Skinnylinny Posted October 24, 2021 Author Share Posted October 24, 2021 10 hours ago, Nick C said: I think I've got an SMP single slip plan lying around somewhere, happy to pop it in the post if you want it (assuming I can find it... )? Otherwise, printing one off from templot would be wise, it's much easier with a plan to work from. Thanks, I'm actually working from a printed Peco template as I'm trying to match the Streamline geometry. I'd just plonked it in place on the layout to confirm I'd got the chair keys the right way around (alternating, as the slip sees movements in both directions). 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted October 24, 2021 Author Share Posted October 24, 2021 11 hours ago, Tom Burnham said: Was the USA a rough ride? I have the impression that loco crews prefer the Austerity out of currently serviceable larger (by K&ESR standards) locos. A great experience, anyway! It was definitely a little spirited, especially when starting away smartly. Something of a waddle, but not necessarily rhythmic, and you could feel every rail joint! Fantastic fun though, and I'm very glad of the chance to experience it. Incidentally, the Austerity was also running that day, as was the DMU. 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Annie Posted October 24, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 24, 2021 (edited) The signals look a little down on their luck. Thanks for sharing your photos Linny. Edited October 24, 2021 by Annie can't spell for toffee 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted October 24, 2021 Author Share Posted October 24, 2021 They do indeed, Annie - The arms are nice and clean but the posts and spectacles could definitely do with a lick of paint! Even so, it was lovely to see the old LSWR signals still doing what they were built for so many years later. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Tim Dubya Posted October 24, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 24, 2021 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said: That looks a bit LSWR to my 'haven't got the slightest idea about signals'? Do Dapol cater for the ex LSWR modeller by any chance? Cheers, Dubs. Edited October 24, 2021 by Tim Dubya Question 1, already answered as I typed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted October 24, 2021 Author Share Posted October 24, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tim Dubya said: Do Dapol cater for the ex LSWR modeller by any chance? Not when it comes to lower quadrants as far as I know, but they do offer lattice post Southern-style upper quadrants in two heights - I don't believe they've done any brackets yet though. They ought to do to for representing an ex-LSWR post retrofitted with an SR upper quadrant arm. The Ratio kits are the rail-built post type - if you want lattice posts (the LSWR were very fond of lattice posts) you'll need the LNER kit, which is upper quadrant again! The correct pattern of arms and finials can be got from Model Signal Engineering. Edited October 24, 2021 by Skinnylinny 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted October 24, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 24, 2021 2 hours ago, Skinnylinny said: Not when it comes to lower quadrants as far as I know, but they do offer lattice post Southern-style upper quadrants in two heights - I don't believe they've done any brackets yet though. They ought to do to for representing an ex-LSWR post retrofitted with an SR upper quadrant arm. The Ratio kits are the rail-built post type - if you want lattice posts (the LSWR were very fond of lattice posts) you'll need the LNER kit, which is upper quadrant again! The correct pattern of arms and finials can be got from Model Signal Engineering. How close would you get putting Ratio GWR or LNWR LQ arms, lamps, etc. on Ratio LNER lattice posts? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted October 24, 2021 Author Share Posted October 24, 2021 The LNWR arms are corrugated along their length, rather than the smooth front of the LSWR ones, and the spectacles are very large for LSWR ones. The correct spectacles are those at part no. 10 on this image: https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/signals/s0011/ The LNWR are more akin to no. 11, or even larger The GWR ones have smooth arms, but the spectacle is a different shape (where the glasses meet isn't a straight line on the GW ones, as they are curved all around) they also have a cutout at the top where the spectacle meets the arm, which isn't present on the LSWR arms. 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted October 24, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 24, 2021 27 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said: The correct spectacles are those at part no. 10 on this image: https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/signals/s0011/ Ah well, there's your answer. Enough of this cheap Ratio/Dapol bodging! 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted October 25, 2021 Author Share Posted October 25, 2021 Well, the first frog of the slip works in one direction! There's a bit of a bump if pushing down on the wagon, but I suspect that's due to a combination of the sharp angle and overscale check gauge. The bump is only there on my Gibson-wheeled wagons - a stock Hornby wagon rolls over smoothly. One frog down, three more (and four blades) to go! 3 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted October 25, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 25, 2021 There is a step and a misalignment where the rails join. You appear to have used two rails, rather than a single piece bent appropriately, which is usual. You need to sort out that joint before moving on, or you will regret it later when it will be much harder to fix it. 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted October 25, 2021 Author Share Posted October 25, 2021 9 minutes ago, Regularity said: There is a step and a misalignment where the rails join. You appear to have used two rails, rather than a single piece bent appropriately, which is usual. You need to sort out that joint before moving on, or you will regret it later when it will be much harder to fix it. Do you mean on the furthest left stock rail in the photo? I was torn between using a single bent piece, or two separate pieces, as I found when bending the check rail that it was very hard to keep the bend "straight" such that one section wasn't at an angle when the other section is vertical. Not such a problem on a check rail, but more of a concern for a running rail. Incidentally, that joint is not yet supported at all, which I hope explains the step and misalignment! The upper rail in the photo is only held in place by three chairs beyond the frog. