Chuffnell Regis

[Nick C]

3 minutes ago, Graham T said:

 

Those are great, thanks Nick.  I'm thinking that the Evershot one could work with a single slip or a simple diamond, as I'd have a crossover at the other end of the station, should a loco on the up line need to run round its train.

 

I'll do some more sketches!

 

I always find it best to start with a prototype plan and adapt it to suit, rather than trying to start from scratch, as there's usually a good reason for most features! 

[John Besley]

Happy new year, looks like it's going to be fun one...

[Harlequin]

8 hours ago, Nick C said:

I always find it best to start with a prototype plan and adapt it to suit, rather than trying to start from scratch, as there's usually a good reason for most features! 

 

The plan above was the end result of a few different attempts and it's really a simplified version of Kingsbridge after the extra back siding was added. The recipe also includes hints of Helston and a pinch of Fairford.

 

Having the back siding (mileage siding) running along the front of the layout with a long thin yard surface behind it means that vans and wagons can be posed artistically for photos where they will look lonely in the width of the scene (as intended) and can frame views of what's going on behind. Similarly, the wide expanse of the yard surface and the clutter that might be left standing on it should make a great foreground for photos of the station.

 

The trackwork was the most challenging part of the design because Graham specified a minimum radius of 3ft and all the turnouts in the throat had to be curved. This ruled out using Peco Streamline (because the inner curve radius of the curved turnout is ~30in) and so we had to use the new British Finescale Finetrax parts throughout to take advantage of their ability to flex. That's not a problem in principle but in practice it meant that I had to work out how to curve the Finetrax templates without distorting the area around the common crossing and then get them to join up reliably without kinks. In the end I made a set of "flexed templates" that I could use much the same as the Streamline templates - that's what the "flex" numbers on the drawing refer to.

 

Edited January 1, 2023 by Harlequin

[Graham T]

I can't thank Phil enough for the patience he showed putting up with my long list of requirements, and utter lack of prototype knowledge, to come up with a cracking plan for the evolution of Chuffnell R.  It may very well still be the plan that I settle on, but I guess most of us enjoy the planning stages as well of the hobby as well, so I will no doubt develop the long version of Chuffnell R a bit further yet.  I should probably try to "finish" CR Mk I before I make a decision anyway...

 

 

[Graham T]

And apart from messing about with pipedreams plans, I've also done a bit more of the paintwork on the station building.  The gutter and downpipes are my attempt at GW maroon, a 50:50 mix of Vallejo red and leather brown, and I've made a start on the quoins and so on with a mix of white and light brown (Vallejo again).  The slate roof still needs to be a lighter shade overall, I think.

 

[Andy Keane]

5 hours ago, Graham T said:

Many a true word spoken in jest Clive!

 

I'm giving serious thought to a drastic re-think of CR Mk II.  The main room in my apartment is 16' x 36', and comprises an office space/workbench/studio, lounge area, and then a dining area at the other end.  I've been lucky enough to have a fantastic plan drawn up by @Harlequin, as below.  This would fit across the far end of the room, where the office space currently sits.  But there's enough free floor space to re-arrange the office etc. without having to re-arrange the rest of the main living space.

 

 

But I'm a greedy so-and-so.  Part of the thought process behind CR Mk II was to be able to run longer trains without them looking squeezed in.  Phil's plan achieves that, but reading a few books on the S&DJR planted a seed in my mind.  As my girls would say, "Uh oh".  What about if I used the long wall under the windows instead (the right hand side of the plan above).  Then I could build a long, thin end to end running between a pair of 6' long traversers.  I live here on my own, so encroaching on the living space isn't a big deal, and in any case I can still keep the office space, lounge and dining areas, I would just need to move the different areas to new locations in the room...

 

The flat is in a converted roof space and so the 36' long wall has a sloping ceiling, which restricts baseboard height - I'm considering mounting the boards on top of 30" high units from a certain well known Swedish manufacturer...  This would still allow me to have a backscene about 18" high.  Although not made to be portable, I think I would build the layout as an open frame in approximately 6' long sections, bolted together.  So it would be semi-permanent but designed to survive a move in the future if need be.  The boards would be low, but still look fine from my office chair, which I could roll up and down the room like some evil mastermind 🥸  (Note to self - I'd need a wireless controller!)

