Castle Aching

[Donw]

My portable layout was at the stage of bare boards apart from the track and as a result of a house move the boards were stacked in a garage with other stuff whilst the kitchen was moved and the loft made habitable. Unfortunately the garage roof proved to be useless and let in a deluge causing a lot of damage. We decided to bin the microwave as it was halfway to being a fish tank. The baseboard on the top of the stack had protected the two underneath but a period of intense rain (floods all over the place) had caused some warping. The other two were showing some signs of mold as was varnished furniture under plastic sheets but the boards were sanded and scenery has been added. 

I hasten to add that I do not recommend this treatment and it was fortunate the scenic work had not begun.

 

Don

[nick_bastable]

Well, you anticipate my next question.

 

The ply frames and the softwood legs will be varnished.

 

There is very little base board, 9mm ply under the station/yard area and the track bed.  What to do with this?

 

Well, obviously I will varnish the underside and the edges. 

 

I will not varnish the top side as this will either be covered in cork or painted.

 

But, do I varnish the top of the cork?  I would have thought not. I will need to stick the Templot print-out on to it and then the whole will no doubt be sealed with PVA as a result of ballasting.

cork is impervious to moisture so no need to varnish, sorry I appear to have given you extra work  what with interlaced sleepers and varnishing     if you do varnish a bit that later needs glue just roughen it up with sandpaper 

 

Nick

[Hroth]

If a visiting engine were too long for the local turntable, you could always uncouple the tender and turn loco and tender separately....

 

Or run light engine to the nearest triangle/bigger turntable (ie the fiddle yard) for turning.  I seem to remember* this sort of activity in one of the "Railway Roundabout" films concerning the annual meeting of some railway society at Barmouth and the locos (a couple of Dukedogs) being run light to Dovey Junction for turning.....

 

*Only from the DVDs!

[Edwardian]

Slater's Johnson 4-4-0? Do you mean the ancient Ratio kit? You have one? Hen's teeth! But, if so, it's no good for a 2203 / M&GN Johnson - it's a 1312 class, so, ironically, would fit on a 45' table (if the 1911 list is to be believed). I don't believe there is any 4 mm scale kit available for any of the longer-coupled-wheelbase engines - London Road Models do the 1808 class, with 8'6" coupled wheelbase...

 

... agh! Just realised I've fallen into a minefield! Clark's book says the M&GN engines were part of the 2203 class with which they were contemporary; London Road Models say their 1808 class kit is good for the M&GN engines... and indeed the dimensions listed in Clark's book do seem to be those of an 1808 (excepting half-an-inch larger cylinder diameter) and they look very alike in photos - the 2203 class is clearly different; the extra 6" alters the sweep of the splashers and they've got the drum-head smokebox. Actually the differences between an 1808 and a 1312 aren't so great; the Ratio kit (with appropriate back-dating at the front end) could pass muster.

 

But you still need a 46' table...

 

How would CA handle a too-long locomotive? With the arriving train drawn off, is there a triangle at the off-stage junction?

 

My memory is that the Johnsons used on the M&GN were derived from the 1808. But then again, I have the memory of a fruit fly.

 

Paul

 

Yes, I do mean the Ratio kit.  And I think I've one of the 2-4-0s lurking somewhere.

 

I believe the ones built for the M&GN were essentially 1808s. 

 

So, if I understand you correctly:

 

(a) I can turn one if I have a 46' table; and,

 

(b) I can adapt the ratio kit to an 1808?

[Regularity]

Right, I dug out the December 1980 Model Railways re Warwick Bridge, and it referred me back to March 1979, re Wylam (an EM gauge layout built more than 40 years ago).

 

Track

 

The NER used ash ballast tightly packed to the tops of the sleepers on its secondary lines and the method I used in building the track was an attempt to simulate this. The track is built to EM Gauge Society standards, the distance between the rails being 18.2mm on straight sections with extra gauge widening on curves.

