Tim Lewis

running number is B951504, which I trust is correct...

Yes it is: they even got the lot number and build date correct on the makers plate on the solebar! (So be careful if re-numbering it )

Does nobody produce an etched plate for 31914?

....or if not, commission one. 247 developments (and probably others) will do them. Cost (I think) a fiver and you'll have to wait a couple of months, but to my mind it's worth doing.

A closer look at 65099.

 

Fabulous photos as usual. Your J21 is the same one that mine will be when it's finished (but yours is better ): it was at Tweedmouth for quite a while in the early 50s.

Only just discovered this thread: looks marvellous, a proper 'railway'. Added to watch list.

Your comments about being a slow worker amuse me: I started planning my layout over 20 years ago, and haven't laid any track yet (soon, soon, honest).

'64 does seem late on for a raft of grey vans, one assumes these will work back to St Boswells, as that ended up the rump freight service. I had to remind myself yesterday that this was the last freight branch to close, in '68 (earlier photo links refer).

 

The vans won't necessarily go back to St. Boswells: freight continued over the whole Tweed Valley line (i.e. to Tweedmouth) until 1965.

I remember reading something somewhere about the long siding (possibly in Robotham, but it's not to hand at the moment). I might be remembering this completely wrong, but it may have been something like a 'temporary' additional platform put in for some agricultural show at some time, but then found to be useful and retained (I hope I'm not imagining this ).

Very good thread. May I suggest you start a new thread as this transfer thread is sending my computer into overdrive!!

 

thanks

Hmm, yes, page 1 is rather long isn't it . I'd prefer to keep all my workbench stuff together if possible, so I'm hoping that now we're on page 2, it will be a bit quicker (if you use 'New Posts') . We'll see. If it's still unmanageable, then I'll do something about it.

Masokits springing units are always quite a bit under 24mm between springing units so its a tight squeeze to get anything in. Kean Maygib wheels and waisted bearings do work though as I have them fitted to a 12ton van. I did find the metal used is so thin that they tend to warp and twist unless glued/screwed to a floor.

 

Not sure about the 9ft as i've done my own now but the 10ft only came with GWR type brake lever guards. The levers were also too short, the joggles not being accounted for in the design.

Yes, I think all the etches come with ratchet type brake lever guards, which is irritating. I plan to replace them with some Dave Bradwell 'pin-and-hole' type (there must be a proper name for these?) ones.

I've now built a 10ft clasp brake version as well (no pics yet): I used Gibson waisted bearings and Kean Maygib wheels on this one: better, but still a little bit of splaying (I'm going to attack the bearings with a drill next).

For various reasons I haven't really done any modelling for the last 3 months, but today I started putting together a Masokits 9ft Morton underframe. Exhibiting a typical lack of discipline, I should have done some more work on my hoppers and/or cattle wagons, but the temptation to start something new was overwhelming!

Now I know David Bigcheeseplant has made about a million of these, and also wrote an article for MRJ, but I don't recall seeing a blow-by-blow construction sequence, so I thought some pics may be of interest to some people.

Firstly, the main unit folded up:

Then you fold up 4 of these:

and solder to the main unit (alignment of these is important: tabs and slots are provided). There are small holes in these etches which the springs will eventually pass through, so it's important not to overdo the solder here:

These are the spring carriers:

which fold up like this:

The brakes (only 2-shoe on this one) fold up like this:

You then add safety loops (simple fold then attach using tab and slot again):

and attach to the main unit (tab and slot yet again):

You then fix the spring units to the main unit (springs are retained by the bent 'retainer' you can see at the corner: simple but effective:

add wheels, et voila!!

This is the first one of these I've built. I was very impressed with how easy it was: the quality of design and etching (and instructions) meant that everything fits exactly where it should, the tabs and slots are in the right place and don't even need opening out. I can see I'll be building lots of these (just as well I liked it, as I have around 15 more in the drawer!)

The only drawback so far is that I used Exactoscale bearings and wheels and found that the W-irons splayed a bit, even after judicious filing of the pin points, so I may try some different wheels and/or bearings (either Exactoscale parallel axles, or Kean-Maygib wheels probably) and see if they're better.

Hope this is useful to somebody!

I am in the process of converting some H0 Roco and Lima DB Bogie Coal Hoppers into a fairly dimensionally acurate version of the ex. LMS 40 ton Bogie Hoppers that were once used on the Toton-Stonebridge Park working. They were built by BRCW in 1929 to LMS diagram D1708 as lot no. 457 and were numbered 189301-189330 later carrying the M prefix in BR days. What I am looking for are some decent images showing the lettering that was applied to them during their final BR days in order that I can produce some transfers. I have some photos of them in LMS days and the couple I have of them in BR days barely shows any lettering such is the external state of the wagons. I am led to believe they lasted until 1965 and were occasionally double headed by Class 24's after the demise of steam. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

Browsing in WH Smith today, there is a colour picture of a 9F on a train of these hoppers. I think it was in the latest Steam Days, but possibly another mag. Although a nice pic, I'm not sure it will help you much with lettering, as they're some distance away and not especially clean!

