26power

“Socketing” is the word I should have used!  Glad some of my thoughts of assistance.  I had forgotten the baseboards were quite big and/or heavy.

On 15/02/2022 at 02:27, aardvark said:

So ... buildings.  I suspect that I've been avoiding these.

 

One question please - I going to make all the buildings removable to avoid (unnecessary) damage, and wonder how to strengthen the back wall of the goods shed.  I'm thinking to follow Paul Bason's* lead and use Slater's planking over a double 40-thou plasticard carcass.  A ceiling will brace the top of the shed nicely, but the bottom can only have partial floors due to the need to fit around the laid track.

 

I suppose it will be OK - it has to be -  as the only alternative I can see is to make the track removable with the shed, which doesn't sound particularly practical.

 

 

* Scratch-Built Buildings: a Practical Look at How to Make Your Own Scratch-Built Buildings, BRM Book No.4, Paul Bason, 2008.

 

 

Maybe you’ve already thought of this, but if the buildings are going to be removable then it would be worthwhile considering how to arrange them so that they go back in the right place each time they are removed.  And do so easily.  I think you might find that putting them in place and removing them will happen most when you are building them.  Thereafter there wouldn’t seem an awful lot of need to remove them regularly?  You might also need to think about how to fix them in place, e.g. if the layout is to be portable?

For the “thin” goods shed wall I wonder if you could incorporate into the walls some brass rods that would fit into holes in the baseboard?  Or long thin bolts if you need to secure them?  Either would seem to be suitable for holding the bottom of the wall in the right place, at least in two dimensions.  And the latter in three, if needed.

Hope these thoughts help.

Sorry to hear of the flooding.  The graph you shared was informative!  Don’t think I heard about it on UK TV or in my newspaper.  Or perhaps I did and didn’t realise the severity of it.

On 06/03/2022 at 20:04, 46444 said:

Bit of a sneak peek of my Caley 812. I need to finish the weathering off. 

Here's a snap of the tender with modified flairs.

 

 

I'll write a blog entry shortly discussing my modifications. 

 

Cheers, 

 

Mark

 

Hi.  What or where is your blog?  Interested in what you have done to the tender flairs.

12 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

The face of the tension lock coupling doesn’t look to protrude much beyond the face of the buffers?  Perhaps it’s the angle of the picture!

This link on the 6LDA blog has some nice pictures:

https://6lda.wordpress.com/2022/02/18/blues-and-twos-and-1s-and-ok-some-greens/

6LDA blog included in the ever so slight hope that one or two might choose to support its efforts to preserve 26 024 and 26 038!

59 minutes ago, millerhillboy said:

What's the expectation for kids attending the show at the weekend? Just as per govmt guidelines which to my knowledge is over 12s require masks but not below 12?

See here:

https://modelrail-scotland.co.uk/covid-19-information/

And/or the SEC website page linked from there:

https://www.sec.co.uk/visitor-information/covid-19-customer-update

As others have said, the longer version looks better.  Certainly to my eye, but that is partly basing it on comparison with the prototype picture.

As it's presumably neither here nor there which size you build I would go for the longer one.  Imagine the frustration if you had started building something and then a scale drawing turned up showing you were "out" in some dimension(s).

Hope the above and the discussion and input from others helps!

2 hours ago, aardvark said:

  

Thanks, as I said, lack of experience and imagination: others would have done otherwise.  The other two boards are more "train in context", being largely without buildings. I've also had thoughts of a 5th board to give that fabled "train in landscape" thing, but am trying to focus myself to get something finished sometime before my dotage.  The fiddle-yard is in the same category.

 

Recently, it took me two days to cut, lay and paint 600x3mm of cork in-fill.  That's 900sqmm/day, which, given the size of the existing layout, means I should be finished in about 9½ years. Yeah, that feels about right

 

Your approach and available space, by the sounds of it, might help with emphasising the sparseness of the rural setting.  Different from a "busy" built up or urban area.  And your trains get a bit more of a run!

At least you are doing something constructive!

1 hour ago, aardvark said:

Because it was quick to do and matched my attention span, here's the comparative photos with the short goods shed.

 

 

 

The alignment is spot-on, but perhaps you get the picture(s).

 

 

The horizontal roof ridge of the model goods shed looks shorter than the real one.  On the real one it looks longer than the length where the roof is sloping down to the end wall.

The height of the model goods shed looks greater than the real one, or perhaps more the relationship with the station building height.  Somehow the station building looks proportionately taller in the real picture than the model one.  But the goods shed height is dictated by the need to get rail vehicles in, so that cannot be any less than you have it, I don't think?  Presumably, going by the road doors, the ground level needs to be built up in front of the good shed, so that could be misleading me.

You're seeing it in the flesh so can judge far better.  Probably one of those things you look at over a few days!