 

1) The positions of the rails were drawn straight onto the base chipboard using straight edges, 3 track gauge template and curved templates of the required radii. Then the boundary limits of the NER ash ballast were marked, these extended into the goods yard and various other areas.

 

2) As a substitute for cork which is expensive and too granular for NER ballast, padfelt, a linoleum underlay was used. This was cut to the shape of the area marked above and glued in place with PVA.

 

3) When the glue had set and the wrinkles had disappeared the underlay was painted with poster colours to represent the ash ballast. The basic recipe for this colour is a veryj‘dark grey base mixed with yellow ochre, burnt scinna and a little green. Several trials were needed until the correct colour I was aiming at was obtained—poster paints dry considerably lighter than when wet. For matching I use a colour photograph of some ash ballasted track taken at South Penshaw.

 

4) The track plan was then drawn again as in (1) but this time as accurately as possible.

 

5) The sleepers were made using black paper which had been painted in ‘sleeper' colour (dark brown, grey, yellow ochre) brushed in one direction to give a wood grain effect and cut to a scale 9 feet in length in line with the grain, on a guillotine. The sleepers were then pasted onto the track plan in sections of about 1 foot at a time and immediately afterwards a small amount of loose ballast was sprinkled on top to give a better ash texture between the sleepers. When dry the track plan was still visible provided the sprinkling ofthe ballast was not overdone. The NER used interlaced sleepering on their paintwork and so 9 foot sleeper lengths were used throughout the layout apart from the single slip at the end of the up platform. Small holes were then pressed through the sleepers to mark the positions of the chairs. The chairs were then tapped into place, these are steel tacks with oval heads available from the EMGS. The rails were then soldered into place using the usual gauges. I used ’N’ gauge copper clad strips for the pointwork tiebars, operating in slots cut into the padfelt underlay.

 

10) Once the trackwork was complete and working, the rails and chairs were given a coat of rust coloured paint.

 

11) The track not seen by the public was built using the well known copper clad sleeper method.

 

I don’t know about the supply of tacks, but this is not dissimilar to Peter Denny’s method using old wood veneer, and is a very cheap but effective way to make track: the tacks even lift the rails slightly. One idea of the late reverend which I think was a good idea, was a small blob of filler on the inside of the rail, representing the smaller part of the chair.

[Compound2632]

There was more to whether a loco would fit on a turntable than just the wheelbase.  If the 'table was hand operated it was much easier to turn if the loco was balanced on it i.e. the centre of gravity of the loco was over the central pivot of the 'table.  This meant that there was much less of the weight on the outer carrying wheels and so less force required to turn it.   The CG of a loco was not necessarily at the mid point of the wheelbase and was obviously affected by how much coal and water were in the tender.

 

It wasn't unusual for a driver to move the loco slightly backwards and/or forwards a few times in an attempt to get it as well balanced as possible.

 

Jim

 

I was quoting the official view - no doubt there were drivers up and down the Midland system cursing officialdom as they cautiously shuffled their bogie passenger engines a few inches either way to find the sweet spot on a 46' turntable...

 

Yes, I do mean the Ratio kit.  And I think I've one of the 2-4-0s lurking somewhere.

 

I believe the ones built for the M&GN were essentially 1808s. 

 

So, if I understand you correctly:

 

(a) I can turn one if I have a 46' table; and,

 

(b) I can adapt the ratio kit to an 1808?

 

(a) that's the official view.

 

(b) that's also the official view... Apart from modifying the Deeley-fied front end and extending the footplate, you will have to replace everything under the footplate to achieve a working model. I bought the Ratio 2-4-0 kit in about 1981; I've had a go at it about once every ten years and I'm not there yet. But it can be done.

[Regularity]

My ranking of the BP and the Johnson was based purely upon their perceived suitability for CA.

 

So, would 46' do it?

 

I haven't built the TT yet.  I have expanded my plan of a Victorian 40' table to 45', precisely so things like the Beyer Peacock could visit. 

