Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

A forum for participants in the Standard Gauge Workbench.
User avatar
ICollett
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:46 am

Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby ICollett » Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:37 am

Taking the Inglenook http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/sw-inglenook.html shunting layout as a starting point, and the fact that 4' 8.5" plus a 2' 9" fiddle yard just fits inside my 7' 6" shed, this looks like a good point to make a start in S4 and Railway Modelling in general.

PSW.PNG
Pickford Street Wharf
PSW.PNG (182.91 KiB) Viewed 11656 times

The 'fictional' location chosen from the Alan Godfrey map of Birmingham 1902-11 is nestled between the back of Moor Street Station and the LNWR Curzon Street Goods Station, alongside the Digbeth Branch of (I believe) the Warwick & Birmingham Canal. A quick aerial reconnaissance via Google reveals that Pickford Street is still cobbled and there are some marvellous Canal Offices on Fazeley Street crying out to be modelled.
With a little topographical modelling license (or downright liberty if you prefer) the lines can exit under the arches of the GWR's Duddeston Viaduct.
The plan uses five identical A5 'Y' turnouts, a happy(?) hour on Templot and I have the template. This may allow for some batch building of track work although this remains to be seen. To keep costs and building time down I'm going to use copperclad turnout timbers and a stock of SMP 18.83 flexi-track I have on hand.
The motive power I've collected to date is all Bachmann early emblem BR and, hopefully, is easily convertible to 18.83. A 2251, a 45xx, 3F Jinty and there's a Class 08 shunter in the post - so it's 1954. Hmm, was there much canal/rail interchange traffic in 1954?
I already have Ultrascale wheel sets for the 45xx and the Jinty, conversion of the others can wait until I have something for them to run on. There's Bill Bedford 'W' irons waiting in the box with my Cooper Craft wagon kits - once I've cut new floors (is anything ever straightforward in S4/18.83?) and I have an ever growing shopping list for bits and bobs and odds and sods before I can get properly started - like a set of gauges would probably be a jolly good idea.

Terry Bendall
Posts: 1724
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby Terry Bendall » Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:08 am

Sounds very good Ian. A fairly simple project that could be done in a reasonable amount of time. layouts featuring urban locations are still not very common and lots of scope for scenic modelling. Converting the Jinty is easy and was described by Mike Ainsworth in MRJ 225. The 08 is also easy to do.

ICollett wrote: like a set of gauges would probably be a jolly good idea.


Yes it would ;) . Keep us posted on progress and when it is finished bring it to Scaleforum.

Terry Bendall

User avatar
RobM
Posts: 954
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby RobM » Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:19 am

Welcome to the SGW......an interesting looking urban project :thumb
Keep us posted.
Rob
http://www.robmilliken.co.uk
Updated December 2016

User avatar
Ian Everett
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby Ian Everett » Thu Nov 28, 2013 9:33 am

ICollett wrote:Hmm, was there much canal/rail interchange traffic in 1954?.


Even if the canal/rail interchange traffic had died the yard might well have remained, adapted for other purposes, possibly based on warehouses that had built up originally for the canal, so lots of characterful buildings, with evidence of "history" in their structure.

I imagine that the track would have been buried in stone setts, so copper-clad will be a very quick way of providing accurate track. See Humber Dock - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/62837-humber-dock/

Sounds a fascinating subject and I look forward to seeing more of it.

BTW, I can see a new strand to the workshop - a contest to incorporate the most number of points. I'm not sure I approve - none of my exhibition layouts include more than two! :geek:

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1280
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby Noel » Thu Nov 28, 2013 11:50 am

By 1954 short-haul traffic was already virtually all on the roads rather than canal. Most canal traffic that was left was in high volume, low value bulk cargos, such as industrial coal. The canals had also been nationalised, so competition was modified if not altogether removed. I would think that transshipment would have been minimal or non-existent. As Ian says, the yard could have found another use, perhaps having been kept in use by the GWR to compete with the LMS establishment next door. Such yards were early candidates for rationalisation, but that was a slow process sometimes. The alternative would be to move it a bit further north, when it could be one of the many small yards that lurked down back streets in industrial areas.