 

So the germ of a plan is this dodgy sketch.  I may reverse the whole plan so that the goods yard is at the rear, entered from a trailing point on the up line (the rearmost of the main double tracks).  That would mean that the entire right hand end would be almost all scenic, with just the double main line and a refuge siding.  The line running underneath would be purely scenic, sitting next to a river.  Good for posing locos on, perhaps.

 

Not everyone's cup of tea I'm sure, but I'd love to hear other views on this!

 

Graham

I have just received a copy of the GWJ volume 0 (preview) as I want to build a 6 ton crane. But in it is the track plan of Maiden Newton. Well worth a look as very similar to what you have in mind.

I can PM a copy if you cannot find one to hand.

Andy

[Graham T]

9 minutes ago, Andy Keane said:

Graham

I have just received a copy of the GWJ volume 0 (preview) as I want to build a 6 ton crane. But in it is the track plan of Maiden Newton. Well worth a look as very similar to what you have in mind.

I can PM a copy if you cannot find one to hand.

Andy

 

Yes please Andy 🙂

 

[chuffinghell]

I often thought of commissioning @Harlequin to do a plan of Warren so I could frame it and put in on the wall but then it occurred to me that Phil’s artwork would look better than the layout 😂

[Andy Keane]

21 minutes ago, chuffinghell said:

I often thought of commissioning @Harlequin to do a plan of Warren so I could frame it and put in on the wall but then it occurred to me that Phil’s artwork would look better than the layout 😂

I have framed a copy of his signal box plan for Helston and have it on the wall - brilliant and it allows me to pretend I am in a signal box.

Andy

Edited January 1, 2023 by Andy Keane

[BWsTrains]

13 hours ago, Graham T said:

I'm considering mounting the boards on top of 30" high units from a certain well known Swedish manufacturer... 

 

Hi Graham,

 

I like your plan, just a few comments regarding layout height.

 

My original layout had sharing with then very young (4+ yrs old) grandchildren very much in mind and was built at 65cm high. It worked perfectly for engaging the youngsters but I always felt I had a helicopter view even when seated. At one stage I was was laid low with a fractured bone in my foot and took to my sofa (as one would!)  conveniently realigned to near the layout which came alive when seen from nearer operating level, as if thru a 6 year old's eyes. Viz. you could well be disappointed if you set it too low, U-H is at 1040mm height

 

A second consideration is under board access. the 65cm level was terrible, too high to work with underneath from on my back but too low for any other position.

 

The third relates to turnout motors and access

If you go with the low option with connected open frame modules fixed on top of the units I think you may face access issues. As you're planning to use Finetrax kits you'll presumably be installing stall motor switching in Mark II (see  Solenoids and Finetrax Turnouts for why) so ensure you have enough head space for when a motor needs to be removed, adjusted or worked on.  A fully open system would IMO be a far better solution with these motors, I'm sure others with more experience can provide some further insight here.

 

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by BWsTrains

[Gopher]

22 hours ago, Graham T said:

Many a true word spoken in jest Clive!

 

I'm giving serious thought to a drastic re-think of CR Mk II.  The main room in my apartment is 16' x 36', and comprises an office space/workbench/studio, lounge area, and then a dining area at the other end.  I've been lucky enough to have a fantastic plan drawn up by @Harlequin, as below.  This would fit across the far end of the room, where the office space currently sits.  But there's enough free floor space to re-arrange the office etc. without having to re-arrange the rest of the main living space.

 

 

But I'm a greedy so-and-so.  Part of the thought process behind CR Mk II was to be able to run longer trains without them looking squeezed in.  Phil's plan achieves that, but reading a few books on the S&DJR planted a seed in my mind.  As my girls would say, "Uh oh".  What about if I used the long wall under the windows instead (the right hand side of the plan above).  Then I could build a long, thin end to end running between a pair of 6' long traversers.  I live here on my own, so encroaching on the living space isn't a big deal, and in any case I can still keep the office space, lounge and dining areas, I would just need to move the different areas to new locations in the room...