Sadly I cannot pinpoint the exact source of the photo I've seen (could well be Gavin Morrison's "London Midland: Then & Now" but don't take that as cast-iron) but seem to recall from it that British Railways was spelt out in full on these wagons in the "sausage" logo as used on lamp-posts etc. on the right-hand section of the bodyside.

 

David

The Tyne Dock-Consett ones certainly had these logos, but I don't know about the LMS ones.

On the other thread (which I can't currently find), I said that there were some photos of tar wagons in a recent NERA magazine. I've now dug it out: there are pictures of two 14T rectangular tar wagons at Darlington Gas Works in 1960, collecting tar to be taken to the Black Bank Chemical Works on the Croft Depot Branch for processing. I don't think they're quite the same as the available kit version, though I'm not too familiar with it. The ones pictured were built in 1912 and 1913 and have a very large cast iron plate on the (wooden) solebar reading "Thomas Ness Limited Black Bank Chemical Works nr Darlington No.85" (and No. 101).

HTH

Not seen the Britrail site before, so thanks for posting. Not looked through all of them yet, but there's some very interesting stuff in the ones that you have provided links for. I've never seen a picture of any of the Hawick N2s before (there weren't many, and IIRC most of the allocation was in the 1930s, with (I think) only 69510 in BR days, the details are in the RCTS green book). This could be a good excuse to run an N2 through Coldstream (although I suspect it never worked the Tweed Valley line). The picture of City of Truro by the border sign says it is the late 1950s: no reason to disbelieve this, but it was also stored in the disused engine shed at Sprouston (on the Tweed Valley) during World War 2.

Great stuff!

Next a couple of D&S NBR 16ton Mineral wagons . The first one I used a photo in the current MRJ as a rough painting guide its in avery tired post war livery photo has paint date on the solebar as 1946

 

 

 

Another pre 1937 livery as in the original Tatlow LNER Wagons Book

 

 

I see you use the solebar plate transfers from the Slaters hopper kits as well! I find these to be very useful items: with a little weathering you can't really notice that the number isn't the same as on the bodyside.

I'm not especially keen on nicknames, but for some reason they remind me of the automatic taxi cab in the film Total Recall, so perhaps they should be called Jonny Cabs? (or was it Tommy Cabs?)

70 002 passed through Shrewsbury again today (and yesterday), just before 1200 IIRC.

I'm planning a trip out on Friday and was wondering if any of you wonderful people know if 70002 is still hanging out in the Bristol area? I feel the urge to hunt it down like the Yeti....

 

Cheers

scott

 

 

Well today it came through Shrewsbury at about 1245, I guess on the same working as in the video above (although I don't actually know where Portbury is! ). This is the first time I've seen it (it's usually a 66, and I don't think I've missed seeing the working any day this week, but now that I think about it I may have missed yesterday's). No guarantee it will be on the same working tomorrow of course.

70 002 went passed my office window today, on a Rugeley working presumably. They are as ugly in the flesh as in the pictures (and I think WDs and L&Y 0-8-0s are beautiful, so have a low 'locomotive attractiveness threshold' ).

A couple of pics of the weathered 13T slope-sided hoppers (not sure of diagram number) last seen in virgin wood/plastic some time back. Weathering of these was quite fun: the ironwork was done with the usual weathering powders onto still-wet paint (although I'm using less 'Gunmetal' in the mix for this now. I got a new tin and its quite different from my old tin! Although it is NOT the MetalCote variety, it is definitely much more 'metallic' than the old tin. This is rather annoying, since I used the old colour extensively. I guess the 'old' tin is something like 5-7 years old. Anyone else noticed this?).

These wagons were put into service in 'unpainted wood' condition, but were only built in 1945, so I didn't want the unpainted wood to look too shabby.

The woodwork was done firstly by applying Games Workshop Badab Black wash (i.e. not paint), which soaks into the basswood nicely. By itself however this looked too 'black' so was attacked with a fibreglass brush to reduce the 'blackness'. Then grey weathering powder was worked into the wood grain and again much of it removed with the fibreglass brush. The process was repeated a couple of times until I was happy with the result.

The brake lever and guides still need final weathering (just blackened at the moment), then just a couple of handrails to fit, tone the numbers/lettering down a bit and they're finished

I'm going to get some of the body parts for these newbies frae Parkside and use some of Mr Bradwells underframes...

That is in addition to the Dapols - these of which look rather nice.

Are some of Mr Bradwells wares used on theses by the way?