 

I recall reading somewhere that the larger engines were used more on the western half of the joint, and were more likely to appear at places like Leicester. If I am correct - and I may not be - then a through working from Leicester via the Joint is a good excuse for one of these.

 

As for the diameter, some turntables were “extended” without the need for a new well or table by the simple expedient of fitting longer rails to the turntable. Quite a few GER 45’ turntables were extended to 48’, and 42’ to 45’, by this manner. I suspect that this was the maximum extension possible, and the approach tracks probably had two very closely spaced sleepers at the very end of the rail.

 

Having a 45’ table and well, with slightly longer rails, would be perfectly acceptable.

What do you think? Should I extent a further foot to 46?

What do I think?

I think you have a variety of options based on prototype practice, but ultimately this is a Model Railway in less space than a real one would require, and running on an unknown gauge of 4’1.5” to boot, therefore you are at liberty to find as many unusual Pro typical exceptions to the usual as you are happy to accommodate!

[Compound2632]

Having a 45’ table and well, with slightly longer rails, would be perfectly acceptable.

What do I think?

I think you have a variety of options based on prototype practice, but ultimately this is a Model Railway in less space than a real one would require, and running on an unknown gauge of 4’1.5” to boot, therefore you are at liberty to find as many unusual Pro typical exceptions to the usual as you are happy to accommodate!

 

Advantage of 00: as the rails are closer together, i.e. nearer the centre-line of the turntable, they will be very slightly longer than the prototype dimension...

Edited October 3, 2017 by Compound2632

[Nearholmer]

As well as detaching tenders, didn't railways sometimes resort to outrigger thingies that clipped/clamped to the rails, increasing the effective length of the turntable slightly? I'm sure I've seen a picture, or maybe I dreamt it after eating cheese at bedtime. The outriggers sloped slightly upwards, to clear the rails on terra firma.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Nearholmer

[runs as required]

I think you have a variety of options based on prototype practice, but ultimately this is a Model Railway in less space than a real one would require, and running on an unknown gauge of 4’1.5” to boot, therefore you are at liberty to find as many unusual Pro typical exceptions to the usual as you are happy to accommodate!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All generalisations are false

 shurely  this is paradoxical advice ?

dh

Edited October 3, 2017 by runs as required

[Hroth]

As well as detaching tenders, didn't railways sometimes resort to outrigger thingies that clipped/clamped to the rails, increasing the effective length of the turntable slightly? I'm sure I've seen a picture, or maybe I dreamt it after eating cheese at bedtime. The outriggers sloped slightly upwards, to clear the rails on terra firma.

I think I've seen/read something like that too, but I couldn't even begin to think of nailing down a source, so well done for sticking your head above the parapet.... 

 

It sounds pretty rural, an expedient to be found on the most impecunious of organisations.  Hmm, perhaps one should look in the Col Stephens fold.......

[Hroth]

... ultimately this is a Model Railway in less space than a real one would require, and running on an unknown gauge of 4’1.5” to boot ...

Then as linear distance is being compressed for effect, a selective minor 12% compression of lateral distance is more than perfectly acceptable!

 

Coatski, Hatski, Outski.....    No doubt chased by some member of the Ursine tribe.  Preferably well stuffed....

[Edwardian]

And they say Great Western locomotives all look the same .....

 

I don't have any Midland loco books.  Yet. So I turn to Wiki and brace myself against the onslaught of Angry Wyverns.

 

Wiki tells me that Johnson produced 12 classes of 4-4-0 for the Midland between 1876 and 1900.

 

Twelve classes of 4-4-0.  Yes, twelve.  Twelve, by the same designer to the same wheel arrangement. Twelve in 24 years.  That averages out at a different class every 2 years.  For goodness sake.

 

And, to anyone other than the Derby Cognoscenti, they all look pretty much the same!