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Tim Dubya Posted October 25, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 25, 2021 This well worth getting hold of for techniques and a good laugh, if like me, you enjoy the scribblings of Rice 1 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted October 25, 2021 Author Share Posted October 25, 2021 (edited) I have to admit, I'm rather hoping this will be my only piece of handbuilt track for the layout! (With the possible exception of a (probably cosmetic) trap point...) Edited October 25, 2021 by Skinnylinny 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Tim Dubya Posted October 25, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 25, 2021 56 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said: I have to admit, I'm rather hoping this will be my only piece of handbuilt track for the layout! (With the possible exception of a (probably cosmetic) trap point...) I can't say I blame you. Although my first attempt at a crossover was by far my best effort. Oh and they're "common crossings", not green (other colours are available) amphibians 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted October 25, 2021 Author Share Posted October 25, 2021 Fair comment! Although "Six-common-crossing polarity switcher" doesn't have the same vaguely magical sound to it as "Hex Frog Juicer"! 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caley Jim Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 (edited) It looks to me that the tip of the splice rail could be a better fit against the point rail and that may be where your 'bump' is coming from. Very close observation of the wheelsets going over that may tell you. Again, something that needs corrected before you go any further. Jim Edited October 25, 2021 by Caley Jim Spelling correct 'top' to 'tip' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Nick C Posted October 25, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 25, 2021 1 hour ago, Skinnylinny said: I have to admit, I'm rather hoping this will be my only piece of handbuilt track for the layout! (With the possible exception of a (probably cosmetic) trap point...) I dunno, once you've built one, you'll soon find that you're not satisfied with Peco geometry... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted October 25, 2021 Author Share Posted October 25, 2021 Just now, Nick C said: I dunno, once you've built one, you'll soon find that you're not satisfied with Peco geometry... But I'm building this one to Peco geometry! Trackwork is interesting, and I'd love to have the space for longer, gentler point-and-crossing work, but... I've plenty more to do on the layout too - I'm already scratchbuilding signalling and various rolling stock. Besides, if I let the desire for more accurate pointwork bother me any more, I'd start heading down the EM or P4 route... And I'm not ready to give up my tension locks and RTR-chassis-bashes yet! 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted October 25, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 25, 2021 6 hours ago, Skinnylinny said: Incidentally, that joint is not yet supported at all, which I hope explains the step and misalignment! The upper rail in the photo is only held in place by three chairs beyond the frog. Let's hope so! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted October 25, 2021 Author Share Posted October 25, 2021 Thanks all for the advice. I managed to get a closer photo of the common crossing. From inspection, the bump is definitely the wheel tread dropping into the flange way. I've triple checked and the check rail is laid to gauge, and the running rail is straight and true horizontally and vertically. I could get away with a bit more tidying of the point of the crossing though... As has been said, the plan is to only have to build this once, so none of the rails are permanently fixed in place yet,with the exception of the check rail. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Tim Dubya Posted October 25, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 25, 2021 2 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said: Thanks all for the advice. I managed to get a closer photo of the common crossing. From inspection, the bump is definitely the wheel tread dropping into the flange way. I've triple checked and the check rail is laid to gauge, and the running rail is straight and true horizontally and vertically. I could get away with a bit more tidying of the point of the crossing though... As has been said, the plan is to only have to build this once, so none of the rails are permanently fixed in place yet,with the exception of the check rail. Dare I mention using OO-SF / 16.2mm, with a 1mm flangeway instead of bog standard OO @ 1.25mm ? Should stop the drop. I'll get me coat 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted October 25, 2021 Author Share Posted October 25, 2021 I did consider it, but the bloke at C&L said I'd be better matching the other ready to lay trackwork, rather than mixing and matching standards. I do still have some stock with coarser wheels, some of which don't take kindly to having their back-to-backs adjusted. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caley Jim Posted October 25, 2021 Share Posted October 25, 2021 2 hours ago, Skinnylinny said: From inspection, the bump is definitely the wheel tread dropping into the flange way. I've triple checked and the check rail is laid to gauge, and the running rail is straight and true horizontally and vertically. That's' down to the wider flangeway resulting in the wheel dropping off the nose of the crossing before it becomes supported by the closure rail. Jim 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted October 25, 2021 Author Share Posted October 25, 2021 Indeed, and unless I standardise on one wheel standard, not much that can be done about that! 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now