 

The flat is in a converted roof space and so the 36' long wall has a sloping ceiling, which restricts baseboard height - I'm considering mounting the boards on top of 30" high units from a certain well known Swedish manufacturer...  This would still allow me to have a backscene about 18" high.  Although not made to be portable, I think I would build the layout as an open frame in approximately 6' long sections, bolted together.  So it would be semi-permanent but designed to survive a move in the future if need be.  The boards would be low, but still look fine from my office chair, which I could roll up and down the room like some evil mastermind 🥸  (Note to self - I'd need a wireless controller!)

 

So the germ of a plan is this dodgy sketch.  I may reverse the whole plan so that the goods yard is at the rear, entered from a trailing point on the up line (the rearmost of the main double tracks).  That would mean that the entire right hand end would be almost all scenic, with just the double main line and a refuge siding.  The line running underneath would be purely scenic, sitting next to a river.  Good for posing locos on, perhaps.

 

Not everyone's cup of tea I'm sure, but I'd love to hear other views on this!

 

I think both plans look good Graham - Phil's is a work of art.

 

On Phil's plan I'm intrigued how you will operate the left hand  point (turnout) which sits on the bridge as part of the cross over to the long siding  ?  Will the toe of the point be on the river bank ?  Only asking because if you use some kind of point motor  - it looks as if it will sit above the river.  (Sorry Phil if I have mis-understood the plan and the length of the point).

 

I would also keep the goods yard at the front of the layout to make uncoupling of wagons easier. 

 

I like the double track on your sketch -  I'm a fan of turntables - as long as they can be justified, which I am not sure you could include one on your sketch as it is not a terminus.

 

I am not sure if you enjoy operating a layout as much as building one.  I enjoy both but have learnt on several previous layouts that having an interesting layout to operate is very important for me.  So probably need to consider which plan gives you the most operational interest.  My vote would be for Phil's plan, although a double track through station may give you more of an excuse to run tender engines.

 

Clive    

Edited January 2, 2023 by Gopher

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, Gopher said:

On Phil's plan I'm intrigued how you will operate the left hand  point (turnout) which sits on the bridge as part of the cross over to the long siding  ?  Will the toe of the point be on the river bank ?  Only asking because if you use some kind of point motor  - it looks as if it will sit above the river.  (Sorry Phil if I have mis-understood the plan and the length of the point).

 

Clive    

 

Here's a close-up showing the positions of the "tie-bars":

 

I think point motors could be hidden within the bridge support structure.

 

I would recommend using MTB point motors. They are much smaller than the traditional stall motors (so easier to install in bridge structures...), they don't consume power at the limits of movement and they don't make that horrible straining noise at the end of the travel.

 

BTW: You might wonder about a double-track bridge just carrying a trap spur alongside the main running line. This is quite prototypical because even the most impecunious branch lines optimisitically built double-track bridges and Kingsbridge had something similar: a road runs under/through the embankment upon which are three tracks (including a double slip!), one of which ends in a spur a few yards up the line.

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by Harlequin

[Graham T]

11 hours ago, BWsTrains said:

 

Hi Graham,

 

I like your plan, just a few comments regarding layout height.

 

My original layout had sharing with then very young (4+ yrs old) grandchildren very much in mind and was built at 65cm high. It worked perfectly for engaging the youngsters but I always felt I had a helicopter view even when seated. At one stage I was was laid low with a fractured bone in my foot and took to my sofa (as one would!)  conveniently realigned to near the layout which came alive when seen from nearer operating level, as if thru a 6 year old's eyes. Viz. you could well be disappointed if you set it too low, U-H is at 1040mm height

 

A second consideration is under board access. the 65cm level was terrible, too high to work with underneath from on my back but too low for any other position.

 

The third relates to turnout motors and access

If you go with the low option with connected open frame modules fixed on top of the units I think you may face access issues. As you're planning to use Finetrax kits you'll presumably be installing stall motor switching in Mark II (see  Solenoids and Finetrax Turnouts for why) so ensure you have enough head space for when a motor needs to be removed, adjusted or worked on.  A fully open system would IMO be a far better solution with these motors, I'm sure others with more experience can provide some further insight here.

