Spurred on by the editorial in a recent 009 News about use of the Forum, I thought I should say something about what I am currently building (and have been for the last 12 months). Apologies to those who already know much of this from reading on NGRM-Online but acknowledgements are due to everybody who commented there and helped me develop 'Selborne' to this point.
I am building a new 009 layout which will fit in with some modular standards that we have developed in the Farnham MRC. In essence this means boards 4 foot by 18 inches with one track only going over the ends of a module set back 6 inches from the front. I will be using two of these boards joined together, so the rules on the ends of modules only apply at the outer ends.
I also want to use this as a stand alone exhibition layout and potentially as part of a long term plan at home. My wish is for an imaginary, but plausible, English common carrier at the heavier end of the narrow gauge spectrum (think W&L, C&M, L&M, Barsi, rather than Welsh quarry or industrial).
(https://i.imgur.com/2LsK7jB.png)
Subsequently I have added another short siding to the engine shed area.
When exhibited trains enter from the left from a fiddle yard (cassette type) and the removable piece of track at the right hand end is not in place, effectively giving a terminus. When set up as part of a modular layout, the removable piece is in place and provides a connection through to the next module.
A carriage siding with a carriage shed, a small loco shed and large-ish goods shed are marked. The platform follows the curve on the right and will have a simple set of timber/corrugated iron station buildings attached.
Some people might recognise this plan as a version of Haverhill South on the Colne Valley and Halstead Railway. Iain Rice included it in his Light Railway Layout Designs book. Here is a photo (the one that makes me want to use this as my prototype):
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.disused-stations.org.uk%2Fh%2Fhaverhill_cvh%2Fhaverhill_cv_old4.jpg&hash=76527e858b268a479094e590251b59da66010dea)
Source: www.disused-stations.org.uk/h/haverhill_cvh/haverhill_cv_old4.jpg
I don't know why the Colne Valley adopted this long straggling format because it is set in open farmland away from the town. However in my case I am imagining a narrow site set on a hillside 80 feet above a village which requires something long and thin. The platform being beyond the loop should add some operational interest to shunting a terminal station.
To be continued...
It may be a bit late now, but it is worth knowing that most 009 couplings do not like to couple up on a curve.
It is best to try and make any areas where you would want to couple up straight.
We found this out to our cost many years ago on an exhibition layout that has shunting where a complete siding had to be lifted re-laid as the wagons would not couple up on the curve. The same goes for where locos will be coupling up on to coaches.
What couplings are you going to use?
Are you going to have remote uncoupling or use a hand-held hook of some type?
These choices will be critical to a successful terminus exhibition layout as coupling and uncoupling will be the most common thing you will be doing.
Will this be a DC or DCC layout?
I am sure these questions will be answered in your later posts.
Brian Meldon
Brian,
Thanks for your reply and warning, but I think I should be OK. The couplings will be the semi-standard hook and loop type. I will try to use Greenwich couplings and aim for automatic uncoupling. If that fails then will go for manual uncoupling with a shunting pole - the backscene is low enough to make this feasible.
The layout is DC - which prefer for an exhibition layout because I have a better chance at doing any troubleshooting that is necessary.
Julian
Thw model is called 'Selborne' and is a figment of my imagination. All the places mentioned are real, but the railway is a fiction. Making up these histories is a very enjoyable part of modelling and I like it to be reasonably credible with clear routes and reasons. Sometimes elements are not yet decided as will be clear below, but here, as far as it goes, is the history of the 'Tisted, Selborne and Liss Railway', normally known as the 'Selborne Light'
The Tisted Selborne & Liss Railway
Thank you for sharing this on here, Julian. The audience here may not be so wide, but definitely more discriminating!
As it happens, I have my father's dairy for 1936, and although he certainly records the Old King's death for some reason he seems not to have mentioned the closure of the line - a strange omission.
David.
A good well thought out back story Juilan.
If you are going for Greenwich couplings I would advise against fixed magnets for uncoupling.