 

But, before making a grab for my hat and coat, I note that the 1312 Class of 1876 (apparently the Ratio kit) has 6'6" coupled wheels, as does the 1808 Class of 1888  (as built for the M&GN as the Joint's Class C, 1894-1899).  Can I rashly assume that the wheelbase of the coupled wheels is the same for both classes? 

 

What about the rest of the wheelbase?  Not so crucial as the coupled wheels.

 

Over the course over twelve iterations of basically the same locomotive, one would have thought that Johnson might have managed some noticeable differences, or did he just sit there saying "Hmm, what next? 6'6" drivers or 7' drivers? I know, eany, meany, miney mo ..."?

 

What about boilers? 

 

I believe that the 1808 Class was of the Johnson 'slim boiler' ilk.  The Midland, I believe, subsequently fitted larger Deeley H boilers.  If the Ratio kit, which represents the ex-MR condition and features a later, presumably Deeley, smoke-box door, featured an H boiler of larger external dimensions, the Ratio kit is looking less useful.  The reason is that the M&GN C Class locos did not evolve in the same way. Typically, they retained their slim boilers, but gained extended smoke-boxes, and, aside from 3 locos fitted with H boilers in 1908, received G7 and G6 boilers much later.

 

But!  The Ratio kit is believed to be the 1312 Class, and, Wiki says, the 1312 Class never received larger boilers! 

 

Had Ratio produced a model of the correct class, 1808, in ex-MR condition, it would have had the wrong boiler.  But Ratio's kit of the wrong locomotive appears to have the right boiler.   

 

Thus, to my untutored eye, the main changes necessary to the Ratio kit would seem to be the fitting of a dished Johnson smoke-box door, a different smoke-box saddle and a different front frame/valance and rear valance steps.

 

If I were to have one, it would be very much as built in terms of boiler and smoke-box, because the first extended smoke-box was not fitted until 1907.

 

CA is set in 1905.  In 1903, it is understood, lamp irons were re-arranged in conformity with Midland practice.  In 1906, tablet exchange apparatus was fitted to the tender sides.  Thus, for a 1905 layout, I need to reproduce the 1903-1906 condition.  

Edited October 3, 2017 by Edwardian

[Compound2632]

And they say Great Western locomotives all look the same .....

 

I don't have any Midland loco books.  Yet. So I turn to Wiki and brace myself against the onslaught of Angry Wyverns.

 

Wiki tells me that Johnson produced 12 classes of 4-4-0 for the Midland between 1876 and 1900.

 

Twelve classes of 4-4-0.  Yes, twelve.  Twelve, by the same designer to the same wheel arrangement. Twelve in 24 years.  That averages out at a different class every 2 years.  For goodness sake.

 

And, to anyone other than the Derby Cognoscenti, they all look pretty much the same!

 

But, before making a grab for my hat and coat, I note that the 1312 Class of 1876 (apparently the Ratio kit) has 6'6" coupled wheels, as does the 1808 Class of 1888  (as built for the M&GN as the Joint's Class C, 1894-1899).  Can I rashly assume that the wheelbase of the coupled wheels is the same for both classes? 

 

What about the rest of the wheelbase?  Not so crucial as the coupled wheels.

 

What about boilers? 

 

I believe that the 1808 Class was of the Johnson 'slim boiler' ilk.  The Midland, I believe, subsequently fitted larger Deeley H boilers.  If the Ratio kit, which represents the ex-MR condition and features a later, presumably Deeley, smoke-box door, featured an H boiler of larger external dimensions, the Ratio kit is looking less useful.  The reason is that the M&GN C Class locos did not evolve in the same way. Typically, they retained their slim boilers, but gained extended smoke-boxes, and, aside from 3 locos fitted with H boilers in 1908, received G7 and G6 boilers much later.

 

But!  The Ratio kit is believed to be the 1312 Class, and, Wiki says, the 1312 Class never received larger boilers! 

 

Had Ratio produced a model of the correct class, 1808, in ex-MR condition, it would have had the wrong boiler.  But Ratio's kit of the wrong locomotive appears to have the right boiler.   