Looking at your track plan, does the fiddle yard include a traverser? If not, there are no run-round facilities. Given the second exit to the fiddle yard this will affect what can be done when shunting the yard, and require handling the loco a lot or using a second loco [improbable in reality]. Assuming that your primary interest is operation rather than the the construction it may be worth considering in detail how you will operate the layout, if you have not already done so, before you finalise the design and start building.

Good luck

Noel
Regards
Noel

User avatar
ICollett
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:46 am

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby ICollett » Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:39 pm

Many thanks for the encouraging comments.

Noel - yes the fiddle yard (top part) is a three line traverser to provide run around and Train In/Train Out lines, the two parallel tracks (dashed lines) either side show the traversed positions. There would also be a yard shunter on hand (3F or Class 08) to release incoming locos that would then run back with the brake van to Bordesley Goods Shed, Moor Street or either of the goods yards to the North.

I'll keep reviewing http://warwickshirerailways.com/index.htm for further inspiration.

Clecklewyke - I honestly didn't intend to get up to five turnouts, but the A5 'Y' was so space efficient they just sort of grew. Also by a happy accident they all ended up on just one board - so I'm thinking wire in tube with a GEM lever frame. You're dead right about the local structures though - if you type "Pickford Street Fazeley Street Birmingham" into Google Maps and zoom in on satellite view you'll see what I mean, marvellous early Victorian canal premises on Fazeley Street. In fact there looks to be possible remains of a track bed leading back to the MR's Banbury Street Wharf but there's no line shown on the OS.

I could really use some advice concerning signalling (although that's quite a way off yet) as I really haven't got a clue on the subject and any research I do just leaves me more confused. My 'hunch' is there would be a single Starter visible to tell drivers they can leave the yard and proceed to the main line? Maybe a Distant(?) below the Starter fixed at danger? Apart from that I suspect all the turnouts would be hand levers beside each turnout controlled by the firemen and shunters? No signal box and no point rodding?

Natalie Graham
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:03 pm

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby Natalie Graham » Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:22 pm

ICollett wrote: Hmm, was there much canal/rail interchange traffic in 1954?


BR(LMR) ceased boatage traffic in 1954.They sold their remaining railway boats to the British Waterways Board. Some basins were closed immediately but others continued in use for some time. The former GWR boatage traffic continued until 1969 but was reduced to only four routes from 1950. In both cases private carriers' boats continued until the basins closed. Remember that most railway boat traffic on the BCN was short haul and was carried in double ended day boats without cabins. The archetypal narrowboat pair of a motor and butty would be out of place in a BCN railway interchange basin.

(Guess who else is planning a SGW layout based on a railway interchange basin :D )

User avatar
Flymo748
Posts: 2287
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby Flymo748 » Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:59 pm

Natalie Graham wrote:
ICollett wrote: Hmm, was there much canal/rail interchange traffic in 1954?


BR(LMR) ceased boatage traffic in 1954.They sold their remaining railway boats to the British Waterways Board. Some basins were closed immediately but others continued in use for some time. The former GWR boatage traffic continued until 1969 but was reduced to only four routes from 1950. In both cases private carriers' boats continued until the basins closed. Remember that most railway boat traffic on the BCN was short haul and was carried in double ended day boats without cabins. The archetypal narrowboat pair of a motor and butty would be out of place in a BCN railway interchange basin.

(Guess who else is planning a SGW layout based on a railway interchange basin :D )


Oooh! As someone that lived in the Black Country throughout childhood, the canals were literally my playground. I'm looking forward to these :-)

Flymo
Beware of Trains - occasional modelling in progress!
www.5522models.co.uk

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1280
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby Noel » Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:04 pm

I did not realise that railway boats were in use that late. Thanks for the info, Natalie.

Ian, so far as signalling is concerned, engine movements at a yard remote from the main line would be under the control of a shunter, who would have bell or telephone contact with the signal box at the other end. The only signals would therefore be those needed to admit trains to the line to the yard, or permit exit from that line to the main line, etc., and would be under the control of the signalman. If there was already a train at the yard, then access to the yard line would only be allowed by the signalman after authorisation by the shunter at the yard, the shunter probably having arrived with the first train, rather than being resident. Once permission for a second train to enter had been given, shunting would probably be suspended, officially at least, until the second train arrived, depending on the yard layout. Exit from the yard itself would be by verbal instruction from the shunter after checking with the signalman, the shunter travelling on the last train out. Signals at the yard itself would not be necessary.

