Scalefour Forum

Terry Bendall wrote:That should look good. The alternative to save building so many wagons is to have removable loads and not have them passing.

Indeed but where's the fun in that

John

John Donnelly wrote:

Colin Parks wrote:Nice looking wagon building John.

Your are going to need boxfuls of them to fill that projected layout of yours. As a matter of interest, how many iron ore wagons do you need for a train load?!

All the best,

Colin

Cheers Colin. The iron ore wagons ran in rakes of 9 so, as I'd like to be able to have full and empty trains passing at the junction, I'm going to have to build 18 of them...

John

Hi John,

That is some wagon-building program for you then.

Nine wagons sounds like quite a decent load for a loco to haul. Those wagons look heavy!

All the best,

Colin

Planning for the layout is never far from my mind albeit, as this will be my 'layout of a lifetime' there is no rush at the minute.

I've been reading and re-reading an article in MRJ 152 by Dave Bradwell where he describes the planning and rationale behind his model based on the Derwenthaugh area of the River Tyne (right next to the Metro Centre for this familiar with the area) and amongst others, he makes a very good point that really got me thinking about the layout design and it relates to the fiddle yard.

For those not familiar with the article in question, why, he reasons, do we give up almost 50% of the layout to a set of hidden sidings (as he says, are we really not going to look where the trains are going) when the same space could be given over to somewhere for the trains to 'go'. With this in mind, I've decided to forego the traditional fiddle yard opposite the junction and instead, model Consett station. As there was a coal yard at the station, it gives the coal trains somewhere to go rather than just going round and round and it will enable me to indulge in some shunting. It also has a number of sidings where I can quite legitimately stable both steel and coal trains. There will be a couple of hidden loops but the curves at one end of the layout that lead from Stella Gill will still enable me to stable a large number of trains.

So, with that in mind, I've cracked open Templot and have made a start on trying to produce the track plan using a 1:2500 OS map from 1968 as the template and, whilst I'm still getting used to the nuances of Templot so there may well be a lot I'm doing wrong, this is what I've got so far:



John

Some progress on the layout, if only in a digital form for now...

The last time I visited the guys building South Pelaw in EM, I was able to take a photo of one of their drawings for the footbridge at the Washington end of the junction and, from that, I've started to do my own CAD drawing. I've never used a CAD program before but I downloaded LibreCAD tonight and made a start. There is still some tweaking to be done but it is getting there...

First, the real thing:



And my first draft CAD drawing:



John

After a very pleasurable weekend operating the EM gauge version of South Pelaw Junction (http://southpelawem.blogspot.com) at RailexNE, it gave me a lot of food for thought about my version. My original plan was to keep the track plan as it was in around 1965 even though that would be inappropriate for the vast majority of the timescale that the layout is set in. I really don't want my layout to be a copy of the EM version so I've decided on a pretty fundamental change and to model the track layout as it was in 1971 which means that the Pelton end of the junction goes from this:



to this:



resulting in a lot less point work to build as it has lost a single slip, a three way turnout and a four other turnouts. It also means that, at this end, there will be only two tracks in to the fiddle yard massively simplifying things. You also get to see the 'ghost' of the old point work which, visually, will be interesting. The signalling also becomes a lot simpler...

This is how it looked in real life:

That sounds like a wise move John.

There was/is a whole team involved in constructing the EM version of South Pelaw, it would take a very great effort to complete a project of that scale on your own. Then there is all the stock that you require. Even in 1971, there must have been quite a few trains, all of which you will have to build or convert from RTR models in order to replicate the scene.


Colin

Cheers Colin,

I'm now very privileged to be part of that team It has taken them 10 years to get where they are albeit their version goes beyond the scenic section that I'm planning, I've become very aware of how long this project is likely to take but, as my 'layout of a lifetime' I'm in no rush...

John

Managed to get stonework and the painting and weathering of pier 1 completed last week:





The girder sections are going to need a repaint though as examination of photos from the 1970s show the sections as a light grey rather than the dark grey when the bridge was demolished.

John

Hello John,

The bridge is looking very convincing. The effort you have put into the texture of the stonework has certainly paid off.

All the best,

Colin

Modelling, of a sort tonight...

Whilst I've had a Templot plan of the junction for some time, it was based on a 1:2500 scale map and, as such, it was never likely to be a perfect match to the location, allowing for the scale of the map and it being blown up in to Templot to draw over the top of.

One thing I do know, however, is that the bridge I've been building is accurate as it is based on measurements taken from the real thing so I figured it was about time to see how accurate the Templot drawing I have is and this is the result:



Close but not close enough so the layout is going to need some tweaking...

Looking at the above image of how it looked in real life, the tracks seem to converge anyway towards the camera. Hopefully you can tweak things without affecting all the complicated trackwork in the foreground.

Yes, from examination of photos tonight, I've already concluded that the two tracks to the right are too straight so they will be curved and then if I slew the two centre tracks to the left slightly, everything starts to line up...

Excellent

Almost there:

John Donnelly wrote:Almost there:

oooh! bound sets of the MRJ ... the perfect setting

Le Corbusier wrote:oooh! bound sets of the MRJ ... the perfect setting

Just wish I'd ordered more when they were available...

It is still possible, although not advertised, to have volumes of MRJ bound by bookbinders. I use Grays in Mitcham, and have done since the birth of MRJ. Cygnet send indices for the binding to Grays each year and the result is very good. The last one cost me £40, carriage is extra.

Philip

Basic stonework on the last two piers is now complete. Just the wing wall to build for the right hand pier (the diagonal strip on the front of the right hand pier is to support the wing wall) then it'll be on to texturing each stone with the dremel then painting...

The bridge is coming along nicely John.....a lot quicker than mine did!

Pete

Stone work (with the exception of the caps for the piers) is now complete, base coat is on and weathering is well underway. The grey sections at the bottom will be underground once the bridge is on the layout. Next up is some more details on the spans and to respray them in the light gray the carried in the 1970s. I decided early on not to detail the under side of the spans as, once on the layout, the bridge sits in a cutting so from any normal viewing angle, the under side will be invisible.

Nearly finished, capping stones to be done and some cable supports on the front of the spans still to be done...

The grey 'road' surface in picture 1 won't be seen at all once finished as there will be a path with lots of vegetation either side once I'm done.

One of the reasons for the lack of progress on the layout itself is that I really have no where to put it up in it's entirety. This is about to change as I've been offered (along with a friend who models in O gauge) this space:



The room is around 100' * 30' with another room at the far end of about 40' * 20' so plenty space to play with...

Wow!! 40x20 is bigger than our club room.

Phil.

Phil O wrote:Wow!! 40x20 is bigger than our club room.

Phil.

We're very fortunate to have been offered the space. There are a couple of Ts to cross and Is to dot but it should be home for the layout soon.

Whens the party?