unravelled

As a digression, I wondered when the term "common crossing" was adopted, and what terms were used before then.

I found this illustration in an 1838 publication, where the term "fixed point plate" is used. The inclusion of the "fixed" might suggest that moving points might occur as parts  in other designs of turnout.

Edited to add  that in "Modern Railway Working", 1913, , a diagram refers to the common crossing an ordinary crossing, while the text calls it a point crossing. Frog is mentioned as the American term. Did the term common crossing perhaps come in as part of post war consolidation?

Dave

Thanks for clearing that up. I have found where the discrepancy occurs. Checking with the grid, your downloaded pdf has printed a whisker larger than  the Templot image I created. I'm not sure which is right, time to calibrate my printer and find an accurate ruler.

Thanks again

Dave

That's much better, but I still have a slight discrepancy (<0.5mm) in the length. I will try again from scratch over the weekend. The only difference I can see is my smallest radius is 1294mm, slightly larger than that in your screenshot. It's nothing I'm bothered about at the moment, your pdf template will be more than good enough for my planning. But this has given me the incentive to put some more effort into learning Templot.

Thanks

Dave

3 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Dave,

 

Here's a PDF from Templot of matching templates. It will print 2 pages on A4 paper. Just trim to the red lines and stick together.

 

 

Many thanks for that Martin. I did attempt to create a template on Templot this afternoon, but the settings I chose gave slightly different timbering which didn't match the base, (and your pdf). Even so it was probably the most productive I've been on Templot so far. Now, armed with your pdf, I can go ahead and make up some planning templates.

Thanks again

Dave

With some trepidation, I have just put my first kit together. I shouldn't have worried, as it all worked very well. I think I managed to break the centre pillar off one of the check rail chairs, feeding in my first check rail, but that is all that went wrong. I haven't soldered the bonding wires yet, in case I decide to do some dismantling before installation. The base feels scarily flimsy at the start of construction, but  the final product feels fine.

The biggest problem I have had so far is a failure to print out the scale drawing, as none of my installed pdf readers seem to want to do tiling. My next move is to get the A3 printer down from the attic.

One thing I am contemplating is running a continuous length of rail through two adjoining turnouts, to aid alignment and reduce the number of rail joints. Would this be a bad idea?

I'm looking forward to seeing the range expand, and placing the next order. In the meantime, I will improve the lighting and magnifier on my bench, and build the second kit.

Thanks

Dave

Two kits ordered on Sunday, arrived today. I hadn't visualised how long they'd be, which might necessitate some extra foreshortening in the trackplan I'm working on. I might have to be less ambitious and wait for the shorter versions to come. but any future ones will be 00sf.

I'm looking forward to getting on with their construction.

Thanks

Dave

A 2013 ground level view of one of the scissors crossovers  adjacent to the King George V dock. The road behind the gates to the left is the cab rank for   London City airport. This picture is from the footbridge at the DLR station.

North of Kings Cross, across the canal, part of the Goods depot complex has been converted for Central St Martins art school. The development has retained various  sections of inset track.

Dave

These are alongside the basin at the east end  of the Royal Docks, just off the end of the Docklands Light Airport runway

Dave

Mention was made earlier of some narrow gauge track at Three Mills in East London, Here are a couple of  pictures from 2011

Dave

Here are a few from 2009, in Factory Road, North Woolwich. All swept away by Crossrail works, unless some survive under the tarmac.

The next photo shows the only track still showing, an oblique line  entering the Tay Wharf site

Dave

On 10/04/2021 at 11:08, Victorian said:

Hello.

 

I've recently acquired a G2 Electric 4-6-2 tank similar to the one in the OP. Here's a pic:

 

 

Note the page in 'The Bassett Lowke Story' showing a clockwork version which is captioned :

"Bing / Bassett Lowe gauge 2 Bowen Cooke 4-6-2 tank on display at 112, High Holborn 1910." The models are identical in detail, except for the mechanism. Incidentally, this model is a much better job than some other Bing offerings. It even has flanges on the centre drivers, but is still 1" shorter than scale!

 

I wonder if anyone can throw light on the history of my loco? It appears to have built as electric, because there's no trace of a winding hole, but the motor is WWII surplus. Here's a pic:

 

 

This mech is very well made, not a clockwork conversion, and appears designed for the motor. So if the motor is WWII surplus, who made this mechanism for a gauge 2 loco post 1945, and why? 

 

I've had good success in fitting battery RC without modifying the model in any way, apart from removing the large and unsightly 3 rail skate. It's a wound field motor and I've replaced the WWII era selenium rectifier with a Schottky diode bridge, wired in a shunt field configuration. (Schottky diodes have a lower forward voltage, don't heat up and don't waste battery power). Power is provided by four 18650 LiPo cells, which together with the essential battery management PCB fit very neatly into the front half of the boiler.  here's another pic:

 

 

 

I'm late to spot this reply, thanks for the post. I recognise that motor, I have several stripped out of army  surplus equipment by my father.

Nice to see that G2 is still of interest

Dave

I have a technical question about this change. Without the need for the traditional speech capability, will there be a possibility of increased internet bandwidth over the copper lines? I'm interested because although I have an 020 7 phone number, openreach cannot provide fibre at this address, and any  improved speed would be helpful. The problem is that my exchange has direct copper to each house, with no green boxes, and no place to run fibre. The slight advantage is that there is no contention, so speed usually remains steady.