Yes, the complete underframe, and handrail supports, are Dave Bradwell's, only the body is Dapol (well actually these are so old that they're Airfix, but as far as I'm aware the Dapol mould is the same). The Bradwell etch is, unsurprisingly, superb and builds up into a really nice model, but they're relatively time consuming if you need quite a few of them! (I've built 3 and a half of the five I have so far: will be having a break from hoppers before I build the remainder).

A couple of pics of the second 21T hopper to be (very nearly) finished. Just needs a final light dry brushing on the body and replacement of the buffer that fell off!

Parkside's version of these hoppers is apparently out next month: definitely something to look forward to, although I don't really need/want any more hoppers just at the moment. It will be interesting to see how well they capture the brake gear, which is probably the 'defining' area of these wagons. They probably rank as one of my favourite type of wagon, so I won't be able to resist a few more at some point.

Progress on the Pigeon Van. The photo I have of below confirms unlined Teak livery with no rainstrip on the roof. The one on the kit is overscale anyway.

The van is similar colour both sides, Camera decided otherwise !!

 

 

 

 

Mick

Nice teak finish: how did you do it? I have a couple of pigeon vans in the to-do drawer. Think I'll do one in teak and one in early BR crimson (eventually).

Looking forward to seeing this progress. I always fancied making a model of Green Ayre, but in the 1950s with the second batch of EMUs. I remember travelling on them in the early-mid 60s on days out to Heysham from Preston. The single line down from Lancaster Castle to Green Ayre always seemed very mysterious as a kid.

This post isn't very interesting: it's simply the first post on this topic on the new RMweb site (except for the introductory one) and just serves as a placeholder should I need to link to it. Hopefully there'll be some real progress on the layout soon (but don't hold your breath ).

Coldstream: page 3 from old RMWeb

by timlewis

original page on Old RMweb

__________________________________________

??? posted on Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:21 pm

Thanks. I should have mentioned earlier that in making the baseboards I had considerable help from members of the local P4 Area Group. One of us has access to large CNC milling machines and can also buy very good quality ply. I produced a simple DXF of the required baseboard shapes (by superimposing on top of the track plan, which I had already scanned and suitably scaled), which was then fed into the machine and voila, there's your boards . The boards were designed such that a) joints miss turnouts, B) minimise number of joints c) boards still fit through loft hatch. As there is no compression in the track plan, this gave rise to some odd shaped boards: they are all quadrilaterals, but there are few right angles. However, we in the group knew from building another layout (Lower Soudley), that the milling machine would produce very close fitting board shapes. In practice, the fit was amazing. Courtesy of AutoCAD, I also produced a DXF for the bottom boards, which are 9mm less all round (the bottom boards fit inside the sides, see picture earlier). Most of the bottom boards are later cut away for access, but this method of construction gives very strong boards.

So, this gave me a collection of oddly shaped plywood pieces that somehow needed to be shaken together to form some baseboards! Enter my good friend Gavin Clark and his extensively equipped woodworking workshop. Lots of circular sawing, measuring, bench drilling, measuring again, routing, measuring yet again, gluing and screwing later, the boards were produced (as well as a considerable quantity of sawdust). My contribution to this process mainly involved watching Gavin work (which was therapeutic ) and drilling a few holes.

I really need to get back to working on Coldstream: nothing has progressed since November . My current plan is to finish off the wagons I'm working on (see workbench), finish of the J25 (ditto) then do some more on the layout. But we all know what happens to plans don't we?

__________________________________________

??? posted on Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:52 pm

This will be the last post on this topic on this version of RMWeb: transferring over to the new site. Please follow progress on Coldstream over there!

__________________________________________

Coldstream: page 2 from old RMWeb

by timlewis

original page on Old RMweb

__________________________________________

??? posted on Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:12 pm

Catching up on a few things I meant to reply to earlier...

Norham is wonderful isn't it? Not been for a while. For those of you who don't know, Norham is two stations back along towards Tweedmouth and is preserved along with coal drops (with cover for lime cells), goods shed, signal box etc. I think you have to ring to make an appointment to visit.

Most of the photos you tend to see are from the early 1960s, when the trains were usually a Standard 2 (Hawick-based) with a single Mk1 or Gresley Brake Third. These were often supplemented by several parcels vans on some trains. Back in the 1950s, the trains were mostly two coaches (mixture of Gresley wooden and steel bodied 51' stock, some ex-NER, some ex-NBR, even some LMS!). I have a photo of a four coach train (LNER/NER stock) which doesn't appear to be a special of any kind. Don't know what date this is, but 50s sometime.

Yes, the track plan is relatively 'sprawling': even small stations are quite big! The yard did get busy at times: I have pictures where there must be 30 or more wagons in the yard.

Yes, that was one of the things that made me want to try and reproduce it (although I suspect most people won't notice at all). The track panels are a real mish-mash of lengths and sleeper spacings, many with 2-bolt fishplates.

