Monks Ferry: a layout for the Grandchildren.

[jonte]

I took the view that the LCUT Creative parts I bought were nowhere near strong enough to form the structural elements of a 7 mm scale building. I used them as tiles to provide the cosmetic elements, glued and nailed (using panel pins) to a plywood carcass.

Similar minds.

As I say, I wouldn’t trust any non-reinforced MDF structure unless I could guarantee extremely low humidity levels, and I’d be selective about the chosen adhesive.

Jon

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

Hi Jon

I've been looking at your track plan for the 1,200 x 2,400mm board and been playing around with the free trail version of AnyRail - well I was using it to look at the functionality of this track planning tool .

I've used the Peco OO Setrack from their library with the R2 and R3 curves - for which the geometry doesn't quite fit as there are two sections I can see which will require some track cutting of longer straight and curved lengths - circled in red. I also think you may have to start the inner gradient from inside the tunnel. I've based it upon the upper level being 100mm above the datum. The different colours only show which lines are at 0.00mm (orange), 100.00mm (yellow) and the gradients (blue and green).

It transpires the inner gradient is about 4% and the outer one around 3.6% - as it's for British left hand running it makes the departure line slightly steeper. In order to ease the gradient the curved crossover will have to be on the gradient.

Also the yellow station track is not complete as there is a limit of 50 pieces on the free trail version of AnyRail.



It also threw out a list of the track sections used for the above..



I have also been playing with the 3D bit to see what it would look like - albeit without buildings, road, tunnels, etc as the program just blocks it in as terrain .

 

[jonte]

Many thanks for all that ‘top’ work, Dave (@Yorkshire Dave )

Truly magnificent and very easy to follow. As for the 3D plan: I’m there

I realised quite early on with my Heath ‘what’s-his-name’ affair using pencil n scissors, that the standard Setrack curves weren’t going to ‘cut-it’, and would have to be ‘bespoken’, and I was always of a mind to use flexitrack for the straight bits simply to save on funds

I’m afraid my gradient calculations were reached using more fundamental methods: just a ball of string…….

How I envisaged the gradients: incline, starts from the straight section of the curves to the left of the drawing above, and ceases approx 6 inches short of the curved point forming part of the crossover on the entry to the station. Allowing say 3.75” for the ‘fall’ in track over the eleven foot length measured with my parcel string implement, I reached a gradient figure of under 3%. Decline: a figure ‘the wrong side’ of 5% for the outward bound line before it reaches the tunnel, but definitely no slippery wheels in this case

How I attained the extra length to mitigate ‘the climb’ without compromising tunnel height ‘below’ the station so to speak, was to allow the track to be open on the full length of curve, in the interests of better running i.e. easier to reach for track cleaning, the whole being made to look like it was in one of those ‘freight line’ cuttings that dived down from the main ‘overhead lines’ like that at Blackfriars. Incidentally, I’m quite fond of our American cousins’ preference for the word ‘dove’ in usage here I digress. The problem with this scenario, as it transpired, was that by including a parallel loop to hold the odd loco - again of my own invention- it would also have to be on this incline; not a problem per se for a stationary loco - no rolling backwards - but the curved points forming the loop would also be on the incline, a situation I’m trying to avoid I might indeed have to bin the notion.

Talking of avoiding bent points on hills, Dave, in light of your kind research on my behalf, it looks like I might just have to site the crossover on the gradient(s) in the station throat after all if I’m to avoid the heartache of slippery wheels on slope, so thanks for pointing this out

Looks like an imposed speed limit might just well be the order of the day; until we’re over ‘em

Sorry the above diatribe is not as clear as your wonderful diagrams, but I do hope you manage to follow at least some of it

Cheers, Dave

Jon

 

[40057]

Many thanks for all that ‘top’ work, Dave (@Yorkshire Dave )

Truly magnificent and very easy to follow. As for the 3D plan: I’m there

I realised quite early on with my Heath ‘what’s-his-name’ affair using pencil n scissors, that the standard Setrack curves weren’t going to ‘cut-it’, and would have to be ‘bespoken’, and I was always of a mind to use flexitrack for the straight bits simply to save on funds

I’m afraid my gradient calculations were reached using more fundamental methods: just a ball of string…….