12 hours ago, aardvark said:

Yes, lacking experience or imagination, that's where I started.  I wound up reducing the distance between the station and the engine shed to create space for the gasworks, but otherwise, it's largely to scale.  Unfortunately, I lacked a decent image of the long side of the goods shed until a few days ago, so it was difficult to estimate it's length.

 

All very good ideas.  Making a mock-up of the full-sized goods shed is do-able. I find that taking a photo that replicates an historic photo to be fiddly, but patience and practice will get me there.  I'll take photos of both the full-length and shorten versions and post them.

 

Nothing wrong with your layout being pretty much a scale representation of the real thing.  It perhaps helps put the train size into context with surroundings.  It’s just an alternative to a layout where, say the train emerges from the fiddle yard/off scene area and immediately enters a station and stops.

Your current mock-ups look like a good start on making the actual buildings, so perhaps not time wasted.  It might be more frustrating/annoying etc. to get the goods shed well on “properly” only to then think it’s too small.  Or too big!

12 hours ago, aardvark said:

Yes, and the station building looks small too. Perhaps I should make them bigger

Is the track, land etc. a scale copy of the real thing?  If so would seem sensible that the buildings are as well.  
 

Do I take it from the aerial picture with your drawing of the station building overlaid that your drawing, and therefore your mock up, of the station building “match” the size in the aerial photo?  If so it would seem logical that the goods shed also matches.  
 

Perhaps in the first instance post a message with that aerial photo and a shot of the model that tries to replicate it, perhaps just the middle of your three pictures above, so they can be compared side by side, so to speak.

Another option would be to do an alternative goods shed mock-up and try that in place and see which option you are happier with.  Especially if you just leave it there for a while and get accustomed to it.

In your first picture in your above message the goods shed in the distance looks small!

Hope this makes some sense, and helps!

On 04/02/2022 at 18:58, HeatonLodge40 said:

Friday update..

 

The track laying for the new diesel depot is complete, next up is painting the engine sheds & installing fuel points & a wash plant.

The reason for the diesel depot is to be able to incorporate light engine movements within its confines, so a loco can move from the shed to the fuel point then to the wash - all automatically. 
In the depot will be a Class 56 body on hydraulic jacks with its roof access doors open. (See pic). I know a shed this size wouldn’t be doing such heavy repairs but it adds a touch of interest. 
 

I should have the track work on the DMU depot alongside done this weekend too. There’s a road specifically for the Trans Pennine Class 124 (currently being re-motored) and two long roads for another 6 x 2 car DMU’s complete with run around siding. 
The noise and sight of all these idling away and moving out of the yard and back should be great fun. 
 

I’m slowly reassembling and servicing new rakes of wagons. The Motorail flats are all being re-wheeled with finer scale wheels to improve their reliability and already seem to run a lot better..

 

Would there perhaps be greater clearance between the shed building and the wash plant?  To allow maintenance access to both perhaps?  Maybe scope to slew that track to the left?  Hope this helps.

Thanks to others. particularly 70000 Britannia Andy Haytor and MikeB, for moving the discussion on about whether or not exhibitors, traders etc. will be required to provide the same proof of Covid status as those paying to attend will.  Unfortunately still no information on this from the AMRSS, although they now seem to appreciate the need for authoritive responses.

I've looked at the current guidelines for event organisers at the link in the message below. 

On 24/01/2022 at 23:20, Craig Watson said:

To clarify on previous posts.

 

The rules being followed at the event will be the current (at the time of the show) Scottish Government guidelines and will be implemented by SEC staff on entry to the venue buildings.

 

An overview of the current guidelines for event organisers can be found below.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-certification-scheme-businesses-event-organisers/pages/overview/

 

We will also be keeping the Model Rail Scotland website updated with the most up to date info on the requirements for entry for our visitors.

https://modelrail-scotland.co.uk/

 

The information Arran has posted regarding exhibitors comes from the above government guidance, our exhibitors will all be issued with guidelines about their responsibilities at the event.

 

Craig (on behalf of the organising team).

This unfortunately doesn't seem to be clear about the requirements for the sort of situation that this exhibition provides, i.e. where exhibitors, traders and AMRSS volunteers can also be, effectively, regular attendees.  I also couldn't see anything about such people being classed as "contractors", as was claimed.

I assume that the SEC will be complying with the spirit of this statement at the start of the overview in this guidance (my highlighting):

"This guidance explains how the COVID Certification Scheme works. It also provides guidance for premises and event organisers to help them operate a reasonable system for checking that individuals on their premises are either:

• fully vaccinated or
• have tested negative for COVID-19 virus in last 24 hours or
• are exempt"

Obviously the AMRSS has no control over whether or not the SEC requires this of people working for it, e.g. security staff, ticket sellers, first aiders etc.  I would though contend that the AMRSS could require this of exhibitors, traders and other volunteers, even if the SEC doesn't require this.  As others indicated an exhibitor etc. when looking around the exhibition is then, effectively, no different from paying visitors.