Although these do work well at uncoupling they can and often do cause accidental uncoupling and can attract vehicles with steel axles.
Electromagnets do not have a big enough operating area, so the best option is retractable magnets.
Brian Meldon
David,
I am sorry your Father's diary did not include such an important event - there are very few (= zero) contemporary sources for this railway!
Brian,
I hadn't thought about using retractable magnets. Do you do this with a device like a hinged flap?
Julian
The baseboards for this layout (and the other modular layouts belonging to members of the Farnham club) come from the commercial baseboard supplier, Tim Horn.
(https://i.imgur.com/1SBXxOd.jpg)
They are made of rather lovely birch ply and have been laser cut. The parts feel like a real quality product. For the photo I had put the cross pieces in to place on the main board, to show where they fit, but they weren't stuck down.
Each part is engraved with its purpose so even an idiot like me when it comes to woodwork should not make a mistake.
I guess they took a couple of hours each including waiting for glue to dry, but I am sure they can be done quicker. They go together very easily and accurately with everything pre-cut or drilled. The end result is a bit heavy (a function of using 9mm and 6mm ply), more so than if I was making something myself, but I am very happy with the result. The boards mate together nicely using the supplied metal dowels (optional extras). I have not yet added the diagonal cross-pieces because their direction will depend on point motor locations, etc.
(https://i.imgur.com/uaWc81Y.jpg)
Next I got out the unpleasant vibrating saw and attacked the baseboard. Woodwork is definitely my least favourite part of this hobby as it always goes wrong in my hands. I have to accept this and try to minimise the consequences of the inevitable mistakes.
I first repositioned the retaining screws in the baseboard parts that weren't going to be cut away, then set to with the saw. When I had finally finished cutting I felt like lying down in a darkend room with a glass of brandy. However it was done, and the board still seemed pretty stiff which was encouraging. I then added new cross pieces in the area of the hole to 1) provide strengthening and 2) act as a former for the modroc which will fill in the hole.
(https://i.imgur.com/Y88bmmU.jpg)
Quote from: Julian Evison on January 14, 2019, 10:07
Brian,
I hadn't thought about using retractable magnets. Do you do this with a device like a hinged flap?
Julian
Sadly I can not use the Greenwich magnetic couplings myself as I have layouts that pre-date these by many years that all have ramps for uncoupling and i have countless items of rolling stock that would all need the couplings changed. But I do use Greenwich couplings on most of my locos without the loops.
In regard to retractable magnets I have seen this done in different of ways, the first is a hand worked mechanical slide so the magnet slides to one side of the track when not needed, another was a leaver mechanisum and a horizontal solunoid the third was a direct vertical solunoid with the magnet on the end. All were scratch built. The trick in each case is to make it so the magnet is a close to the underside of the track as possiable with perhaps a sheet of thin card under the track.
Brian Meldon
Brian,
Thanks for your advice. I'll have a good think about what I can do.
Julian
Having used electromagnets for quite some time now for uncoupling my DG couplings I'm intrigued by Brian's comments about 'big enough operating area', as I suspect that people's definition of 'enough' will differ - certainly seems to be the case looking at the waistlines on the average U.K. high street!
I'll admit that one does have to be fairly accurate about placing the stock to be uncoupled in that best results are achieved with the ferromagnetic tails over the magnet (maximum attraction = maximum loop lift = best chance of uncoupling), but on the old Latham's Brewery with the PK Magnets (as supplied by Model Signal Engineering) mounted so that the top of the core is level with the tops of the sleepers and run from a plug in transformer supplying 15V AC at 1 amp (ex Netgear modem router thingy) I can get my loops to start to lift at about 10-15mm away from the axis of the magnet core - so that's a length of 'uncoupling' of 20 - 30 mm - and if I run stock over an energised magnet it can flip the loops over the back of the pivot so they stay up. Admittedly the DGs are shorter than the Greenwich (pivot to buffer face) but not by much and I'm sure that Latham's Brewery ran the odd guest loco (& stock) equipped with Greenwich couplings with no problems.