 

Thus, to my untutored eye, the main changes necessary to the Ratio kit would seem to be the fitting of a dished Johnson smoke-box door, a different smoke-box saddle and a different front frame/valance and rear valance steps.

 

If I were to have one, it would be very much as built in terms of boiler and smoke-box, because the first extended smoke-box was not fitted until 1907.

 

CA is set in 1905.  In 1903, it is understood, lamp irons were re-arranged in conformity with Midland practice.  In 1906, tablet exchange apparatus was fitted to the tender sides.  Thus, for a 1905 layout, I need to reproduce the 1903-1906 condition.  

 

What Johnson did was to pursue a policy of gradual experimentation and improvement. This went hand-in-hand with building batches of 6'6" and 7'0" engines for different parts of the Midland system. Over time, there's a gradual increase in boiler pressure from 140psi to 170psi, cylinders going from 17 1/2" x 26" to 19" x 26", larger grate area (hence the longer coupled wheelbase of the later engines), and of course the adoption of piston valves (150 class, along with the 115 class singles) owing to his friendship with W.M. Smith. There was a batch of ten with Joy valve gear - not a success. Remember that while the passenger engines were built in 10s or 20s, mostly at Derby, the standard 0-6-0 goods engines were being turned out in their hundreds, mostly by the private builders. Passenger engines were Johnson's opportunity to try things out - unlike the LNWR, the Midland's passenger business was a small fraction of its total business.

 

The differences between the 1808 class (and M&GN engines) and the 1312 class are mostly hidden, e.g. higher boiler pressure. The only leading external dimension that differs is that on the later engines, the boiler is pitched 1/2" higher...

 

EDIT: for 1905, you can ignore reboilering issues for these engines. The Ratio kit represents a survivor to LMS days of a member of the 1312 class. The reboilering program (and eventual renewal to superheated 483 class - forerunner of the LMS standard 2P) worked backwards from the newest engines and never reached the oldest engines. Thus the only problem area with the Ratio kit for an engine in c 1905 condition is the Deeley chimney, smokebox door, and riveted smokebox wrapper.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Compound2632

[runs as required]

Here is a wonderful drawing of a loco similar to one of those 4-4-0s I have had in my plan chest for about 30 years - drawn at a scale of an inch and a quarter to a foot!

I've always assumed it to be a Derby General Arrangement drawing  It is signed below No. 1128 on the top left by S Hunter; at the top right is the stencilled E 850

But might it be a Neilson Reid draughtsman producing a drawing as confirmation of what they have contracted to deliver?

Can anyone confirm this

 

There is a wonderful balance about that section: how the firebox sits beautifully between the drivers; the valve gear, and the cylinders in relation to the blast pipe and chimney; and the graceful detailing of the steam collection pipework in the dome and the Salter safety valve.

dh

Edited October 3, 2017 by runs as required

[Fenman]

And they say Great Western locomotives all look the same .....

 

I don't have any Midland loco books. Yet. So I turn to Wiki and brace myself against the onslaught of Angry Wyverns.

 

Wiki tells me that Johnson produced 12 classes of 4-4-0 for the Midland between 1876 and 1900.

 

Twelve classes of 4-4-0. Yes, twelve. Twelve, by the same designer to the same wheel arrangement. Twelve in 24 years. That averages out at a different class every 2 years. For goodness sake.

 

And, to anyone other than the Derby Cognoscenti, they all look pretty much the same!

 

But, before making a grab for my hat and coat, I note that the 1312 Class of 1876 (apparently the Ratio kit) has 6'6" coupled wheels, as does the 1808 Class of 1888 (as built for the M&GN as the Joint's Class C, 1894-1899). Can I rashly assume that the wheelbase of the coupled wheels is the same for both classes?

 

What about the rest of the wheelbase? Not so crucial as the coupled wheels.