__________________________________________

??? posted on Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:13 pm

Well, I think I've finished tweaking the Templot plan for Coldstream Sorting out all the sleeper/timber conflicts took a very long time, some of it was , some of it was , but I reckon it will be worth it, as I don't have to think too hard about sleeper spacings anymore, just build the track . There might be the odd 'on-site' adjustment, but very few.

My laptop crashed/locked (courtesy of Microsoft) a couple of times part way through: I thought I might lose a lot of work , but Martin has built in a 'continuous backup', so I didn't lose anything: brilliant

An example screen shot is attached (maybe this should have been posted in the Templot forum): I'm going for a lie down now

__________________________________________

Comment posted by Portchullin Tatty on Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:51 pm

Tim,

Having made a fair number of interlaced turnouts (the Highland were as tight as the North Eastern when it came to avoiding the use of long and expensive timbers!), can I warn you they end up being quite delicate. If you are proposing to make them on bench and then transfer them to the layout, you are going to have to lift them from the drawings ever so carefully.

I made mine using ply and rivets. I found that introducing one or two "extra" rivets on the rails where they pass over sleepers but were not sitting on a chair at that point added considerable robustness and can not really be seen. I think you are using plastic components and I suggest you might want to do the same but with a chair, which you subsequently cut away.

As another aside, think about turnout operation now. I made the mistake of putting turnouts in locations that were difficult to serve from below and sorely regretted it. With such a complicated trackplan, you could have the same?

Like the layout, it looks as if you could have a good one there! Thanks for you comments about mine!

__________________________________________

Comment posted by mines a pint on Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:08 am

a Well deserved one too!

- I have to admit that twelve months into templot I have got to the stage of being able to put useable plans and templates together, but the plan does look like a 'work of art' in itself!

I was sensing you probably already had the book I was referring to given the amount of research you have obviously put in, but just one question how on earth did you manage to find out how long each individual rail section was amongst all those different length panel lengths? thats truly amazing attention to detail?

__________________________________________

Comment posted by 10800 on Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:24 am

Having been used to working with SR type 60ft panels and their sleeper spacings, those short panels (30ft?) in the middle of your extract with what seem to my eyes to be very close spacings at the rail joints look very strange! How long did they last?

__________________________________________

Comment posted by mines a pint on Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:33 am

-Dont want to speak out of turn- but think they are 30ft/13 sleepers they were on the Rothbury branch too (was looking into that for a model some time ago)

Edit: just rechecked book pic (longwitton)- 11 sleepers not 13 - 30ft is a guess also!

__________________________________________

Comment posted by dave_long on Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:07 am

You may find this useful I've yet to try it as I built my last lot of points straight on to the layout but it's what I'll be trying on my next one. If you have built some delicate trackwork away from the layout then once your happy with it lightly solder a few pieces of scrap rail across the top of your trackwork to give it some added strength after pealing it away from the templates.

hth

__________________________________________

Comment posted by Bernard Lamb on Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:21 am

You are correct Russ. 30' panels had 11 sleepers going by my NER data tables. There was an earlier steel rail in 80 lb section that came in 24' panels. Going by photos some of the original track lasted at least up until 1957/1958. Then a few short years after it was relaid in modern materials the lines were closed. I am sure that Tim knows more about NER track details than the rest of us put together so I better shutup.

Bernard

__________________________________________

??? posted on Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:20 pm

Thanks for the warnings. Yes, I had noticed the interlaced sleepers on Portchullin: very nice! My current thinking is that I will build the track in situ, but I'll try a bit of plain track and a turnout first to see whether I get on with this method.

Turnout operation: the baseboards are designed to take Tortoises. Underneath they look like this:

As you can see, a lot of the 'base' is cut away to allow access whilst maintaining strength. The underside of the top of the board is entirely unimpeded by any strengthening members or whatever so, apart from having to negotiate the bits of the 'base' that are still there (and if need be I can probably get rid of a bit more), then I'm hoping access won't be a problem. I should have said that the boards are also designed so that there are no turnout switches close to joints (that's why they're such a funny shape: the one in the picture is close to, but isn't, rectangular, some of the others are very weird shapes indeed).

__________________________________________

??? posted on Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:01 pm

I spent a looooonnnngggg time looking at photos I have lots of 'glimpses' of track details, but there are many areas I don't have good pictures of, and I certainly don't have any 'official' knowledge, so there's still a fair bit of guesswork, but I think I've managed to capture the essence of trackwork variability.