The AC may seem odd, but I've found that this generates and occilating magnetic field that vibrates the loops (useful if they are a bit sticky) and also will not turn the steel droppers into permanent magnets themselves.
To aid coupling/magnet alignment I've used markers such as a dot of white or yellow paint on the sides of the rails facing the operator, specific figures or other scenic items. For example on Latham's there are a number of cats that mark magnets, along with a couple of figures and the oddly-placed barrel.
I also have a feeling that Crumley & Little Whickhill also used electromagnets in conjunction with Paul Windle's own couplings (that are bigger than the Greenwich ones iirc).
Admittedly electromagnets will need another layer of wiring, but then that's probably no more that would be needed for fitting magnets moved by solenoid (or other electro-mechanical means) and has the advantage of not needing the mechanisms to be designed from first principles and built.
It may be worth setting up a test piece (sort length of track on a plywood offcut and an electromagnet with suitable power supply - maybe the 12v output from a controller and some way of measuring the voltage and or current) to see if it will work for you. You'd probably need to do the same with a moving magnet system in any case...
Thanks for your commeents Julien.
20-30 mm range does indeed sound fine to me.
I guess as you say it is the AC that may make the diferance.
Do you have loops on every coupling or only at one end of each vehicle?
The layouts I have seen with electromagnets required very acurate positioning to get them to work.
That said the ramps I use with the standard Egger/Bemo type couplings also require quite acurate positioning, but not as much as the layouts I have opperated with electromagnets.
However I have never worked one of your layouts.
Brian Meldon
I have loops on the couplings at both ends Brian, mainly because I'm lazy (couldn't be bothered with the faff of have to check which way around each bit of stock was) but also because I use cassette fiddle yards that meant trains could be turned (thereby undoing all the hard work of putting the stock on the right way around!).
Quote from: JulienW on January 15, 2019, 13:11
I have loops on the couplings at both ends Brian, mainly because I'm lazy (couldn't be bothered with the faff of have to check which way around each bit of stock was) but also because I use cassette fiddle yards that meant trains could be turned (thereby undoing all the hard work of putting the stock on the right way around!).
As I use DG couplings and electromagnets in the same manner as Julien I can only agree wholeheartedly with his comments, does that make me lazy too? Nah... I just can't be bothered with the hassle of checking each item of rolling stock is the correct way round at an exhibition.
John.
Quote from: JulienW on January 15, 2019, 13:11
I have loops on the couplings at both ends Brian, mainly because I'm lazy (couldn't be bothered with the faff of have to check which way around each bit of stock was) but also because I use cassette fiddle yards that meant trains could be turned (thereby undoing all the hard work of putting the stock on the right way around!).
Yes I also have loops at both ends of all the rolling stock but no loops on any of the locos.
As I mentioned I use the Egger/Bemo type couplings with uncoupling ramps.
Brian Meldon
Quote from: Julian Evison on January 14, 2019, 10:07
- there are very few (= zero) contemporary sources for this railway!
Julian
- rather like the Burnbake and Woodyhyde!
David.
Thanks for all the helpful information about uncoupling mechanisms. All stored for future consideration.
The layout has been designed to fit on the existing trestles and girders of my current 0-16.5 layout St. Mary's which makes life much easier than starting from scratch.
Most of the track was recovered from my previous 009 layout Khan when I took that layout to pieces. The 18" radius points are new, but the 12" points are also re-used. The boards have been bolted together with a sheet of thin cardboard in between. This is so that as the track is slit (it is laid across the baseboard join), the gaps over the baseboard joins are minimised.
Looking from the fiddle yard end (FY not yet built, but I have the woodwork):
(https://i.imgur.com/fytJpQq.jpg)
Looking from the terminus end
(https://i.imgur.com/12gNU8x.jpg)
The gapping was done using the sharp edge of a triangular file, the boards unbolted the thin bits of cardboard removed and then bolted together.