 

Over the course over twelve iterations of basically the same locomotive, one would have thought that Johnson might have managed some noticeable differences, or did he just sit there saying "Hmm, what next? 6'6" drivers or 7' drivers? I know, eany, meany, miney mo ..."?

 

What about boilers?

 

I believe that the 1808 Class was of the Johnson 'slim boiler' ilk. The Midland, I believe, subsequently fitted larger Deeley H boilers. If the Ratio kit, which represents the ex-MR condition and features a later, presumably Deeley, smoke-box door, featured an H boiler of larger external dimensions, the Ratio kit is looking less useful. The reason is that the M&GN C Class locos did not evolve in the same way. Typically, they retained their slim boilers, but gained extended smoke-boxes, and, aside from 3 locos fitted with H boilers in 1908, received G7 and G6 boilers much later.

 

But! The Ratio kit is believed to be the 1312 Class, and, Wiki says, the 1312 Class never received larger boilers!

 

Had Ratio produced a model of the correct class, 1808, in ex-MR condition, it would have had the wrong boiler. But Ratio's kit of the wrong locomotive appears to have the right boiler.

 

Thus, to my untutored eye, the main changes necessary to the Ratio kit would seem to be the fitting of a dished Johnson smoke-box door, a different smoke-box saddle and a different front frame/valance and rear valance steps.

 

If I were to have one, it would be very much as built in terms of boiler and smoke-box, because the first extended smoke-box was not fitted until 1907.

 

CA is set in 1905. In 1903, it is understood, lamp irons were re-arranged in conformity with Midland practice. In 1906, tablet exchange apparatus was fitted to the tender sides. Thus, for a 1905 layout, I need to reproduce the 1903-1906 condition.

Apologies, I didn't take in much of that because my eyes waere distracted by the lower photo, of the gorgeous M&GN engine. She is a completely seductive little minx.

 

Although from the image above, the model looks as if it's been stamped on, producing a longer but squatter loco. Somehow the elegant proportions of the original are lost. Weird.

 

Did I say how lovely that M&GN engine was?

 

Paul

[mullie]

A ludicrously late reply (also ludicrous, since your question was probably rhetorical...).

 

Mostly sand, but some shingle (eg, Heacham and Snettisham ("Snet" to the locals), depending on weird currents).

 

There are very significant sand deposits inland though - a 3 mile stub branch from Lynn to Ashwicken (the first part of the Lynn-Dereham, connecting Lynn and Norwich - and not recommended for the axe by the Good Doctor. We have the "saintly" Gerry Fiennes to thank for that...) survived Beeching and post-Beeching cuts as a freight-only branch.

 

Still used today - 3 or 4 trains per week - to take high-grade industrial sand for glass-making.

 

The very substantial disused quarries nearby are now vast lakes (on Google maps check out "Leziate lakes"), a deserted and delightful wilderness of silver birch, fern and pine, with the occasional piece of flat-bottomed rail re-used as bollards or fencing. It's also adjacent to the real village of Pott Row, and I was dropping unsubtle hints to Mullie that it might be fun to incorporate into a model.

 

That was way OT, even for me...

 

Paul

Pott Row will be rebuilt, possibly in EM some time in the next 2-5 years so anything could happen!

 

Martyn

[martinT]

I think I've seen/read something like that too, but I couldn't even begin to think of nailing down a source, so well done for sticking your head above the parapet.... 

 

It sounds pretty rural, an expedient to be found on the most impecunious of organisations.  Hmm, perhaps one should look in the Col Stephens fold.......

 

Probably the most photographed were the extensions at Minehead which were used to turn GWR Moguls on the 45ft turntable until the end of steam on the line in 1964. Without searching too hard the best set of photos & description of their use can be found in Ian Coleby's 'The Minehead Branch 1848-1971' (Lightmoor Press). Another photo is in Eddie Lyons 'An Historical Survey of GWR Engine Sheds 1947' (OPC). (The GW's 1938 plan to install a 60ft TT was scuppered by WW2 & never brought to fruition by BR)

 

Martin

[Donw]

I think I've seen/read something like that too, but I couldn't even begin to think of nailing down a source, so well done for sticking your head above the parapet.... 