and

Well at least you noticed the short panels! That was the intention. Those particular ones are 30ft: the reason they look so strange is that they are joined with 2-bolt fishplates (photographic evidence), so the end sleepers get very close together. This is 'non-standard'. But that's only the start of the strange-ness. The two platform roads at one time had 'ordinary' track (I have a picture from the 1930s: can't actually tell panel length, but nothing out of the ordinary). Sometime in the 1930s, most of both platform roads were re-laid with very short panels: I have no actual measurements, but as far as I can tell (from several photos) the Tweedmouth platform was re-laid with 24ft 10 sleeper lengths with 2-bolt fishplates, and the Kelso platform with 27ft 12 sleeper lengths with 2-bolt fishplates. Neither of these is standard either. They stayed like this until closure in 1965. Why this was done I've no idea: perhaps they had lots of 24ft and 27ft rails lying around, but the earlier standards (which panels had different numbers of sleepers) for these lengths used smaller section rail (as Bernard says). I can't tell from photos, but it would seem unlikely that they would lay light section rail on running lines at this date. Unless I discover strong evidence to the contrary, my model is going to have the same section rail throughout: there are limits to my madness

There are several other types of track configuration in evidence from photos: for example, some of the main Tweedmouth line a bit away from the station has 45ft 18 sleeper lengths with 4-bolt fishplates, which may (or may not) be replacement track using the LNER standard. However, at the same place, the Kelso line has 45ft 18 sleeper panels with 2-bolt fishplates! Go figure, as they say across the pond. I could go on, but you must be bored by now .

Bernard, my knowledge of NER track is limited to published standards, NER record etc., so I certainly don't consider myself an 'expert'. I do however, know quite a bit about NER track at Coldstream.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by Bernard Lamb on Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:56 pm

Very curious. I have never heard of 27' rails on the NER other than the very early wrought iron double headed type. I just wonder if the rail in your photos is pre 1889 double headed steel section which I thought only existed in 24' or 30' lengths. I can't imagine that any wrought iron rails survived in use as running rails into the 1960s. Now you could try and file a larger radius on the rail head and foot to represent a double headed section for relevant track panels. It won't take that long

My interest in the area comes about through having friends who live near Mindrum, just down the branch towards Wooler.

Bernard

__________________________________________

Comment posted by micklner on Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:47 pm

Hi

Can you assist re what type of ballasting was used for rails for the LNER period? I know NER used Ash as ballast was this continued into LNER/BR?

I am building a LNER (NER area) layout at moment.

cheers Mick

__________________________________________

??? posted on Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:15 pm

I don't know what the 'official' method would have been, but ash/clinker was still very much in evidence at Coldstream right up until closure (see pic, taken sometime in early 60s, I presume it's had ballast added sometime since 1923 ).

Having said that, I have pictures from further down the Tweed Valley line (and indeed some small areas at Coldstream) where it looks like some kind of gravel has been used. So, you can probably use whatever takes your fancy, but in LNER days I would go for ash myself, possibly unless it's a main line. I'm experimenting with ballast at the moment: none of the commercial products sold as ash ballast really do it for me (although Carr's '2mm Dark Grey' isn't bad). I guess that 'ash ballast' itself varied a fair bit. The stuff at Coldstream is quite dark, but I suspect elsewhere it could have been lighter?

I'll let you know how I get on with my experiments. Currently, it looks like a toss-up between chinchilla dust and bird sand (useful things pet shops ), both sieved, and then soaked with poster paint. I think the sieving is key: 'normal' kitchen sieves will be too coarse: but you can get 'dusting sieves' I believe? I happen to have some old laboratory sieves which are great. (Check out the ballast in the yard on Andy C's New Hey as well: from memory, he used builders sand I think, sprayed with paint. That's where the bird sand tip came from as well).

HTH

__________________________________________

Comment posted by martin_wynne on Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:43 pm

Hi Tim,

Interesting pic. Is that a two-bolt fishplate and very close spacing I can see between the 4th and 5th sleepers from the camera?

Martin.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by micklner on Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:46 pm

thanks Mick

__________________________________________

Comment posted by BrushType4 on Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:42 pm

Must be where the baseboards join.

__________________________________________

??? posted on Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:46 pm

Yep, although this is in the section I'm not modelling at the moment, so haven't paid too much attention. Phase 2?

The pic isn't really good enough quality, but it looks like a 12 sleeper length. This is the Alnwick branch just beginning to diverge from the main Tweed Valley lines (2 tracks on right). If you look very closely, you can just make out what appears to be a 4-bolt fishplate in the siding on the left.

This pic below is taken just a little way back towards Coldstream (you can see the same signal).

Note the obvious 4-bolt plate on the second line from the right (Kelso line). This seems to be an 18 sleeper length, so may be an LNER 'standard' 45ft panel. But, note also the close spacing and 2-bolt plate between 8th and 9th sleepers in the track on the right (Tweedmouth line). See, it's crazy

__________________________________________

Comment posted by Rannoch Moor on Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:29 pm

Tim,

Just found the link into this - I'm looking forward to seeing how you progress in between the spending time on Kilbrannan Ferry. I do wish I'd gone P4 but have spent too much time and ??????‚?? on EM - hey ho....