 

 

 

Thanks for the input Colin, much appreciated.  The tentative plan for CR Mk II obviously includes a lot of compromises.  The idea I'm toying with is to have a batten along the wall that the (approx.) 6ft modules are attached to, with them also being supported by - but not actually fixed to - 30in Ikea units.  I'd use an open frame, with the trackbed raised about 6in above that; so track level would be at 36in.  CR Mk I is at 42in.  I think this would be ok for viewing from the office chair, would still allow a 12in deep backscene, and would also allow access underneath and space for point motors.  I don't think there would need to be a continuous run of supporting storage units, I would have them spaced out - not sure how long the unsupported spans could be though.

 

[Graham T]

2 hours ago, Gopher said:

I think both plans look good Graham - Phil's is a work of art.

 

It certainly is lovely to look at.  As I've said, I'm still undecided which plan to go for!  Phil's is very good (and would also be a bit cheaper than the longer version I imagine...)

 

2 hours ago, Gopher said:

 

I would also keep the goods yard at the front of the layout to make uncoupling of wagons easier. 

 

Yes that is perhaps the one decision that has been made!

 

2 hours ago, Gopher said:

 

I like the double track on your sketch -  I'm a fan of turntables - as long as they can be justified, which I am not sure you could include one on your sketch as it is not a terminus.

 

I am not sure if you enjoy operating a layout as much as building one.  I enjoy both but have learnt on several previous layouts that having an interesting layout to operate is very important for me.  So probably need to consider which plan gives you the most operational interest.  My vote would be for Phil's plan, although a double track through station may give you more of an excuse to run tender engines.

 

Like you, I enjoy both the building and the operation - but probably more the building and the "artistic" aspects, if I had to choose.  What's drawing me to the long, double track version is having "the train in the landscape".  Phil's plan is super, but, like the present CR, it feels a bit full of track (which is no fault of Phil, he has designed what I asked for!)

 

 

[Graham T]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

Here's a close-up showing the positions of the "tie-bars":

 

I think point motors could be hidden within the bridge support structure.

 

I would recommend using MTB point motors. They are much smaller than the traditional stall motors (so easier to install in bridge structures...), they don't consume power at the limits of movement and they don't make that horrible straining noise at the end of the travel.

 

BTW: You might wonder about a double-track bridge just carrying a trap spur alongside the main running line. This is quite prototypical because even the most impecunious branch lines optimisitically built double-track bridges and Kingsbridge had something similar: a road runs under/through the embankment upon which are three tracks (including a double slip!), one of which ends in a spur a few yards up the line.

 

 

Thanks for the explanation Phil, and also for reminding me about MTB motors.  Not only are they smaller, but it seems they're also only about 60% of the price of Tortoises or Cobalts.

 

[Andy Keane]

26 minutes ago, Graham T said:

 

It certainly is lovely to look at.  As I've said, I'm still undecided which plan to go for!  Phil's is very good (and would also be a bit cheaper than the longer version I imagine...)

 

 

Yes that is perhaps the one decision that has been made!

 

 

Like you, I enjoy both the building and the operation - but probably more the building and the "artistic" aspects, if I had to choose.  What's drawing me to the long, double track version is having "the train in the landscape".  Phil's plan is super, but, like the present CR, it feels a bit full of track (which is no fault of Phil, he has designed what I asked for!)

 

 

How about using the long wall and Phil's layout and using the extra space to have the single line running through mixed countryside a bit like @Mulgabill and his very nice Cartoon of Helstoni(ish). It would also allow you to relax the curve leading into the station and even lengthen the station a bit? And crucially - retain the turtntable!

Andy

[Fishplate]

4 hours ago, Gopher said:

the left hand  point (turnout) which sits on the bridge as part of the cross over to the long siding 

 

I'm not a structural engineer, but you would need to get some advice from one if you were planning to put a crossover on a 12" : 1ft scale bridge. They tend to get quite excited by load paths and it is generally a no-no unless there are particular constraints. The general rule is to avoid these locations for S&C so that a "standard" bridge can be used with plain line.