How I envisaged the gradients: incline, starts from the straight section of the curves to the left of the drawing above, and ceases approx 6 inches short of the curved point forming part of the crossover on the entry to the station. Allowing say 3.75” for the ‘fall’ in track over the eleven foot length measured with my parcel string implement, I reached a gradient figure of under 3%. Decline: a figure ‘the wrong side’ of 5% for the outward bound line before it reaches the tunnel, but definitely no slippery wheels in this case

How I attained the extra length to mitigate ‘the climb’ without compromising tunnel height ‘below’ the station so to speak, was to allow the track to be open on the full length of curve, in the interests of better running i.e. easier to reach for track cleaning, the whole being made to look like it was in one of those ‘freight line’ cuttings that dived down from the main ‘overhead lines’ like that at Blackfriars. Incidentally, I’m quite fond of our American cousins’ preference for the word ‘dove’ in usage here I digress. The problem with this scenario, as it transpired, was that by including a parallel loop to hold the odd loco - again of my own invention- it would also have to be on this incline; not a problem per se for a stationary loco - no rolling backwards - but the curved points forming the loop would also be on the incline, a situation I’m trying to avoid I might indeed have to bin the notion.

Talking of avoiding bent points on hills, Dave, in light of your kind research on my behalf, it looks like I might just have to site the crossover on the gradient(s) in the station throat after all if I’m to avoid the heartache of slippery wheels on slope, so thanks for pointing this out

Looks like an imposed speed limit might just well be the order of the day; until we’re over ‘em

Sorry the above diatribe is not as clear as your wonderful diagrams, but I do hope you manage to follow at least some of it

Cheers, Dave

Jon

If it was me, I would definitely want to avoid the curved crossover being on a gradient. What strikes me about your plan as drawn out by Yorkshire Dave is the long level (orange) section between the gradients. The track only needs to be at 0.00mm (orange) for the short length directly under the tracks in the station. Thereafter, the climb can start immediately. You should be able to lessen the gradient and reach the required height before the crossover by using most of the orange coloured section to gain height (with the trains suitably concealed by scenery, buildings, station concourse etc). With only a short level stretch at 0.00mm, the trains starting their climb should be helped by inertia from their descent or even having the rearmost vehicles still on a falling gradient. So you could probably get away with a slightly steeper section right at the start of the climb.

 

[jonte]

If it was me, I would definitely want to avoid the curved crossover being on a gradient. What strikes me about your plan as drawn out by Yorkshire Dave is the long level (orange) section between the gradients. The track only needs to be at 0.00mm (orange) for the short length directly under the tracks in the station. Thereafter, the climb can start immediately. You should be able to lessen the gradient and reach the required height before the crossover by using most of the orange coloured section to gain height (with the trains suitably concealed by scenery, buildings, station concourse etc). With only a short level stretch at 0.00mm, the trains starting their climb should be helped by inertia from their descent or even having the rearmost vehicles still on a falling gradient. So you could probably get away with a slightly steeper section right at the start of the climb.

Thanks 40057.

I still think Dave’s plan has merit, especially in relation to the orange curved section on the ‘flat’. With this scenario, I could still introduce the loop I mentioned earlier, which I would still like to keep. My thinking, as per your goodself’s, by having the climb start earlier in the orange section of Dave’s plan would indeed keep things as gentle as possible, but at the expense of the loop; indeed, keeping the loop would necessitate the curved points here being on a gradient; add to that the inertia of a train in full flow Think I’d need to practise my catching skills……

Also, as you mention, starting the climb at the later stage - after the orange section- would ensure that the engine should have gathered enough momentum to avoid a slippery slope type climb.

I conducted a recent test with tender driven schools class loco on a 3’ section of track rising at 1: 22.5 which gives a percentage gradient of approximately four and half per cent. No probs from a standing start, but a little initial slipping with a mk1 coach in tow, but as the train in our scenario will have added momentum, this shouldn’t be an issue.