Gus

__________________________________________

Comment posted by martin_wynne on Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:06 pm

Hi Tim,

Another picture from Mick Nicholson showing a sleepered turnout. This is a more modern pic with good detail:

http://www.templot.com/forum/view_topic ... 3550#p3550

Martin.

__________________________________________

??? posted on Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:23 pm

Hmmm, I thought it was too good to be true. I printed out the plan full size at work and took it along to my Area Group meeting last week to see what the boys thought of it. After much discussion, we decided that the coal drops road and adjacent siding were too close together, the end loading dock was too short, the turnout from the down line to the turntable/coal drops headshunt was too close to the platform and some of the yard turnouts might be too generous (i.e. too shallow an angle). The first three points are definitely true, I'm not sure about the last one.

So, I spent a good part of yesterday comparing the plan with photos (again!!) and measuring parts of the plan and comparing against 'standage' measurements for the various sidings from the NER 'White Print' diagram, and against linear measurements (in decimal chains: now there's a fabulous unit!) from the official 'Line Diagram'. I've come to the conclusion that a bit of re-working is necessary, although most of the yard turnouts I believe are the correct angle (with the exception of the crossover near the goods shed and the coal drop turnout (which is why the lines are too close).

Some of these things I guess no one would ever notice, but now I know about it I have to change them. So, it's back to Templot, but hopefully it won't take too long, although I probably won't be able to do it for a few weeks now.

This just goes to show that, even if you work directly onto a surveyed plan as closely as you can, you may not get it right first time. Hey ho.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by 60041 on Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:39 am

Do you have a track plan for Coldstream - I am very interested in the railways of this area.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by tetleys on Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:54 pm

Very nice baseboards and it looks an exciting project but I cannot help thinking you'd get things done a lot quicker if you got rid of all that furniture somebody has stored in your model railway room! I do hope those tins of paint I spotted under the baseboards are not waiting to be applied to various domestic rooms.

__________________________________________

??? posted on Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:02 pm

A (very) minor milestone for me: my 200th post

Just wondering whether to pluck up courage to show this to SWMBO as an idea for 'change of use' of the living room. Hmmm, let me think.....nope!

Much of the paint has already been applied (one of the many reasons why I haven't got far with my layout ), but there's still enough in the tins to make them useful as weights.

I do, somewhere, but for some reason I can't find the image file at present. I'll have another look later on.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by 10800 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:45 pm

(we don't have a smiley for spluttering on the keyboard!)

__________________________________________

Comment posted by OgaugeJB on Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:11 pm

Spectacular baseboards.

Hopefully I might have the space for something similar one day

JB.

__________________________________________

Coldstream: page 1 from old RMWeb

by timlewis

original page on Old RMweb

__________________________________________

??? posted on Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:37 pm

Welcome to Coldstream, the planning and researching of which has been occupying my mind on and off for over 20 years now: time I got building!

The baseboards have been built for a while now, but last weekend they were joined together for a final sanding of the joints etc. (thanks, Gavin!). I've had a couple of days off this week, and SWMBO is away, so I've temporarily taken over the living room

The first couple of pics just show the boards, with a couple of locos positioned to give an idea of size. Sorry about the quality of the pics: they look better without flash, and it's been gloomy in Shrewsbury recently (hand-held at c. 1/4 sec).

Underlay will be Exactoscale foam (1 layer yard, 2 layers running lines). I made a start on laying this. The baseboards, although an odd shape, fit very precisely, and I had aimed to attach the underlay across all boards, then cut through at the joints, thus giving a low visibility join in the underlay too. Started off well enough....

Can you see the flaw in the method yet?

The templates are temporary ones from an as yet incomplete Templot plan. Everything is in more or less the right place, but haven't tidied up sleeper spacings etc. The 'proper' one will get printed on a large plotter at work.

Having tried to cut through the underlay at a joint as a trial, it became apparent I had under-estimated how much the Copydex would get into the joints, and it's much better at sticking ply than foam: not good . Yes, it's obvious to me now, but it wasn't at the time. So, a re-think was required: luckily I hadn't got too far, so the air was only a rather fetching shade of sky-blue rather than the darker purple that it might have been . Took the boards apart, removed bits of underlay that had become ragged in the process, and recommenced, this time doing one board at a time. This is actually much easier, just going to prove what a dumbass idea my first attempt was.

So, this work is still in progress. While waiting for glue to set, I'm trying to finish off the Templot plan, which is taking a while but should pay dividends in the long run. I hope to continue making progress over the coming winter, and will keep you updated (just don't hold your breath) .

__________________________________________

Comment posted by micklner on Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:42 pm

Hi

I presume there will be fiddle yards at each end, is this based a particular station or fictional, lastly what is the large hole at one end???

Nice work so far

Mick

__________________________________________

Comment posted by dave_long on Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:44 pm

That looks really impressive already. What plans do you have for the 2 large holes in the baseboard tops? Is that all your scenic area or do you have more to come?

