Simond Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 The disadvantage of using angle or H section stanchions is that the bannister has to pass through them, which doesn't matter much on the bridge, as the rail is not really a "handrail" in the sense that a bannister is. Intermediate stanchions could be simply flat bar - they don't need to be stiff in the plane of the rail itself - but I think they would finish below the upper tube to provide an uninterrupted handrail surface. This seems typical nowadays, I'm not sure whether it would have been the case 50 or 80 years back HTH Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Here's a page showing a nice detail of a very similar escape to yours - the rails have cast stanchions (understandable, as there are cast support brackets) http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-england-manchester-cast-iron-fire-escape-on-old-mill-building-58289029.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted June 24, 2015 Author Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) Here's a page showing a nice detail of a very similar escape to yours - the rails have cast stanchions (understandable, as there are cast support brackets) http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-england-manchester-cast-iron-fire-escape-on-old-mill-building-58289029.html Thanks for that link Giles. A very interesting installation with an unusual run of flights. The cast stanchions are typical of several others I have seen but present more of a challenge to make in 7mm. It's the bosses on the columns that are tricky. They would look good but I'm not sure that I can do them that way - drilling them, especially at 45 deg, would be difficult. The jury is still out! Fishing types use brass beads so these might offer a source - there is a tackle shop in Eastleigh so I will see what they can offer.....WTS Chaz Edited June 24, 2015 by chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asa Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Chaz,if you look up some of the model shops specialising in boats you will find a selection of stanchions which you should find suitable. I bought some for a Clyde Puffer I was building and they look very similar to the ones in Giles photo. Alistair Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simond Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) I cheated with my Puffer - the handrails are simply soldered to the tops of the stanchions. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79052-porth-dinllaen-in-0/?p=1248771 It looks fine from across the room... Edited June 24, 2015 by Simond 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted June 26, 2015 Author Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) Well now, I did seriously consider buying in some ready made stanchions for the fire escape but decided to use 4mm rail instead - as suggested by Peter Harvey. I did go up into the roof and get a length of code 100 rail but I thought this looked too heavy a section for the job. And then I remembered that some time ago a mate gave me a bundle of SMP OO gauge track which has code 70 rail - which is much more like it. This was also lurking in the roof. I do prefer to make parts rather than buy them when I can. The first photo shows the first three steps in making a stanchion. I made up a drilling jig on an offcut of plywood and drilled a whole load of stanchions for the top hole. Drilling the holes with a 0.7mm bit means that a pin chuck is essential in a pillar drill. I suppose you could this work by hand but it would be very tedious. If you use a drilling jig for this sort of job it obviously pays off to set it in position very carefully. If you need to make small adjustments just slacken the cramps slightly and then give the jig gentle taps with a mallet (or a hammer if you must) to drift it into place. I moved the jig to drill the holes for the lower rail, again taking some care to set it up accurately. The next photo shows a cutting broach being used to open out the holes at a 45deg angle. This needs some care - it would be very easy to break the tool, so the angle is started at much less than 45 and then slowly tilted whilst rotating the broach. This has a quite small diameter plastic grip which gets hard to work with if you have a lot to do so I use a pin-chuck to hold it. I do this work in front of pencil lines drawn at 45deg on a piece of card and this allows a reasonably accurate angle to be cut through the hole. The last photo shows a test fitting of two 0.7mm NS wires. Fortunately only the stanchions which will be half way up a flight will need the angled holes. Chaz Edited June 26, 2015 by chaz 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) We are off bird-watching this morning (at RSPB Titchfield Haven) but later on today I will start to put the handrails on the fire escape. I can't make up my mind if I should assemble these on a drawing and then add them to the model or build them in position. I will start with one of the shorter sections and do it on a drawing - that should tell me which way to proceed. Having a section ready assembled sounds attractive - but only if it is accurate enough to be placed and soldered to the frames without the need for lots of fiddly adjustment. I am still thinking about corners - I think just bending the wires will be a fitting nightmare - after a corner on a landing the wires will be bent down at 45deg and then up at 45deg. Tricky!?! However if the corners have separate pieces of rail I will need to drill the posts both ways - very tricky - a 0.7mm hole into the bottom of code 70 rail - can it be done? Or will a butt joint suffice with the end of the wire squared off with a fine file and then soldered? Some experiment is needed. Chaz edit - I'm making this up as I go along - if a smaller hole is possible in the bottom of the rail (say 0.5mm) I could fit the wire by filing a taper on its end. WTS. Edited June 28, 2015 by chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymw Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Maybe need to find some pics. Perhaps thee were two posts at the corners, one at each side, so to speak. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 Maybe need to find some pics. Perhaps thee were two posts at the corners, one at each side, so to speak. Hmm. Thanks for that - but if you have a look at the photo links that others have posted above you will see that there is just one post at a corner with the rails fitted into holes at right angles. I do think two posts would look wrong - very odd if they weren't touching and too heavy if they were. Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymw Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Yes, but I think those are round stanchions. fwiw, I spent a few minutes doing a Bing search on fire escapes. Anything goes, wrt hand rails, including stanchions perpendicular to the stair runners. Sort of interesting, rule 1 applies, etc. Edited June 28, 2015 by raymw Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) You could always use angle facing out at corners..... Remember, that the people making things in the first place are faced with exactly the same problems..... (I've designed many rails in my job!) Two adjacent posts would certainly not be the thing.... Edited June 28, 2015 by Giles Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymw Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Two adjacent posts would certainly not be the thing.... I expect if you looked enough you'd find something... but I thought it was to be the rail type of stanchion. If using angle for the corners, may as well use it for the whole lot. I actually couldn't find an illustration of the exact type of escape that chaz was modelling, or a building of that size using stretcher bond brickwork, so most anything will do if it sort of looks reasonable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simond Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 this kind of question doesn't arise if one models an actual location, on an actual date. said he, modelling a might-have-been terminus of a completely fictitious railway 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
N15class Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 I would use one post on the outside and bend the rails to go to the wall. On the internal corner two posts next to each other is probably best. The whole thing looks really good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted June 28, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 28, 2015 Could the centre one between two flights be a single post with the rail coming down at 45deg rght angle through the post and 45deg down or would that just look to simple to have been the real solution. the out ones should come down at 45 then horizontal for the depth of the landing so you could have the rail turn horizontal before the post. Actually I seem to remember the rail is slightly ahead of the treads or at least the ones on the steps on footpaths round here. Haven't walked them lately since Holly ruptured her cruciate ligament don't want to risk her doing it again. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 You could always use angle facing out at corners..... Remember, that the people making things in the first place are faced with exactly the same problems..... (I've designed many rails in my job!) Now that is a good idea. I will give it some thought. Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 Could the centre one between two flights be a single post with the rail coming down at 45deg rght angle through the post and 45deg down or would that just look to simple to have been the real solution. the out ones should come down at 45 then horizontal for the depth of the landing so you could have the rail turn horizontal before the post. Actually I seem to remember the rail is slightly ahead of the treads or at least the ones on the steps on footpaths round here. Haven't walked them lately since Holly ruptured her cruciate ligament don't want to risk her doing it again. Don Yes it might well work. I did consider that the "centre" hand rails on the flight rising might be fixed to the frame of the next flight - I need to look at the job in three dimensions - it's not easy to visualise what will look right. One problem is where to mount stanchions in the centre area where the flights overlap so that the rails in both directions are on the centre lines of the stanchions - there isn't much room and the two sets might well conflict. I just can't see how to do this until I actually make some progress with the first set. It may become obvious..... "the rail is slightly ahead of the treads" Hmm - I've no idea what that means - but it's just at one with the general difficulty of describing the form this ought to take. Bafflingly difficult to imagine and write about - easier (I hope!) to do with the three dimensional model in hand. Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 I have just had another look at the photo of the fire escape on the mill building in Manchester. This deals with the external corners by having two stanchions some distance back from the corner and the rails having a right angle bend midway between the two. Neat. The other thing to note about this escape is that the adjacent flights have enough space between them to allow both to have a complete set of railings without a clash in the centre. Not possible with my model. Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted June 28, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 28, 2015 Yes it might well work. I did consider that the "centre" hand rails on the flight rising might be fixed to the frame of the next flight - I need to look at the job in three dimensions - it's not easy to visualise what will look right. One problem is where to mount stanchions in the centre area where the flights overlap so that the rails in both directions are on the centre lines of the stanchions - there isn't much room and the two sets might well conflict. I just can't see how to do this until I actually make some progress with the first set. It may become obvious..... "the rail is slightly ahead of the treads" Hmm - I've no idea what that means - but it's just at one with the general difficulty of describing the form this ought to take. Bafflingly difficult to imagine and write about - easier (I hope!) to do with the three dimensional model in hand. Chaz I believe in some cases the handrail bend upwards is slightly ahead of the first tread because it aligns with a notional line joining the edges of the treads an thus starts vertically above the pint where the line touches the floor. This means if the first tread is 8ins high the handrail will have climbed that 8in by the time it is above the tread. It could be above the middle of the tread the idea being the handrail stays at the same height relative to the person . Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted June 29, 2015 Author Share Posted June 29, 2015 I believe in some cases the handrail bend upwards is slightly ahead of the first tread because it aligns with a notional line joining the edges of the treads an thus starts vertically above the pint where the line touches the floor. This means if the first tread is 8ins high the handrail will have climbed that 8in by the time it is above the tread. It could be above the middle of the tread the idea being the handrail stays at the same height relative to the person . Don Ah yes, now I get it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2ManySpams Posted June 29, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 29, 2015 this kind of question doesn't arise if one models an actual location, on an actual date. said he, modelling a might-have-been terminus of a completely fictitious railway Having modelling the odd real location, the main problem you get is black holes of information and photos. 90% of photos are taken of the same few views and generally the infrastructure you're interested in is hidden behind rolling stock. There are always buildings and other features that aren't covered or are indistinct. For those you have to make stuff up and go with intelligent guesswork. Being a real location you run the risk of information appearing after the model has been built and some knowitall telling you how wrong you are;-p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simond Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 some years ago, I lived in "The Old Stationmaster's House" of the erstwhile Hythe and Sandgate railway. Some chaps from the Folkestone and Hythe club came around and asked if they could take measurements, for an impending model - of course, I welcomed them and indeed helped, by holding the other end of the tape measure. Several years later, the model appeared, so I played the "know it all" card - the washing line is on the other side of the back door, the front door is hinged on the wrong side, that flowerbed should be there, etc. etc., - which was a reasonable wind-up as the guys that had done the measurements were not on the layout at the time... I hope they forgave me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted June 29, 2015 Author Share Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Some progress yesterday, I fitted the windows... I fixed the painted resin frames to pieces of clear plastic with superglue and then glued the pieces to the back of the wall with UHU. As you can see in the photo I have not yet removed the protective film from the back of the glazing plastic. Next - the doors. ----------------------------------------------------------- I also made some progress with the railings. First I finished some of the stanchions, trimming their height and cutting the angles in the holes. I then clipped these to a piece of card onto which I had drawn some guide centre lines. A very careful solder job to avoid moving any of the components and I had a section of railing... ...which could then be clipped in place on the model.... I then made a second section and soldered it in place. I decided on what I think is the easiest and neatest way to deal with the problem of the overlapping railings in the centre where room is very tight. I opened a new packet of Rule One. The eagle-eyed will note that these sections of railing were easy, involving no changes of angle or corners. I have some tricky work ahead. More later Edited June 29, 2015 by chaz 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted June 29, 2015 Author Share Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Should I have modelled a real location? What would be possible in O gauge in a space of 16 feet by 2 feet? - I suspect a tiny fragment of reality with very little operating scope. It might well be very nice to look at and have all the advantages of being truly accurate (I am assuming that research would reveal exactly how things were - a big assumption) but it would not interest me enough to be worth building. And the discipline imposed by the need to be as accurate as possible would slow the build down to the point where I couldn't possibly sustain my interest and would die with it unfinished. Yes, accurate models of real places are possible but they are either very, very big or very, very boring Maybe I chose the wrong scale? Enough of this frivolity - on with the music.... Edited June 29, 2015 by chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted June 29, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 29, 2015 You are doing an excellent job on this. I suspect the rails would have overlapped but it may well have looked to busy and spoiled the open stairs effect. As to whether to choose a real location or not, the answer is tricky. I is difficult to find a location where enough happened to be interesting that would be small enough to fit in the sort of space available. I am attempting to replicate Dolgelley in my loft . I have a space of 7m. Dolgelley is about 1000yards long in total or about 20m in 0 gauge. So the end result will be much reduced and some of it bent round the end curves. Ridiculous you may say but on the other hand would a single station that long make a good model. I was going to make it fictitious but it is a rather special case so I will call it Dolgelley those others may think it too far from reality. You can find a lot of models of real places where the builder has added an extra siding or a fictional industry off stage (with a trailing connection so extra traffic at the station) to make it interesting. Dock Green captures the atmosphere of the odd bits of railway in London which are only visible from the bridges or the top of a bus and appear to be more cramped thsan they actually are. Modelling one of them to scales would probably not appear right. This is the discipline of the artist to evoke the response in the viewer. Dock Green succeeds for me. It reminds me of staying with cousins in London as a boy wondering where the odd bits of railway fitted in. Don 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