 

It sounds pretty rural, an expedient to be found on the most impecunious of organisations.  Hmm, perhaps one should look in the Col Stephens fold.......

 

It may have been more common in the US. It could be a long way to find somewhere to turn or to run tender first.

Don

[Shadow]

With regards to the varnishing, I've seen it here on RMWeb (somewhere!) that it's better to seal all sides and edges. Doing just one means that the moisture can still get in the other side and that expands/contracts at a different rate, causing warping.

Sounds feasible. I used some old emulsion, watered down, with some PVA mixed in! But mine isn't outside in the outhouse.

 

Large rolls of bubble wrap are available cheaply. 1.2m X 100m for about £21.00, maybe use that to line the room.

[Donw]

Most of this Midland stuff goes well over my head I know little of the details. Rumour has it that Johnson built so many different ones because they needed two to pull a decent train    Rumour probably started by Crewe.

 

As it is are you proposing to have a Midland Engine arriving at CA or is it hoping something Midland could be made into M&GN?   

 

Don 

[Andy Hayter]

James

I personally would not bother varnishing.  My tri-nation French layout (started in the UK, moved to Germany and now in France) is just ply with wood block/battens for the joints.

 

The boards were built in the uk and stored in our club hut which was heated (Winter only) on the 2 nights of the week which were club nights and occasionally at weekends.  They were moved to Germany and enjoyed the benefits of a centrally heated basement.  Then some 12 years later they were moved to France and put into an unheated studio - above a centrally heated area on the ground floor but still very, very cold when it gets to minus 17C and very hot when it gets to 32C.  So far, touch wood no warping or major movements - and no varnish.

 

Unless you think there is likely to be water ingress to the building, I do not see any benefit in varnish, but the potential to cause warping if bits do not get varnished on one side but are varnished on the other.

[Northroader]

Can I slip in a tale about turning a loco on a turntable, which is apposite, but it happened in County Durham, very close to where you're domiciled, rather than Norfolk. It's usual for the guy who set the valve gear after overhaul to get the treat of a trial trip, but on this occasion as it was a lovely sunny day our chargehand pulled rank, and decided he'd go. It was on a Q6, a big old NER 0-8-0 loco., and off they went up to Barney. Stop in the station, and back into the corner where the turntable was, (and always enough time to nip into the Red Well for a quickie) Trouble was the loco had had a minimal coaling in the works yard, just enough for the trip, and on the table it wouldn't balance well enough, all the weight one end, and too much effort to push, so they decided to come back tender first. But then the weather turned, they came back through heavy rain, so poor old Bill came in the shop totally wet, and great glee from the gang.

[St Enodoc]

Well, you anticipate my next question.

 

The ply frames and the softwood legs will be varnished.

 

There is very little base board, 9mm ply under the station/yard area and the track bed.  What to do with this?

 

Well, obviously I will varnish the underside and the edges. 

 

I will not varnish the top side as this will either be covered in cork or painted.

 

But, do I varnish the top of the cork?  I would have thought not. I will need to stick the Templot print-out on to it and then the whole will no doubt be sealed with PVA as a result of ballasting.

I would be wary of varnishing just one side of a sheet, as this could result in warping. Either varnish both sides or not at all.

 

Edit - I posted this before getting as far as this page. Shadow and Andy Hayter have already made the same point.

Edited October 3, 2017 by St Enodoc

[Nearholmer]

Yes, and although I offered varnishing tips earlier, my one, never finished, EM gauge layout consisted of three plywood baseboards, all unvarnished, and was consigned to an unheated, draughty shed, but one with a sound roof, for years on end. Spiders took up residence, and even a mouse, but no rot, warp, or mould.

 

My strong belief is that the real cause of trouble is lack of free ventilation, so I prescribe plenty of fresh air and exercise for your layout.