Noel
Regards
Noel

Natalie Graham
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:03 pm

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby Natalie Graham » Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:11 pm

A bit more information in the form of a numerical answer to the question of how much interchange traffic there was in that era: In 1948 the traffic at BCN railway basins totalled 224,200 tons and in 1962 was 91,272 tons so one can perhaps interpolate for 1954.

User avatar
ICollett
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:46 am

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby ICollett » Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:18 pm

ICollett wrote:marvellous early Victorian canal premises on Fazeley Street.


A bit more research on this as I realise that the property looks rather more Georgian than Victorian. The Digbeth Branch was cut in 1799, which would be 38 years too early for Victoria, presuming that the offices were built at the time the Digbeth Branch was completed. However, a recent planning permission application to alter the Grade II listed property dates construction as 1840-50. So early Victorian was right, although totally by accident!

http://eplanning.birmingham.gov.uk/Northgate/DocumentExplorer/documentstream/documentstream.aspx?name=public:0901487a8107aaba.pdf+0901487a8107aaba&unique=571407&type=eplprod_DC_PLANAPP

Now how do I get my hands on the Elevation Plans noted in the Drawing Register?

Many thanks Natalie - this is becoming very intriguing, certainly it justifies the proposed activity and it's not another bucolic GWR branch line. And I had better make it clear, here and now, that I have my own plans for a couple of very bucolic GWR branch line models - but just not yet. On the figures you've so kindly provided I make it roughly 126,000 tons of traffic in 1954, 10,000 tons a month. It appears a lot of this would be coal, so there would be seasonal peaks of perhaps 15,000 tons, and if my little wharf saw 10% of that... well it's not exactly hectic at 50 tons a day, but then I don't have much stock built yet anyway.

User avatar
ICollett
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:46 am

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby ICollett » Thu Nov 28, 2013 8:37 pm

Noel wrote:Ian, so far as signalling is concerned, engine movements at a yard remote from the main line would be under the control of a shunter, who would have bell or telephone contact with the signal box at the other end. The only signals would therefore be those needed to admit trains to the line to the yard, or permit exit from that line to the main line, etc., and would be under the control of the signalman...... Signals at the yard itself would not be necessary.
Noel


Great Noel, many thanks, even better than I thought. No signals, no point rodding, keeping it simple and do-able.

User avatar
martinm
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 5:49 pm

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby martinm » Thu Nov 28, 2013 11:20 pm

Now how do I get my hands on the Elevation Plans noted in the Drawing Register?

If you go back to the Planning site and search for 122 Fazeley Street, you will find a whole load of applications.
Some of these have linked at the bottom of the page, at least one, 2012/05065/PA, has two elevations attached as pdf files. There may be more info there, just check all of the applications and their links.
These sites are complex, but having recently been through the planning process myself, I thought I should be able to replicate my searches in the Birmingham site.
Good luck with this and your maodel, it looks an interesting concept,
martin

Natalie Graham
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:03 pm

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby Natalie Graham » Thu Nov 28, 2013 11:55 pm

ICollett wrote: On the figures you've so kindly provided I make it roughly 126,000 tons of traffic in 1954, 10,000 tons a month. It appears a lot of this would be coal


I am not sure that is correct. Most railway interchange traffic in later years was generated by specific industries. For example, Hawne Basin was by far the busiest in terms of tonnage (in 1948 it dealt with more than 3 times the traffic of the next busiest basins) but this was nearly all due to Coombswood Tube Works. Although in earlier times the basins had dealt with general cargoes, of whatever the consignors wished to send, by the time of nationalisation traffic was mainly comprised of regular cargoes from specific works. For example firebricks formed the main cargo at Tipton (Watery Lane) while nuts and bolts (sent in bags) was the main traffic at Shrubbery Basin. Old photos show some interesting cargoes such as very large chains, loads of corrugated iron and quite a few barrels. There are some photos showing boats loaded with coal but the predominant traffic transhipped on the BCN seems to have been the products of the many canalside ironworks in the area along with sanitary ware and ceramic and brick products such as drainage pipes and the aforementioned fire bricks. Indeed the main reason for the decline was not road competition but the closure of these works. It may be that coal for these works would have been sent directly by canal from the most convenient colliery with no advantage in using the railway, whereas the outgoing products were being sent all over the country and so transhipment onto the railways was the best option.

