that our P87 member doesn't feel left out! Progress so far has been documented in the Layouts section of the old forum, but I will use this blog to add further photos and reports as work progresses. We have thus far completed all baseboards and have actually started to lay track! Tuesday 29/9/09 A good nights work at Holcombe last night, more track laid on the first 5 straight boards - see photos below. Apart from mentioning the general meanderings of our Area Group, we will also be focussing on the specific progress of TT2 construction. Baseboard construction is complete (see http://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=514) and tracklaying is just starting in earnest. Last night work continued on the track on the 'easier' straight side (which only has the one B7 crossover). Firstly, CK and Andrew get to work: A variety of weights (some edible) was used to hold down the newly glued track whilst the PVA cured: At board joins, the rail is soldered to copperclad end-protectors, with bits of brass shim to match the rail height with the main run of Exactoscale FastTrack: The first vehicle traverses the B7! And some of the team admire the evening's work - David, CK, Re6/6, Nick and Brian (I probably need to make future gallery pictures a bit smaller for sharing with the blog).