Baseboards - "norman" Beams... "truscott" Girders

[Dog Star]

In a quieter moment of Railex Saturday, Adrian (Buckjumper) and I were debating the broad strategy for the baseboards of "The Rookery" - a part of Basilica Fields and described here. This model has several "layers" in that there are railway tracks on a viaduct (GER passenger and goods), at ground level (GER engine yard) and sub-surface (Metropolitan and widened lines). Given the height variations and the need for splitting the overall model into portable modules then some preliminary discussion around baseboard construction is needed to establish the construction strategy.... and that whatever gets built can be moved between PW-depot (here) and landscape centre (there).

We quite like the approach taken with "Hornsey", a model which has been introduced into the WT world, see here . This model has much to commend and we are keen to follow the basic ideas.

Splitting the baseboard design into three elements... foundation, uprights, track bed... the Railex discussion featured beams by Barry Norman for the foundation, uprights on the L-girder principal by Les Truscott and then track-bed doing what Gordon Gravett thinks he would like to have done for Pempoul (ply sheet for each track formation with vertical ply sheet running underneath - either a central spine to form a T beam or two verticals at sleeper edges to form an upside-down "U").

In the best WT tradition... over to you for comment.

regards, Graham

BTW Jordan, I do hope that mention of a Model Railroader (?) concept enables this "World of Basilica Fields" to be more interesting than some of my previous threads.

 

[John D]

Sounds bl***y over complicated to me...........

Back to the back of the class

 

[Ressaldar]

Hi Graham,

here's a starter for ten



based on the idea that the ground is rising from the 'Met & Widened Lines' and the back of the 'gardens' provide a natural scenic break - even in East London Also the point in the Rookery yard should remain in one piece.

Whatever way around the joins go, one of the main factors for consideration is the height of the 'deck' and backscene at the GE Main Line - clearance between top of rail and bridge soffit is 105mm minimum, you are looking at around 200 - 240mm difference in track bed between the Met and the GE + backscene + depth of base of baseboard.

cheers

Mike

 

[Dog Star]

Sounds bl***y over complicated to me...........

Fairy 'snuff.

How would you approach this exercise given the need for portability, simplicity, low weight... and not forgetting longevity (Adrian sees The Rookery as the first tangible part of a 30 year adventure).

Thank you, regards, Graham

 

[Dog Star]

here's a starter for ten

Thank you Mike...

Maybe not as clear as ought to have been in The Rookery thread, Adrian wishes to commence construction of this scene with Weeping Angels Yard, Burial Street and the road which separates the yard from the houses on the RHS. This desire to complete "WAY" first is taxing our minds as to how to build one "mini-layout" within the greater whole and hence how to design the corresponding baseboards.... and why my son has been producing 3D models of The Rookery to determine levels and possible boundaries of individual baseboards.

An immediate benefit of the 3D model is that the original ideas would have required an overall plan which was just to0 big... a front-back dimension of 5'3". Adrian has been revising the juxtaposition of parts of the scene and easing some of the curves to attain a overall width of around 4'3". In the meantime, the length has grown to accomodate another less-desirable part of the East End... so the overall length of visible portion is now closer to 20'.

regards, Graham

 

[Ressaldar]

Hi Graham,

taking posts 1 & 5 together, it would appear that an 'open frame' approach would be more beneficial for the Met and GE lines, both in weight saving and overall flexibility, but a 'solid top' approach to WAY and the rest of the scene as this forms the greater part of the whole. I assume that the overall as originally depicted is still more or less the same, it is just the 'proportions' are becoming more obvious, thus requiring the additional area.

Please keep the thought process postings coming, as it gives the little grey cells something to chew over whilst I ponder over my own little bit of South East London up here on Wirral.

cheers

Mike

 

[28ten]

If it were me I would go for a frame and individual modules in a jigsaw fashion: for two reasons, hiding joins and being able to work on the units in a comfortable position on the workbench and I would draw it all up in CAD and get it cut

 

[Dog Star]

If it were me I would go for a frame and individual modules in a jigsaw fashion: for two reasons, hiding joins and being able to work on the units in a comfortable position on the workbench and I would draw it all up in CAD and get it cut

"If it were you"... the BF press-gang knows where you are!!!!

What you say about jigsaw bits is very much how I see things with The Rookery, although the desire to have Weeping Angels Yard as a separate entity does challenge the Old Grey Matter in that making WAY self standing within the whole of TRY is challenging. My initial thoughts on this objective was to provide "tunnels" through the foundation of WAY and then to support other modules on steel square tubes passed through the tunnels. Bright idea number one going dim... WAY represents about 40% of the length of TRY so some other supports for the outer edges of TRY are going to be needed.