I think once construction starts in the new year I can lay some track and conduct some trial under track fittings before the final fit

Thanks once again for your valuable input.

Jon

 

[jonte]

Some initial arrangement of the station fascia:



Hmmm…has potential.

jonte

 

[40057]

Thanks 40057.

I still think Dave’s plan has merit, especially in relation to the orange curved section on the ‘flat’. With this scenario, I could still introduce the loop I mentioned earlier, which I would still like to keep. My thinking, as per your goodself’s, by having the climb start earlier in the orange section of Dave’s plan would indeed keep things as gentle as possible, but at the expense of the loop; indeed, keeping the loop would necessitate the curved points here being on a gradient; add to that the inertia of a train in full flow Think I’d need to practise my catching skills……

Also, as you mention, starting the climb at the later stage - after the orange section- would ensure that the engine should have gathered enough momentum to avoid a slippery slope type climb.

I conducted a recent test with tender driven schools class loco on a 3’ section of track rising at 1: 22.5 which gives a percentage gradient of approximately four and half per cent. No probs from a standing start, but a little initial slipping with a mk1 coach in tow, but as the train in our scenario will have added momentum, this shouldn’t be an issue.

I think once construction starts in the new year I can lay some track and conduct some trial under track fittings before the final fit

Thanks once again for your valuable input.

Jon

Thanks 40057.

I still think Dave’s plan has merit, especially in relation to the orange curved section on the ‘flat’. With this scenario, I could still introduce the loop I mentioned earlier, which I would still like to keep. My thinking, as per your goodself’s, by having the climb start earlier in the orange section of Dave’s plan would indeed keep things as gentle as possible, but at the expense of the loop; indeed, keeping the loop would necessitate the curved points here being on a gradient; add to that the inertia of a train in full flow Think I’d need to practise my catching skills……

Also, as you mention, starting the climb at the later stage - after the orange section- would ensure that the engine should have gathered enough momentum to avoid a slippery slope type climb.

I conducted a recent test with tender driven schools class loco on a 3’ section of track rising at 1: 22.5 which gives a percentage gradient of approximately four and half per cent. No probs from a standing start, but a little initial slipping with a mk1 coach in tow, but as the train in our scenario will have added momentum, this shouldn’t be an issue.

I think once construction starts in the new year I can lay some track and conduct some trial under track fittings before the final fit

Thanks once again for your valuable input.

Jon

I’m sure you’ll find there is a workable solution. You could, for instance, split the up gradient into two. A short climb, loop on the level, then the main climb following. When I was going through a similar exercise planning for my split level 0 gauge layout, I was very mindful of the need to minimise the gradients out of consideration for my elderly clockwork locomotives. I looked for every mm I could find. Yorkshire Dave’s plan has the upper level 100 mm above the lower level — which strikes me as pretty generous in 00. You could help the gradients enormously by taking 10 or 20 mm off the height separation of the two levels. I left 3 mm clearance above the trains on the lower level for the short distance directly under the upper level tracks — and the upper level tracks were mounted on a thin plywood base (instead of 15 mm thick board) just at the crossing over point. So the total climb required was kept to the absolute minimum possible for having one level passing over the other. In terms of subsequent operating practicality, I’m sure my planning for gradient reduction was worthwhile.

 

[jonte]

I like the sound of old clockwork trains, although I suspect yours are a little more intricate that the ones I remember

I’ll also be splitting the roads as you mention, due to the differing gradients as described.

I used a calculation of 3.75 inches total fall to absolute zero: a ‘generous two and half for clearance of tunnels on the flat; the rest to allow for under board frame of station section, although I did consider just using the ply surface - as I think you mentioned - supported by supports of 3”x1” timber on end, attached to the mainframe in traditional open frame style, at frequent intervals. That option hasn’t been totally ruled out

Many thanks one agin for sharing your thoughts/methods.

Jon

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

This was the reason I went for 100mm between the upper and lower levels - to accommodate the baseboard and supporting structure depths. By which time you'd end up with 70-80mm.