Dave

On 12/02/2021 at 06:32, kandc_au said:

Incredible pics here!
A request if I may....Does anyone have any pics of the Thame Signal box?    Please!

Khris

A bit late, but here's one.

Dave

I'll be watching this as in the 70s  I had a flat  in  one of the houses  on  Gauden Road, (the unnamed road in the middle of your plan), backing on to the goods yard. No goods yard by then, and I remember that Clapham was thought one of the most run down stations at that time. One of the buildings near the main road was Adcola House, a works/offices for the soldering iron makers. I don't think I have any useful pictures from those days, but will have a look later.

Dave

Sorry, I thought I had replied to this last night, but the message has disappeared. Thanks for the comment, the chunkiness and non intrusive studs are helped by this being G1, not 0,

The crossing angle is about 9 degrees. The form of the crossovers is heavily influenced by Bassett Lowke. There is a G1 coarse crossover, now unused, which I guess my father copied, it is 4'6" long as are the ones you see here. The radius would be about 9'.

The stud contact is to G1MRA standard settings. We have used round head brass woodscrews, long enough to go through the sleeper, it is then an easy job to wrap and solder a joining wire between them. The studs are below rail height on plain track, ramping up to give clearance on pointwork.

Cheers

Dave

Another remodelling tonight. the pair of crossovers have been swapped end for  end. I haven't tested the electrics yet, but it has all been reconnected, I think...

Time to think about rebuilding some 9' radius curves to 5'6" for the outdoor section.

Thanks for the advice

Dave

11 minutes ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

(Assuming you mean live steam)

 

Depending on how old it is, and what condition the motion safety valve etc is in, it may still work, but being gauge 1 it’s more than likely high pressure steam, it will probably need boiler backhead fittings replaced, unless it’s used distilled water the majority of its life. 

Several pot boilers, and a couple of higher pressure ones. Having blown up a pot boiler loco may years ago, I will be careful if I ever come to steam them again.

Thanks

Dave

59 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I think the third of your options, so the lower of the middle two, is better in model railway terms, because it puts a generous straight section between the changes of motion perpendicular to the direction of travel for trains coming out of the bottom platform, which ought to help avoid derailments and coupling-tangles.

That's something I had not considered. My take on it had been that in reality, it would make sense for the inbound trains to meet the diverging route later rather than sooner, as speeds were reducing for the station. I will probably exchange the crossovers before long.

Thanks

Dave

1 hour ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

I’d venture to say that all of those have great potential for clockwork operation, if that is the intention. Then again my only experience with clockwork was in o gauge.

Douglas

Thanks, I only have two clockwork locos, a 112 tank which will remain within station limits, and a Precursor tank, which should be able to manage an out and back run. There are stud contact electric, r/c electric, and steam, (untested for many years).

Dave

OK, here are four diagrams to explain my constraints and questions.

These are in the usual Minories orientation, with platforms to the left, and the world to the right.

The top diagram was my old layout, which I recently altered to increase platform lengths. The second is my current arrangement, where  I just moved the crossover to the world end of the layout. After making this change I realised that the first diagram has the advantage of reducing facing movements, as trains to the diverging track don't traverse it.There are a couple of constraints to note. The diverging single pair of points is a fixed factor, it can't move any further right. Also the crossovers are each single units, and at the moment I don't want to chop them up, so the fourth diagram is not achievable at the moment

My question is whether there would be an operational preference for one of the middle two layouts over the other?  Any thoughts?

Thanks

Dave

Another couple of years on, and the station throat has been remodelled allowing longer platforms. A revised "girder" facade has been constructed to disguise the 00, (still waiting for the bullhead double slip...). Some of the  white "lamp globes", (OK cupboard door knobs) operate the points on the 00 sidings above.

The platform extension was made possible by moving the facing crossover out past the trailing one. In some ways I liked the old version better because the facing crossover was inside the pair of points leading to the platforms on the left of the picture. In the new setup there are more moves involving traversing a facing point.

Incidentally  is there a real world preference  for which order the facing and trailing crossovers occur? I now have it with the facing crossover coming first when entering the station.

Other work has seen my 1:32 radio controlled pannier tank put back together. I also bought a layout of plastic track for my grandson to play trains on. I almost ended up with 16mm ish models, but decided to use cheap 16mm chassis with small G1 loco bodies. I recently acquired some characterful G1 sentinel bodies, which I am fitting with (16mm) r/c chassis for a cheap  and cheerful , and child friendly, locos.

Outdoors, I have abandoned the round the garden plans and demolished most of the 30+ year old infrastructure. My current plan is for  a balloon loop on the patio for simple out and back operation, hopefully short enough for the clockwork locos. The diameter will be tight at about 11 feet, but should be ok for most of my stock.

Cheers

Dave

But to get back to the topic, here is a grimy 9F hauling passenger stock. Ok it's possibly ecs, but suits the topic.

In my current collecting scheme, I decided not to buy any blue or blue/grey,  stock simply as a convenient cutoff point,

Dave

3d versions of the double arrow have been used at the rebuilt London Bridge station.

Dave

I was interested to see that these are in service. A couple of years ago I remember seeing them under test near Elephant and Castle Then they were being accompanied by a human minder. Possibly South Bank University were involved in the testing as that wasn't too far away.

Dave