__________________________________________

Comment posted by ChrisM on Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:48 pm

nice,

what period is the layout going to be set?? You going to be running a day when the ECML is closed and A4's with crack expresses are passing through

__________________________________________

Comment posted by smudgeloco on Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:02 pm

Tim, your baseboards look amazing. That trackplan looks very interesting too. I can see that this is going to be one to watch. I look forward to seeing progress. Be sure to keep us updated.

Michael.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by martin_wynne on Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:00 pm

Hi Tim,

Great to see Coldstream taking shape at last.

I don't know how far you have got with the interlaced NER timbering in Templot -- there is a Templot video showing how to create custom NER templates at:

http://www.templot.c...orum/view_topic ... 1779#p1779

Also a Templot data file of NER turnouts for downloading.

regards,

Martin.

__________________________________________

??? posted on Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:32 pm

Thanks gents. There will be fiddle yards, but like everything else about this layout, not simple. Depending on what happens when, initially I may have to make do with cassettes. The long term aim is that it ends up in the loft with a single fiddle yard to allow continuous running. Also in the long term I'm hoping to exhibit it, in which case it will use a different fiddle yard and continuous run, shortly to be modified to be dual purpose for Coldstream and a friends layout.

It is based on a real location, on the Tweed Valley line between Tweedmouth (ECML) and St. Boswells (Waverley Route). What you see here will be built using a 1908 NER plan, with no compression.

The smaller hole is where the turntable will eventually be (yes, I know turntables aren't that shape ). The other bigger hole is for a lower level bit of scenery adjacent to the coal drops. In this pic you can see the turntable road (ending up in the small hole) and part of the coal drops siding (the one that's running along the edge of the big hole)....

Lastly, yes this is "all" I'm building for now (it'll take long enough! ). There is the possibility of the optimistically titled Phases 2 and 3 however, which would extend in both directions, although some compression and other geometric liberties would be necessary. But that's a looong way off.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by max stafford on Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:42 pm

Tim, I've long loved the Kelso line, probably since visiting Norham Station in 1980. I'm going to be paying a lot of attention to what looks like being a superb rendition. If my shed was bigger, I'd consider something based on this line. The loft has already been claimed by the Caley!

Dave.

__________________________________________

??? posted on Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:51 pm

About 1950-52, but with a few bits spanning 1948-1957 (allows me to run some locos which didn't make it to the 1950s, and also some more 'modern' stock, but not together (at least not in public ).

As you may know, the line was used for periods of several weeks as a diversionary route when the ECML was out of action: this happened at least twice (1948 and 1956) and possibly more. Problem was that they suspended the normal passenger (and probably goods) service during these periods I believe. If I ever get to the point of having enough stock to run ECML expresses, then at least I've got an excuse.

However, after the 1948 closures, there were two freights a day each way Niddrie (Edinburgh)-Tweedmouth, which continued for several years, so I hope to have a long freight or two. Applying a bit of licence, out of my period in the 1930s there were scheduled Newcastle-Edinburgh trains that went this way. So, plenty of reasons for wanting lots of stock: just need time to build it!!

__________________________________________

??? posted on Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:08 pm

Hi Martin, long time no see! Yes, it's nice to see something actually happening (though I'm not going to stop armchair modelling completely ).

I've only recently got my new(-ish) laptop and broadband sorted out at home, and haven't got round to 're-joining' the Templot forum: seems like I've been missing some useful stuff. Based on the 1 in 8 template you did for me ages ago, and using the NER plans books, I made 'library' interlaced templates for 1 in 6/7/9 almost a year ago: bit fiddly, but got there in the end. Only thing outstanding was that I couldn't get the check rails to move to the correct position (I found what I thought was the right menu option, but it didn't work, can't remember detail, I'll discuss it with you sometime), but I can live with it for now and just move them 'manually' when I lay the track. I'm not going to suggest that my efforts are 100% accurate, but they look like NER turnouts to me (it would be interesting, but possibly embarrassing, to compare mine with yours ).

What I'm doing with the Templot plan now is sorting out all the sleeper conflicts where several interlaced-timbered turnouts start to interfere with one another (you'll probably tell me that if I'd done it properly this wouldn't have happened!). Also, there are six different configurations of plain track to sort out: all good fun! Nearly there, but its surprising how long it takes to shove timbers.

See you soon?

__________________________________________

Comment posted by 10800 on Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:11 pm

Good stuff Tim, nice to see something 'real' after all those years of planning and research!

And I'm pleased to see you've put down all those newspapers and dust-sheets to assuage any potential wrath from SWMBO

Better get on with mine now I suppose ...

__________________________________________

Comment posted by martin_wynne on Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:32 pm

Hi Tim,

No, it's always a struggle to get the timbering conflicts sorted out. I think the prototype must have been just as difficult. Here's a superb pic from Mick Nicholson which may give some clues:

http://www.templot.c...orum/view_topic ... d=11#p1027

and another pic of NER track: http://www.templot.c...bubwith_ner.jpg

I hope so. Every so often Gavin rings me to remind me it's Monday. It's high time I came over to see what you have all been doing.

cheers,

Martin.