 

[jonte]

I was warned about the LCut Creative components being susceptible to warping, with a specific interest in how I fared with the product, so here’s an early report.

I arranged the arched sections to resemble the fascia of the real Blackfriars:




Too wide for the job, they were amended for fit with a Stanley blade:




Tough stuff, it took at least thirty passes with the knife to cut.

They were then glued in sections of two, one on top of t’other, to achieve a suitable depth of rebate:



Weighted over night after applying a traditional rubber solution glue, I’m pleased to report they’ve dried flat.

I would have used Pva to join them, but it’s always a risk when using even numbers of parts glued together, solvents included, I’ve found.

The next job is to fix the assemblies to a backing of 2.5mm Plastruct styrene sheet (after I’ve picked some up) which will form the shell of the building.

As I mentioned previously, I can’t vouch wholly for the robustness of these parts as I’m straying from what would be considered a normal method of construction, however, the fact that no warping has occurred whilst drying using UHU adhesive, bodes well for those considering buying the kits from this manufacturer.

Of course, care should be taken when painting: a spray primer to seal the material would be my recommendation, especially if using acrylics.

Usual disclaimer submitted.

jonte

 

[jonte]

The laser cut sections were glued to the 2.5mm styrene shell using liquid polystyrene cement as mentioned:



………..then the frames for the doors were fitted after trimming off most of the internal framing to match that - in a manner of speaking - of Blackfriars as seen in the earlier photo:



The interior of the framing will be completed in styrene strip.

Incidentally, the parts purchased from LCut were a mixture of 7mm & 4mm scales to suit.

jonte

 

[Lyndhurstman]

I was warned about the LCut Creative components being susceptible to warping, with a specific interest in how I fared with the product, so here’s an early report.

I arranged the arched sections to resemble the fascia of the real Blackfriars:

View attachment 202974


Too wide for the job, they were amended for fit with a Stanley blade:

View attachment 202975


Tough stuff, it took at least thirty passes with the knife to cut.

They were then glued in sections of two, one on top of t’other, to achieve a suitable depth of rebate:

View attachment 202976View attachment 202977

Weighted over night after applying a traditional rubber solution glue, I’m pleased to report they’ve dried flat.

I would have used Pva to join them, but it’s always a risk when using even numbers of parts glued together, solvents included, I’ve found.

The next job is to fix the assemblies to a backing of 2.5mm Plastruct styrene sheet (after I’ve picked some up) which will form the shell of the building.

As I mentioned previously, I can’t vouch wholly for the robustness of these parts as I’m straying from what would be considered a normal method of construction, however, the fact that no warping has occurred whilst drying using UHU adhesive, bodes well for those considering buying the kits from this manufacturer.

Of course, care should be taken when painting: a spray primer to seal the material would be my recommendation, especially if using acrylics.

Usual disclaimer submitted.

jonte

Nice work, Jon
Your architectural eye is empowered by your artistic vision.

Do you have a recommendation for acrylic primer? Something in a rattlecan for me. I have to prime this GNR brake van… which I think is bamboo..

Cheers

Jan

 

[Pencarrow]

Nice work, Jon
Your architectural eye is empowered by your artistic vision.

Do you have a recommendation for acrylic primer? Something in a rattlecan for me. I have to prime this GNR brake van… which I think is bamboo..

Cheers

Jan

Must admit I normally use Halfords rattle can primer for everything. Just going to the etched variety for raw metal. I've painted over it with all manner of enamels, acrylics and oils with no issues.

 

[jonte]

Nice work, Jon
Your architectural eye is empowered by your artistic vision.

Do you have a recommendation for acrylic primer? Something in a rattlecan for me. I have to prime this GNR brake van… which I think is bamboo..

Cheers

Jan

Kind words, thank you, Jan, and quite a mouthful

I have to be careful these days recommending primers, after recently recommending the product I use to my brother in law for a military diorama he put his heart n soul into, after deciding to take up the hobby in his retirement. Let’s put it this way, his foam based scene melted…………

By the looks of it, your bamboo kit seems similar in form to the laser card/MDF products, which as long as it’s suitably braced should be fine I’m sorry I can’t be more reassuring than that, Jan.