The nature of the traffic does have a distinct advantage for the purposes of modelling a fictitious location, though, as it would be perfectly realistic to suppose a factory or works in the area which was still using the transhipment basin to ship its product thus providing a regular traffic of whatever that product might be.

Alan Turner
Posts: 558
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:24 pm

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby Alan Turner » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:13 am

This is how it looked in 2011.
Faz 4.jpg
Faz 3.jpg
Faz 2.jpg
Faz 1.jpg



regards

Alan

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1280
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby Noel » Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:23 pm

The smaller, red brick building is 122 Fazeley Street and is apparently 1843-4, and the larger, blue brick, one is 106-110 and is from 1850.

Noel
Regards
Noel

User avatar
ICollett
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:46 am

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby ICollett » Sat Nov 30, 2013 2:56 am

Oh my word - this is getting rather complicated. An unintentional naming of a fictional site by a 'pin in the map' selection has revealed a real back story that is becoming very compelling.
Behind these marvellous Fazelely Street buildings is (was) Warwick Wharf. The basin has been filled in and replaced by a concrete mixing yard, but this was the junction of the Grand Union Canal and the Digbeth Branch Canal from the Birmingham Canal Navigations. Another Grade II listed building (1935), known as the "Banana Warehouse" sits below the corner of the junction alongside the "Warwick Bar" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwick_Bar, a special lock that limited the transfer of water between the two separately owned canals. It seems that the warehouse probably never actually held bananas, but was so named because it was owned by Geest, this received fruit delivered via the Grand Union Canal and in my fictional history they will then be shipped on by rail. There are also the industrial buildings behind 106-110 Fazelely Street to be supplied with steel and timber. So we have two canals, an important lock separating/joining them, three Grade II listed buildings that look very suitable for modelling and the Duddeston Viaduct not many yards down the road.
Oh, and the Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof House is on the other side of the Digbeth canal and if you stood on a tall ladder you could probably see the Curzon Street station across the tracks. Quite a lot of industrial heritage in just a few acres.
A picture would be best to illustrate the situation, reproduced from Google as non-commercial "Fair Use" for purpose of illustration only:
Warwick Wharf 2013.PNG


All to fit into a 4' 8.5" scenic length and a 7'6" by 5' shed. Interesting!
I have had a play with my plan and come up with the following -
Possible S4 layout for Warwick Wharf - Fazeley Street.PNG


Although the board sizes look odd they are all 850mm length boards - so they fit in the back of the car and can be bolted into a carrying cradle. The inclusion of the small siding for a yard shunter and the basin going under the tracks are provisional. I think the basin would be a construction nightmare that could bring the project to its knees, also I don't see how the levels would work out. The shunter siding would be dependent on the successful construction of a working three-way turnout. This layout has all sidings bar one longer than the traverser lines (780mm), which isn't a bad train length and means a full train can pull onto the site without fouling the other lines.

Actually the concrete plant might be a better inclusion to the site because delivery of sand, cement and aggregate by rail (and canal) would have been more likely than by lorry in the early fifties. Post-war Birmingham certainly used a huge amount of all three materials, although I have no idea when the concrete plant opened its location would make a lot of sense in 1950's Brum, although I note that work didn't start on the Inner Ring Road Queensways until '57. The Fazeley Street buildings are intended for a supplementary board that is bolted on when the layout is out of the shed - otherwise I don't see how I could occupy the shed at the same time as the model.