(https://i.imgur.com/RKA3lRo.jpg)
On reflection the cutting disk give a slightly wider cut than I had been expecting. I used two pieces of cardboard (from a cereal packet) for each spacer. Perhaps four would have been better. However trials of 4 wheel and bogies vehicles being run over the gap were successful so no harm done.
Holes have been cut in the baseboard for the control panel switches and the interboard connectors. I had to pluck up sufficient courage to use the vibrating saw again, but it is done.
I had a change of plan on powering the layout. I was going to use the power supplies and controller I use on my current layout, but will now re-use the Morley Vector that did excellent service on Khan. This simplifies matters as I don't have to buy a CDU and I only need one DIN plug to make the connections.
The control panel has been made and installed. The rotary switch (top left) is about selecting which controller can run the routes marked in red - own second controller, the controller on the module to the left, or the one to the right. The section switches on the red sections are three position: local control, off, or determined by the rotary switch. By contrast, the black track is either controlled locally or off (isolated).
(https://i.imgur.com/Nt0cx3u.jpg)
Here is the view underneath
Despite the silence and a few other calls on my modelling time, work has been continuing on Selbourne. I have been fitting point motors and found that in one case a Peco PL10 solenoid will not fit as I had got too close to a baseboard support. I then remembered something that Dave Malton of Peco had mentioned that it should be possible to use one of the relatively new Peco PL-11 surface mount solenoids with a 009 point. I think they are intended primarily for 00 gauge code 100 points where they are a simple fit. Using one to drive a 'Mainline' 18" 009 point is slightly more complex.
Firstly, to get the drive arm to reach the point, the two long timbers on the point by the tie bar need to be cut back to a suitable length to allow the arm to fit over the pip on the tie bar. Similarly, two other sleepers need to be cut back. None of this interferes with the integrity of the point or the point motor. Track pins are then driven through the four mounting holes in the point motor and the wires for the power are simply fed down a hole drilled in the baseboard. That is it - quick and easy. The downside it that it all looks a bit clunky, but most people won't notice and other solutions involving bell cranks or wire in tube driven by a point motor are more complex.
Here is a picture of how it looks as installed. I am confident that a lot of it can be hidden away by careful ballasting, etc.
(https://i.imgur.com/raoMLFA.jpg)
The point motor is a bit chunky and quite close to the track, so I did a few trials to make sure it did not file any rolling stock, which, indeed it didn't.
Julian
I think you might need more of the "etc" than ballasting to hide that. But it's nice to know those point motors will work the 009 points.
*
Julian
This is simply thinking out loud.
It looks as if the track is mounted on a sub-base of material that might be relatively soft and easy to work. If that is the case would it have been possible (so as to speak) to excavate a trench and mount the point motor upside down in it. And were that possible would the motor then be less intrusive?
CP
There are bases with extension rods for standard Peco point actuators for above board mounting.
https://www.hattons.co.uk/46817/peco_products_pl_12x_pair_of_adapter_bases_for_peco_point_motors/stockdetail.aspx (https://www.hattons.co.uk/46817/peco_products_pl_12x_pair_of_adapter_bases_for_peco_point_motors/stockdetail.aspx)
(https://hattonsimages.blob.core.windows.net/products/PL-12X_41279_Qty1_2.jpg)
Christopher - the track work (and the point motor) are mounted on 3mm thick cork. I hadn't though about mounting it upside down. The height of the point motor from the bottom to the top of the domed section is approximately 12mm. However this would not be the depth of the excavation as the motor arm would still have to attach to the tie bar, so probably an excavation of about 7mm would be needed.
Graeme - thank you. I have used the base and extension arm before and have one 'in stock' recovered from a previous layout. However, I thought I would try something new, partly becuae the throwing arm would need to pass under at least one more track until I could find space for something to cover the motor.
Julian