With regard to the statement provided on behalf of the AMRSS (linked below) I would make two comments:

1. What is or is not discussed on this forum is presumably for the moderators and owners of this forum to determine, not the AMRSS.  If there is information provided by someone seemingly speaking on behalf of the AMRSS that raises queries, in this case that some effectively attending the event as visitors, e.g. exhibitors on a break, will not need to provide proof of vaccination, then that is something that seems to me to be appropriate to query on here; and

2. I hope that the AMRSS are now clearer that any responses about this sort of matter need to clearly indicated as an official statement from them

On 25/01/2022 at 14:54, Craig Watson said:

I've been asked to post the below on behalf of Ian Porteous, the Model Rail Scotland exhibition manager.

 

All matters relating to the ongoing public health emergency is a constantly changing situation for event organisers such as ourselves.

 

Discussion of such matters on public forums is less than constructive for organisers, visitors and exhibitors as it creates an environment where mixed messages can be given some of which could be out of date or not applicable to the Scottish version of the rules.

 

The best way for anyone who is planning to attend the event as a visitor, is to visit the Model Rail Scotland website where the up to date rules are posted along with the link to the SEC website where details on how they will be managing matters is also given.

 

Anyone who is participating as an exhibitor i.e. working on a layout or a trade stand will receive the up to date rules on what is applicable to exhibitors via the online Exhibitor Information system which will be issued to them on or about the 5th of February.

 

Model Rail Scotland is one the first major non- commercially organised exhibitions to take place in the UK since the relaxation of rules occurred back in August 2020 which has been an eventual journey for myself and the team.

 

I would ask that any forum members who intend to come along as visitors and those who will be involved in the event as exhibitors check the situation relating to their status in the manner outlined above.

 

Regards

 

Ian Porteous

Exhibition Manager

Model Rail Scotland

Finally, with regard to the following message about acceptance of a negative lateral flow test, the AMRSS information doesn't yet reflect their acceptance.  I'm sure it will soon.  However, could I suggest that the link to the venue for the definitive requirements be the page for the SEC itself, i.e. this one:

https://www.sec.co.uk/visitor-information/covid-19-customer-update

not the current one, which is for the The OVO Hydro on the same campus.

7 hours ago, Bruced said:

 

Hi there, we are sorry for the confusion but as of tonight our website will mirror the SEC one and Negative lateral flows will be accepted for entry as per Sg current guidelines. 
 

Model Rail Scotland Management team

 

I appreciate that this is all effectively new and that the AMRSS are guinea pigs.  However, on that basis I would it is in their interests to maximise the number of people paying to attend.  If that means, for example, providing reassurance to those paying that those exhibiting etc. are required to demonstrate their Covid status in the same way as those paying then that seems a simple thing to be clear on.  I'll await the further update on or about the 5th of February.

Digital magazine back numbers at 99p each.

Scale modelling:

https://emails.pocketmags.com/4Q80-MN3P-4MD31E-JDFE6-1/c.aspx

Prototype transport:

https://emails.pocketmags.com/4Q80-MN3P-4MD31E-JDFEC-1/c.aspx

Haven't used myself so don't know if you get it forever? 

Hope links work and of interest.

2 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I suspect it was seen as cheaper to use an existing box design than develop a new one.

 

CJI.

Any such savings offset by increased transport costs though?

Anyway, my point was really wishful thinking that they had done a Dolphin or a Sturgeon.  These would perhaps have had wider appeal, because of their greater numbers and distribution.  At leat I think so for the Dolphin (I did do a quick internet search on the Dolphin to try and find out how many were made or what their distribution was but without success).  Nice as the Pilchard looks I doubt I’ll be getting one because of their limited distribution.  
 

The choice of prototypes by Oxford seems odd, but no doubt they know their market.  However, I can see the Pilchard being chosen by both them and purchasers as something “different” or “cute”.  Perhaps the length of the Dolphin or Sturgeon was potentially problematic?

Just idle thoughts!

6 hours ago, Darius43 said:

 

 

I was surprised how large the box was - twice the size of the wagon.

 

 

Maybe the box designer thought Oxford were making the similar LNER Dolphin, or BR Sturgeon?!

8 hours ago, arran said:

HI All

 

If you are attending the show as an exhibitor / or doing stewarding or trader you dont need a covid passport as you as classed as a contractor .

 

Printouts of your vaccinations is acceptable.

 

Regards Arran 

Seems odd that “contractors” don’t need a Covid passport?  And therefore they could potentially be more likely to have Covid, and hence pass it on to visitors!  
 