__________________________________________

??? posted on Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:47 pm

Glad I'm not missing something obvious. Thanks for the links to the two pictures: very nice. The sleeper ends on the turnout road in the first one are all over the place. The catch point operating linkage is interesting in the second one.

I actually have quite a few photos that show aspects of trackwork at Coldstream, trouble is, with the usual low-angle shots, it can be difficult to work out what the sleeper arrangement is, especially when the ballast is more or less level with the tops. I'm not sure how 'standard' the NER standard was: just from photos I've seen, it's clear that things have to be adjusted to fit the site (which is good, cos it means that I can 'make up' what I don't know, albeit following what I believe would have been sensible practice).

__________________________________________

Comment posted by mines a pint on Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:28 am

Looks like it will be an interesting one to watch being built !

the pics I have seen of Coldstream, and the rest of the branch typically (in Neil Caplans book) see one coach trains, its amazing just how 'sprawling' the plans are . Look forward to seeing more!

__________________________________________

Comment posted by Bernard Lamb on Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:38 am

The only town with it's railway station in another country?

There are several published shots of Scots Gap taken from the road overbridge that give a very good view of some typical NER sleepering. I don't think that there ever was a 'standard' drawing. I did draw up a template based on C & L parts many years ago and there were always a couple of timbers that didn't want to play ball. It all looks very good so far and I am looking forward to seeing the track when it is built. I see you have the situation of sleeper spacing for the different panels of plain track under control. You don't often see this feature in model form.

Bernard

__________________________________________

Comment posted by martin_wynne on Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:11 am

Hi Bernard,

See also Knighton, on the England/Wales border:

(not as off-topic for this thread as you might think. )

regards,

Martin.

__________________________________________

Comment posted by Anglian on Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:33 am

I look forward to seeing this one develop. Your work so far looks of a very high standard.

__________________________________________

??? posted on Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:34 pm

Hi Rod, you've changed your avatar!!

Yes, seemed like a good idea , no point getting negative brownie points. Having said that, when I took the boards apart (see above), one very nearly fell off the trestle into the bureau bookcase: this could have been painful, both financially and physically (there doesn't seem to be an emoticon for 'intense relief'!)

Yes you should. I can say this with a straight face now

__________________________________________

Comment posted by 10800 on Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:01 pm

Yes, just a bit of nostalgia (don't know how long it will last).

Maybe I should have a competition to guess where/when it is (Andy C and Tony W are excluded from entering!).

__________________________________________

Comment posted by James on Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:47 pm

Hi Tim!

I'm really looking forward to this developing - if it to the same standard as your stock it is going to be amazing!

__________________________________________

Comment posted by keefer on Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:17 pm

that looks like a really nice trackplan, lots going on without looking too crammed in

you probably have all the info you need, but if you don't mind here's a couple of links i found whilst looking for the station/line history:

http://www.subbrit.o...k/sb-sites/stat ... ndex.shtml

http://www.northumbr...railways.co.uk/ ... coldstream

good luck with the layout

__________________________________________

??? posted on Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:52 pm

Keefer, I did already know about these links, but many thanks for reminding me anyway. Just to prove that it's always worth revisiting sites, there are two colour pictures of Coldstream on the Northumbrian Railways site that weren't there a couple of weeks back! And, I've never seen them before . They don't tell me anything 'new' about the infrastructure, but always nice to see different photos, especially colour ones. I suspect the pic of 76050 may be the last day of passenger services: I know it pulled the last train (although I thought I'd seen a pic somewhere else with two coaches?).

Several people have said that the track plans look interesting. Yes, I think there should be enough operating potential. I'll post a decent track plan at some point, but you can get the idea from the maps (the later one: it changed a lot!) on the northumbrian-railways site.

__________________________________________

??? posted on Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:16 pm

You're too kind by half thanks . Stock is one thing, but as yet I've never done any scenic work, made any buildings or laid any track, to say nothing of wiring etc. So, plenty to learn and have a go at! Looking forward to it!

__________________________________________

Comment posted by 10800 on Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:08 am

What are the overall dimensions Tim?

__________________________________________

??? posted on Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:01 pm

The scenic section is just over 12' long, and about 4'6" at its widest. (I know these should probably be metric). The running lines are more or less in the middle of the wide section, so will need some very reliable auto-couplers (on things that need to uncouple)!

So, not enormous, but quite a large area to cover, 'scenery'-wise.

__________________________________________

As with my workbench thread, I'm copying over my layout thread (there isn't much of it as yet and it's nicer to have things all in the same place). Still prefer topics to blogs, so topic it is!

This introductory post will be edited to form some kind of contents list.