Crucial question time.... the viaduct wall behind WAY forms a natural scenic break and one which can provide a jigsaw joint. Wall as part of WAY or as part of the module behind WAY? My inclination is to make the viaduct wall part of WAY, primarily as a backscene-with-intent, even though that approach shall require some careful joinery and scenic modelling.

Thinking mode continues.

regards, Graham

 

[Dog Star]

If it were me ... ... I would draw it all up in CAD

Agreed - which is why Peter has been making a Sketchup model of The Rookery. As described earlier, the preliminary Sletchup version of TRY produced a plan which was going to be too wide at around 5'3" even after making the viaduct as thin as possible (prototypically "thin" and 100% accurate.... Adrian was observed counting bricks on the prototype so that this part of the model will be "JLTRT").

An interesting aside... when Adrian and I were trying to establish the overall width of the viaduct out of Liverpool Street we were puzzled by the spacings of some of the tracks.... if one estimated the width between parapets based upon track gauge and BoT requirement for walkways then the calcuated distance between parapets did not meet with folklore. After much searching for the light switch we found some excited photons... parts of the viaduct had been built by the Eastern Counties Railway when the track was built to a broad(er) gauge. Doh moment!

Graham

 

[Dog Star]

Model Railroader still promote and build Project Layouts on the "Sacred Sheet"... the standard 8ft x 4ft sheet of plywood...

Twelve sheets of best birch 6mm on the garage floor at the moment... for the new Basingstoke Club 7mm layout. Volunteers welcome for baseboard construction!

I find Basilica Fields stuff very interesting ... just very hard to understand....

Me too... move over, hope there is room at the back .

Serious for a mo, what aspect of Basilica Fields leads to brain fade?

... which I fear might lead to a paralysis of action due to too much thinking about the problem.....

No worry, others here have expressed similar thoughts. Adrian is a past master in the art of thunking

regards, Graham

 

[28ten]

Crucial question time.... the viaduct wall behind WAY forms a natural scenic break and one which can provide a jigsaw joint. Wall as part of WAY or as part of the module behind WAY? My inclination is to make the viaduct wall part of WAY, primarily as a backscene-with-intent, even though that approach shall require some careful joinery and scenic modelling.

Thinking mode continues.

regards, Graham

I actually think it would be easier as part of the module behind, although I can see why you would want to do ti the other way

Be careful expending too much time with sketchup, as some of the geometry it exports as .dxf is a bit odd and you need dxf if you want to get it cnc'd. Again, if it were me I would be making 'egg boxes' and slotting the whole thing together, like a large 3d puzzle in this vein

 

[Dog Star]

I actually think it would be easier as part of the module behind, although I can see why you would want to do ti the other way

Be careful expending too much time with sketchup, as some of the geometry it exports as .dxf is a bit odd and you need dxf if you want to get it cnc'd. Again, if it were me I would be making 'egg boxes' and slotting the whole thing together, like a large 3d puzzle in this vein

Thank you for this comment... helps with the thinking process.

 

[Dog Star]

... taking posts 1 & 5 together, it would appear that an 'open frame' approach would be more beneficial for the Met and GE lines, both in weight saving and overall flexibility, but a 'solid top' approach to WAY and the rest of the scene as this forms the greater part of the whole.

Yes, your description is in the same vein as our thinking for the different "railway" areas. I understand that the houses hovels on the right and between WAY and the viaduct may be on removable bases to facilitate construction.

I assume that the overall as originally depicted is still more or less the same, it is just the 'proportions' are becoming more obvious, thus requiring the additional area.

Well, not quite. There has had to be some change to bits of the scene as a result of the preliminary Sketchup 3D-model... so what is shown as Burial Street has become a narrow, ash/earth surfaced, lane.... with the viaduct now supporting a junction between passenger and goods lines (plus an industrial area in the Vee of the junction). Not shown on any published sketch as yet are a couple of rows of tenements to the right hand side which give the nod to the sea-faring nature of the area in times past.

I am reliably informed by a reporter from the "Basilica Bugle and Sepulchre Sentinel" - a local rag sold for tuppence a throw - that the revisions to the Council housing development plan for The Rookery will maintain those properties which have a degree of uncertainty, such as Schrodinger's Mechanics emporium. Let us hope that Heisenberg the cat still has a doorstep upon which to rest his saucer .

Come to think of it, there has to be some uncertainty about the cat...

regards, Graham