Can’t the AMRSS require exhibitors/stewards/traders to have a Covid passport?

12 hours ago, cessna152towser said:

My first attendance at Model Rail Scotland was 1969, following which I joined Clydeside MRC.  I left the Glasgow area in 1989, but retained my club membership and therefore still affiliated to AMRSS.   It has been a few years since I last did any stewarding or layout operating at the show but I have continued to attend every year to meet up with old friends and acquaintances.  Having broke the habit by being forced to miss 2021 I make no promises for this year.   The rail fare from Carlisle has gone up significantly and I need to find out about how the covid pass will work as although fully vaccinated and boosted I don't currently have a mobile phone.   I do hope to be able to attend again this year, either on the Friday or the Saturday.

I think this is the right page to get a paper copy of your status sent to you, or to get your status “document” as a PDF which you can then print out:

https://www.nhsinform.scot/covid-19-vaccine/after-your-vaccine/get-a-record-of-your-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccination-status
 

Hope this helps.

3 hours ago, peteskitchen said:

Not sure how I missed these, two packs on order now. Has anybody come across a picture from overhead of these wagons when loaded with bricks?

Presumably you saw the post earlier in the thread (October 3rd, I think?) with some being loaded?

On 06/12/2021 at 21:55, The Great Huszar said:

OUT NOW....N Gauge

 

RC962 GWR OPEN C Dia 0.19 - £10 + p&p

https://five79.co.uk/RC962/

 

This kit is designed to produce a model of the GWR Open C Long wheelbase open merchandise wagon dia 0.19 built between 1914 and 1927.

 

Sample built by M.Chivers.

 

 

 

 

 

A 4mm version of this might be worth considering?

On 13/11/2021 at 05:19, aardvark said:

With cork planting and painting done for now, it’s time to turn thoughts in earnest to the retaining walls. As previously stated, these will (hopefully) be 5mm foam-board covered front-and-back with ScaleScenes stone paper.  Being the beginner that I am, this is all new territory.

 

The wall will only be 27mm in height, but will extended much of the length of the layout, across all four 1.2m baseboards. Unfortunately, prototype Banff doesn’t having anything in the way of buttresses, pipes or even greenery to help disguise the joins, but I have read that prototype stone walls have expansion joints every 100 to 125’ (400-500mm).  Of course, I have no choice but to model expansion joints at the baseboard joins, and there will probably two other expansion joints per baseboard, but that still leaves me with the need to attempt one seamless stone paper join between expansion joints.

 

I recall that to join stone papers, you cut around the stones, but now that I come to think about it, I’m not sure whether you cut one sheet and lay it over a second, or whether you cut through both joining sheets to make pieces that fit together like jigsaw pieces.  In either case, colouring the cut edges will probably be required.

 

I figure that I should attach the paper to the front of the wall and let the glue dry, before gluing the paper across the top and down the back of the wall, dry, cut off any excess, before moving onto the next section of paper.

 

This will mean that the stones on the back will be upside down, but only the very top of the back will be visible, and then only from the back of the layout, so I’m not too concerned.  Note to self: be careful not to mix up the front with the back.

 

Any suggestions will be well received; otherwise it will just be trial and error.

 

I’m good at the “error” part.

A few thoughts that may or may not help

I !think expansion gaps in lengths of wall is a modern “thing”.

Joining stone papers - watch out for shrinkage if you try and butt join.  If you overlap one piece over another think about viewing angles and light to try and avoid a visible step

A danger of sticking one side at a time is shrinkage pulling the wall out of alignment.  If I recall correctly this was probably using mounting board as the body and PVA as the glue; foam board might be more resistant to being pulled out of shape and there might be more appropriate glues.

On 31/10/2021 at 12:33, Fat Controller said:

It looks to be a standard lifting-link BR underframe, a lot of potential uses:

13t Open, Conflats and 12t Vans being the most obvious.

But the roller bearing axleboxes must limit its potential uses?  Obviously they could be carved off - they look to be just part of the underframe.  Similarly the body supports projecting from the solebars might be Palbrick specific?

I assume the coiled springs seen in the above “from underneath” shots are associated with mounting the couplings on cams?  If so that seems a bit unnecessary on a 10’ wheelbase wagon.   Some cost saving efficiencies possible?!  
 

I wonder if that underframe is suitable for any other wagons?

2 hours ago, JohnR said:

I'll wait for better photos or mine to arrive before making judgement, because I think that screen grab angle is making it look much thicker than it probably is. 

Although it is a similar “looking down” picture It was the tender top edge in the first picture posted by Jenny Emily on Thursday that caught my eye.  To the extent I had to look at the second picture to see if the tender top was flared at all!  I wonder how Hornby managed the similar tender top flare on its J36?