The version I’m using at present - used on a variety of surfaces including foamboard - is one sold by Home Bargain, chosen solely because of price: £1.99 a tin.

I note that Chris (@Pencarrow ) has responded since, and although I’ve not used Halford’s version, I’m guessing it’s a quality product judging by the price. I’ve used their acid etch which I can vouch is excellent!

If there’s any issues with the build and primer, I’ll bring it to you attention, Jan.

Cheers,

Jon

 

[Lyndhurstman]

Must admit I normally use Halfords rattle can primer for everything. Just going to the etched variety for raw metal. I've painted over it with all manner of enamels, acrylics and oils with no issues.

Hi @Pencarrow Chris
Thanks. That’ll save a few pennies; I have some grey primer in the garage. I just hope it hasn’t frozen in the night; still a heavy frost here on the West bank of the Tamar!
Cheers

Jan

 

[Lyndhurstman]

Kind words, thank you, Jan, and quite a mouthful

I have to be careful these days recommending primers, after recently recommending the product I use to my brother in law for a military diorama he put his heart n soul into, after deciding to take up the hobby in his retirement. Let’s put it this way, his foam based scene melted…………

By the looks of it, your bamboo kit seems similar in form to the laser card/MDF products, which as long as it’s suitably braced should be fine I’m sorry I can’t be more reassuring than that, Jan.

The version I’m using at present - used on a variety of surfaces including foamboard - is one sold by Home Bargain, chosen solely because of price: £1.99 a tin.

I note that Chris (@Pencarrow ) has responded since, and although I’ve not used Halford’s version, I’m guessing it’s a quality product judging by the price. I’ve used their acid etch which I can vouch is excellent!

If there’s any issues with the build and primer, I’ll bring it to you attention, Jan.

Cheers,

Jon

Thanks Jon @jonte
I’m very nervous these days. Financial considerations mean even relatively small amounts of money invested demand a return…

I feel for your BIL; and you. Keep on keeping on.

Cheers

Jan

 

[jonte]

Thanks Jon @jonte

I’m very nervous these days. Financial considerations mean even relatively small amounts of money invested demand a return…

I feel for your BIL; and you. Keep on keeping on.

Cheers

Jan

Thanks, Jan.

I softened the blow with a donation of some bits n bobs including a Hotwire cutter for cutting the foam used by military modellers. Apparently, blades literally don’t cut the mustard and a saw leaves untidy edges.

I also picked him up a cheap £20 airbrush (with trigger action) from Amazon - he’s helped with several tasks around the home over the years, to be fair - and after testing it, I’m going to pick one up for myself. There’s umpteen bits with it too. I tried a similar one from Amazon for twice the price last year but had to return it as it fell to bits when cleaning …….

Cheers

Jon

 

[simond]

If using rattle cans, do, of course, rattle them thoroughly, but perhaps as important, have them warm, not out-in-the-shed cold, as they will not perform well.

I have taken the risk of leaving one on a warm radiator for an hour or so before nipping outside on a cold crisp morning to progress a model. But too hot might lead to an unplanned rapid redecoration, so be careful!

 

[Pencarrow]

If using rattle cans, do, of course, rattle them thoroughly, but perhaps as important, have them warm, not out-in-the-shed cold, as they will not perform well.

I have taken the risk of leaving one on a warm radiator for an hour or so before nipping outside on a cold crisp morning to progress a model. But too hot might lead to an unplanned rapid redecoration, so be careful!

Fully agree, I'm lucky enough to have space in a cupboard in the train room for my rattle cans. I also store them upside down, not sure if that makes any difference.

 

[jonte]

Fully agree, I'm lucky enough to have space in a cupboard in the train room for my rattle cans. I also store them upside down, not sure if that makes any difference.

Agreed; enamel tinlets too.

Having read about it, before storing the aerosol upside down and whilst inverted, I release the excess paint/primer in the nozzle first. Seems to work as no more bunged up nozzles after storage or splodgey droplets.

Jon