Selborne

[clayliner]

- there are very few (= zero) contemporary sources for this railway!
Julian

- rather like the Burnbake and Woodyhyde!

David.

[Julian Evison]

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):



Looking from the terminus end



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.



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.

[Julian Evison]

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).



Here is the view underneath

[Julian Evison]

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.



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

[duttonbay]

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.

[cp.409067]

*

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

[Graeme Dunbar]

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

[Julian Evison]

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