On a more practical note, a fairly large order was placed with Alan Gibson Workshop this morning, and my Class 08 has arrived. After ages of searching for an early emblem Bachmann 08 (don't know why, but I like 'em) they are currently available from Model Rail and are selling for £60 on clearance. They are also selling a Dapol Y1 Sentinel that tempted me greatly http://www.modelrailoffers.co.uk/category/1084/Steam_Locomotives but I have other financial requirements for track and trucks to build this layout, also a nice box shaped loco such as this might make a suitable first scratch build project.
Last edited by ICollett on Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

DougN
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:57 am

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby DougN » Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:56 am

Icollett the project is looking more and more promising based in history really makes a reason for its existence. I like your idea of both the original use and the later use as a concrete plant. May be it is the idea of 2 layouts so you can ring the changes if you are so inclined. There is also the mad idea of doing both! :D
Doug
Still not doing enough modelling

Alan Turner
Posts: 558
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:24 pm

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby Alan Turner » Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:33 am

The front of the banana warehouse plus some others.

Faz 5.jpg

Faz 6.jpg

Faz 7.jpg

Faz 8.jpg


regards

Alan

User avatar
ICollett
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:46 am

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby ICollett » Sat Nov 30, 2013 11:15 am

DougN wrote:Icollett the project is looking more and more promising based in history really makes a reason for its existence. I like your idea of both the original use and the later use as a concrete plant. May be it is the idea of 2 layouts so you can ring the changes if you are so inclined. There is also the mad idea of doing both! :D


Blimey - I think one layout at a time - bearing in mind I have no stock or converted motive power at the moment. I am coming down on the side of the concrete plant and I'm not going to get too concerned about the date it came into use - this isn't an exercise in modelling historical accuracy because there wasn't actually a railway on the site. The warehouse, the factory (its purpose and story to be confirmed) at the rear of 106-110 Fazeley Street and the concrete plant give the railway a raison d'etre even though it wasn't there in reality. IMHO the two canals, the Warwick Bar, Banana Warehouse and Fazeley Street buildings give visual interest and stories that can accompany the models - and these must be as historically accurate as is practicable, but the presence of the railway is a fiction.

Possibly getting into philosophically deep water here, should one mix historical location fact (or at least known history) with model railway fiction?

Getting down to brass tacks - is the model 'doable'? I think yes. Does it provide operating interest? It appears that it could make for entertaining shunting sessions with different stock needing to be placed in different locations on the site. Will it 'look' interesting? There are some very appealing elements to the site that would make the model both interesting and give a 'fourth dimension' of the industrial/transport history of Birmingham. So - the main thing now would be to make a start.

A surpringly small box of delights has just arrived from AGW - everything now appears to be available, time to start making.

User avatar
Ian Everett
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby Ian Everett » Sat Nov 30, 2013 11:53 am

ICollett wrote:Possibly getting into philosophically deep water here, should one mix historical location fact (or at least known history) with model railway fiction?



Yes!

Rule 1 applies - it's your train set.

I think you could create a super model combining fact with fiction*, incorporating all those lovely signature items of old Birmingham.

Ian

(* Do I remember an article in an old Railway Modeller by David Jenkinson with this very title?)
Last edited by Ian Everett on Sat Nov 30, 2013 1:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
ICollett
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:46 am

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby ICollett » Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:24 pm

(* Do I remember an article in a old Railway Modeller by David Jenkinson with this very title?)


I used to follow David Jenkinson's 'Little Long Drag' articles avidly in RM - we must be talking 1972/73. This is the sort of question he would pose. I agree, it is my railway and, subject to my presenting relevant things accurately, then the buildings and locations can be used as the inspiration for elements of the model.

Perhaps the layout should carry the standard disclaimer that appears at the end of almost all motion pictures - "The events, buildings and locations presented in this railway model are fictional and any resemblance to actual locations and structures, standing or demolished, are purely coincidental." ;)

User avatar
steve howe
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:16 pm

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby steve howe » Sun Dec 01, 2013 8:13 pm

ICollett wrote: They are also selling a Dapol Y1 Sentinel that tempted me greatly http://www.modelrailoffers.co.uk/category/1084/Steam_Locomotives but I have other financial requirements for track and trucks to build this layout, also a nice box shaped loco such as this might make a suitable first scratch build project.