 

It would be cheaper to buy a bit more land at the buffer stop end to get the crossover off the bridge to the left, or build a bit more double track embankment to the right to avoid a complicated design  (ie expensive) for the bridge.

 

Clearly loading is not an issue in a 4mm world though, so you could apply Rule 1 to structural engineering! Or move the river to the right so it is under plain line . . . .

 

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

This is quite prototypical because even the most impecunious branch lines optimisitically built double-track bridges

 

Leeds to York has sections where four track overbridges were built and cuttings only excavated for two tracks. The two tracks that were laid were on the south side of the planned four track formation, so the highest point of the arch is above the Down (to York) cess. The cutting on the Leeds side of Micklefield station is a good example. Something that could be appreciated from a good seat* in a Modernisation Plan (first generation) DMU but can now only really be seen to good effect on cab ride videos.

 

*behind the secondman seat in direction of travel, or behind either the drivers seat or the secondmans if you were looking out the back. Always assuming, at both locations, that the blinds were up of course. . . .

[Graham T]

The girls went back to the US this morning, so am now feeling slightly down in the dumps.  Tried to lift the mood a little by daubing some more paint on the station building.  All the quoins and so on are now done, but inevitably there's now a bit of touching up to do on the window frames, brickwork, doors, and downpipes.  So - just about everything!

 

The capping stones have also had a first coat of paint, but will need lightening - as will the slates - and then some weathering to represent lichen and so on.

 

 

[MrWolf]

I'm still finding odd splodges and wobbly painted edges every time I take photos, but a little weathering really does lift buildings and seems to work best if done a little at a time. 

[Neal Ball]

39 minutes ago, Graham T said:

The girls went back to the US this morning, so am now feeling slightly down in the dumps.  Tried to lift the mood a little by daubing some more paint on the station building.  All the quoins and so on are now done, but inevitably there's now a bit of touching up to do on the window frames, brickwork, doors, and downpipes.  So - just about everything!

 

The capping stones have also had a first coat of paint, but will need lightening - as will the slates - and then some weathering to represent lichen and so on.

 

 

Rest assured it still looks great.

 

Re: USA departure; maybe a glass of nice Malt will help ease that one 🥃

[Graham T]

I've finished touching up the paintwork on the station building now - I'm wondering whether to add a bit more variation to the colours of the bricks?  Or leave well alone and avoid the risk of messing things up...

 

The capping stones have been gone over again with a mix of grey, light brown, and hemp (that's what Vallejo call it, honestly).

 

The canopy has now also been painted.  I had a choice of dark stone or maroon to paint the girders underneath, and went for the latter as that was what I'd used for the downpipes.  Since taking the photos I've also painted the girder under the main skylight.  So now I'm not sure what colour to paint the support brackets - any suggestions?

 

So, taking shape slowly but still a lot to do:

 

1. Make chimney caps

2. Paint on what look like small air vents at intervals along the building in the lower few brick courses

3. Add various posters

4. Add door signs for booking office, waiting room, and gents

5. Post box and fire buckets on left-hand end wall

6. Build main canopy skylight - promises to be fun

7. Paint and fit canopy supports

8. Pick out some slates in slightly different shades of grey

9. Weathering - mainly on the flat and slate roofs, capping stones, and chimneys

 

 

[MrWolf]

Canopy supports and other ironwork in dark stone, bases of support columns in maroon brown.

Barge boards on canopies also dark stone.

 

Source:

GWR structure colours 1912-47 Great Western Study Group 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by MrWolf

[longchap]

25 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

Canopy supports and other ironwork in dark stone, bases of support columns in maroon brown.

Barge boards on canopies also dark stone.

 

Source:

GWR structure colours 1912-47 Great Western Study Group 

 

 

 

One of the most useful books 👍

[Graham T]

56 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

Canopy supports and other ironwork in dark stone, bases of support columns in maroon brown.

Barge boards on canopies also dark stone.

 

Source:

GWR structure colours 1912-47 Great Western Study Group 

 

 

 

Thanks Rob.  Best I start stirring some dark stone then...

 

[Andy Keane]

Graham

will the canopy slope back towards the building slightly? I doubt it would have been completely flat.

Andy