Forgive my ignorance in such matters (what with being a GWR man and all that) but did any of these Sentinels get used by the LMS in ex-L&Y territory? Just seems it might be a nice conversion project for my dabblings in matters north of Watford ;)

Steve

User avatar
ICollett
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:46 am

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby ICollett » Sun Dec 01, 2013 9:36 pm

steve howe wrote:Forgive my ignorance in such matters (what with being a GWR man and all that) but did any of these Sentinels get used by the LMS in ex-L&Y territory? Just seems it might be a nice conversion project for my dabblings in matters north of Watford ;)
Steve


I cannot claim any significant knowledge in this matter, I just think they are fascinating little bits of motive power. I do have a modelling project in mind once space allows where a Sentinel Y1 is a matter of historical record - but that's for the future. I believe the LNER were the main adopters http://www.lner.info/locos/Y/y1y3.shtml although all the big four gave them a trial. There's some info about LMS use of Sentinel loco's on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Sentinel_7164.

User avatar
ICollett
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:46 am

Re: Starting From Scratch - SGW meets Inglenook

Postby ICollett » Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:02 am

Decisions, decisions, decisions.... I have come to the conclusion that neither the garden shed or the garage are even remotely suitable for layout building or accommodation purposes. Their unsuitability may be exacerbated by it being December, but trying to run a heater in the shed at the same time as a soldering iron managed to blow the ring main circuit breaker, and the garage is even colder and bleaker. My office room in the house is 2m by 2.3m and with a little rotation and reorganisation some sort of shelf 500mm wide can be arranged.
A lot of time has been spent (wasted?) investigating foamboard, expanded polystyrene, etc for baseboards. Meanwhile I have about 10-12m of 69mmx18mm planed timber that has been seasoning, or more likely warping, in the garage for the last 3 years. Finally came to a conclusion and bought two sheets of Sundeala at the weekend because (1) it fits in with materials already to hand (2) it's money in the till of my local model railway shop, the Signal Box in Anstey, which must be one of the last remaining specialist shops in the 'LE' postcode. Have come up with a fiendish plan to marry the Sundeala with high quality 9mm birch ply at the crucial board joints, 305mm square sections of allegedly high quality ply being available at five square feet for a tenner.
Google SketchUp is being used for baseboard design - which along with XTrack CAD and Templot it's another way of 'virtual' modelling for hours without actually making anything!! Hopefully a few hours spent playing with 'virtual' timber and tracks will stop months of frustration down the line?
Meanwhile I have made a small but useful discovery. Accompanying The Management on a shopping trip to her favourite bedding, haberdashery etc. boutique I decided to amuse myself with a look around the kitchen department to see if they had anything that might work as a flat surface that wouldn't respond violently to a bit of soldering as a mirror might. I had been thinking about getting hold of a small oven door window, flat glass heat treated to circa 300-400C and suitable for folding up brass 'W' irons and similar soldered pieces. What I discovered was something called a Trivet, made from polished black granite about 6" square and 3/4" deep with four rubber feet on the base. I imagine you're supposed to put your hot pan on it to protect the wood/melamine kitchen surfaces. It is, however, as far as I can tell perfectly flat, completely impervious to any available cutting equipment, the sides and top appear to be perfectly square, and it seems unaffected by either hot solder or flux. The best bit was the price - £3.99. By holding rail at right angles to the edge and running a file along the side of the block I have been happily filing square ends with just a couple of strokes, and I've been useless at getting anything square without mechanical assistance since metalwork classes with Mr Thorne circa 1971 . Might not be doing the file a whole lot of good, but the block has not a scratch. Of course I can't drill or cut it to attach guides, but double sided tape attaches quite happily, only being removed by hard scraping and White Spirit. An idea is forming for filing of turnout 'V's and blades using Aluminium section stuck/clamped to the Trivet as the filing jigs are both OOS.
Alternatively, it would probably be a better idea to journey over to the Midlands West Area Group with a few of metres of rail and a couple of files and borrow a jig for a couple of hours of filing. The Management permitting of course.


Return to “Standard Gauge Workbench”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests