7mm Aldbourne

[40126]

*

It may be interest to note that the idea of an imaginary line to Aldbourne is not new. There is (and has been for many years) an exhibition layout that bears the name "Aldbourne". It is the work of my good friend Adrian Ponting in OO9 and indeed portrays a fictional narrow gauge line serving the Wiltshire village of that name.

The layout can be seen here on the web.

http://www.uckfieldmrc.co.uk/exhib10/aldbourne.html

Adrian published an article in Railway Modeller, April 2011, pp. 282-287 in which he explained that in his imagination the line ran from Marlborough eastwards along the Kennet Valley to Ramsbury and then northwards to Aldbourne.



Christopher Payne
Ramsbury, Wiltshire.

Hi Christopher,

Welcome to WT.

Can you please do a thread of introduction please ?, So we can get to know you.

A word of warning.. We love lots of pics on here

Steve

 

[daifly]

It's probably not much help but I like the look of mk1 better than mk2. I know that mk2 may be more typical and that there's a school of thought that realism lies with the typical rather than the offbeat, but if we all followed that principle we'd end up with nothing but clones.

Both schemes as drawn potentially leave a rather difficult resolution of the scenic development in front of the fiddle yard, behind the industrial siding if you want to equip the layout with a backscene. The way the boards are shaped, and the track is configured I can't see any obvious way of achieving either a straight line or a concave curve. Many layouts faced with this arrangement seem to have a pair of opposed right angled corners in the sky which always looks a bit pants to me. If you have the space (I realise you may not) then splaying the approach tracks and the industry would allow a sweeping curve. I've done a quick cut and paste job to show what I mean.

Hi Neil

Thanks for taking the trouble to illustrate your ideas. Your penultimate sentence hits the nail on the head as to why I was not planning any scenic development in front of the FY. You are not to know (because I didn't explicitly say so) that the roof is pitched above the layout. The ceiling slopes at a 45 deg angle from about 3" above baseboard top so access to the FY, whether it be traverser, sector plate or cassettes will not be easy. Scenic development in front of these storage lines will be an obstacle too far without causing damage to the scenery or provoking mishaps while moving stock. As a result of these factors I made the arbitrary decision that the scenic world would end at the 12'/4' point and the layout gets operated from the front.

Like you, on balance I prefer Mk1 over Mk2 simply because it gets away from the typical layout. Looking at lots of other layouts makes it too easy to end up building a model of a model. I have tried to use prototype layouts and photos for inspiration without overdoing the quirkiness.

With a room ceiling that comes down to wagon/loco roof height, softening the sky corners will be difficult but, as I said at the beginning, "Compromises have, of necessity, been made" and that will include scenery too.

Cheers

Dave

 

[daifly]

I'm most grateful for the feedback and suggestions that have been made. I have tried to incorporate them and to address some of the valid and constructive criticisms in a revised plan version. Again, the plan 'train-set' look will be softened by the introduction of very gentle curvature when the trackwork is constructed.

Having re-measured the ceiling height over the fiddle yard, there may be enough room to permit development of the industrial area in front of the traverser/cassettes. The baseboards were ordered a couple of days ago so I'll hold fire on a final decision until they have been erected and I can assess just how much headroom I have and what is a practical use of the space. I can mock up the major features of the layout and then make a considered judgement as to whether further changes are appropriate. This is the latest iteration:


To accommodate the 'back siding', the dock has been removed allowing the whole track layout to be moved further back and the industrial line now leads from the back siding rather than the loop.The plan now looks more typical of a GW BLT but has perhaps lost something in the process. I don't think I've finished changing things yet!

Cheers

Dave

 

[Osgood]

WOT IF.....

You made the traverser the full depth of the baseboard, and made the front part scenic? Some stonking good industrial grade running gear which allows the whole circus to come way out into the room. When pulled right out into the room the access increases for hands to get in from the side. As soon as stock has moved on/off any but the rear storage roads the traverser can be moved back to restore the scenic front sight line.

Or have the front scenic part as a smaller separate traverser able to slide out into the room so it can be slid out of the way to give quick access the storage traverser?

Whilst the layout looks pleasing and packs plenty into the available space without appearing overcrowded, it is a great shame that your key feature - the vee crossing siding - has disappeared. I really liked that!

A compromise might be to move the goods shed to the front siding - the first siding then becoming the coal yard off which the industrial link could fork and cross the front Goods shed siding. But perhaps that is straying too far from prototype practice?

Tony

 

[daifly]

Hi Tony

Thanks for the comments. The pitch of the ceiling is towards the centre of the layout rather than from the rear so a different solution will be needed. After measuring this part of the room it may be possible to do something better but I think that I need the baseboards erected in place to get a feel for the issues involved with reaching to the back, clearance above for lifting stock etc. I've had to go for a 3' baseboard surface height which is considerably lower than I would like but at e.g. 4' high, the layout would need to be 2' shorter!

I'm sorry to have lost the crossing siding too. I'll look at this feature again. I do want to avoid filling the available space with trackwork and to leave space for scenic development. To my eyes, some of the most effective small layouts are those that are understated - Penhydd being a classic of the genre. That was a simple and realistic track layout that fitted into the landscape. I keep diving back into the Wild Swan and Oakwood etc. line histories to try to keep a grip on real railways and not to create an imaginative fantasy!

More doodling methinks.

Cheers, Dave

 

[Wagonman]

Also, I would say, don't have a double slip. Have the goods shed point come off the headshunt, just to slightly complicate matters...

I would say the GWR were not averse to using double slips in that sort of situation – or are you objecting on purely practical grounds?


Richard

 

[Wagonman]

Economics? Not usually a major consideration when planning an unbuilt modelled railway!
When I was a 4mm modeller, I planned to build a branch to Aldbourne from Chiseldon so that I could run all of my MSWJR stock to a terminus. I made the transition to 7mm before it got started.

Dave

In my MSWJR modelling days I sketched out possible branch from Cirencester to Fairford and Collingbourne to Netheravon. Both were actual proposals during the light railway mania. Never actually got anywhere – much like the prototype in that respect!


Richard

 

[daifly]

In my MSWJR modelling days I sketched out possible branch from Cirencester to Fairford and Collingbourne to Netheravon. Both were actual proposals during the light railway mania. Never actually got anywhere – much like the prototype in that respect!

Hi Richard
You are not alone in that respect. I designed a track layout (based on Cerney & Ashton Keynes) for Marston Meysey on my route from Fairford to Cirencester. I still have the fully interlocked and working lever frame that I designed and built as an exercise at the time. A through station in 7mm scale just needs more room than I have available so the frame will be recycled with new locking and repainted levers in due course.
I have been working on my plan over the weekend and hope to post a revised version later.

Cheers

Dave

 

[PMP]

I can't picture how the roof space affects the layout, any chance of a doodle it may provide further wacky ideas , elegant solutions ...

 

[daifly]

I can't picture how the roof space affects the layout, any chance of a doodle it may provide further wacky ideas , elegant solutions ...

A picture saves a thousand doodles!


The slope starts at c40" above floor level. Baseboard tops will be at 36". This is the Station end. The layout will run left to right as you look at the photo. The FY end is a mirror of this (but more cluttered at the mo).

Blue and white stripy sky anyone?

Dave

 

[daifly]

...I too like the crossing siding coming off the loop (Mk1 plan?) rather than as a kick-back coming off the coal yard spur.

I want it too so I'm going to have it.
My latest versions have the loop link reinstated with either a facing or trailing formation. The facing formation is easier to shunt and has a much longer run around - that's academic though since the fiddle yard determines the length of trains that can be handled.
Trailing:
Facing:

I've removed the road overbridge as I'm determined to have a better solution to hiding the lines' exits.
Dave

 

[daifly]

While waiting for baseboard kits to arrive, I thought that I would assemble a Timbertracks Goods Shed kit that I was intending to use. It would help to give a sense of scale when I place some lengths of track and stock on the boards. There are a lot of bits.

Assembly has not been a happy experience. A dry run assembling with bits of masking tape found a fundamental error in the instructions, but more of this later.

I started to build the office as a sub-assembly and another problem surfaced.

The steps are made from 10 laminations of 3mm mdf. I assumed that I had assembled the side upside down and back to front as clearly the door is too low. Wrong! After an email to Brian Lewis on Tuesday, he responded promptly that the steps should have been cut from 2mm mdf. A replacement set, along with the step side wall laminations arrived this morning and that problem at least was solved.

More soon.

Dave

 

[daifly]

Meanwhile, assembly of the main shed structure was being done at the same time. The fast-setting aliphatic glue is good to work with as it grabs well but allows a couple of minutes of adjustment time.

The shed and office walls (of 3mm mdf) are given depth by using overlays of 3mm mdf and, in some places, a thin ply ovelay with lasered brickwork.

It was the application of the overlays for the main shed sides that caused most grief this evening. They are 6mm too short and the centring of the windows is simply dreadful.

If you can't read the numbers, from the left, the distance between window edge and overlay is 23.5mm, 16mm, 21.5mm, 18mm,19.5mm and 21mm.
This photo shows the significance of the under-length side overlay - a gap of 3mm at each end.

This must surely be a design error. I have emailed Brian with these and other photos to ask for his comments.

Dave

 

[Ressaldar]

Hi Dave,

not a happy sight that. I hope that I fare better when I start my Lasercraft Devon model of Drayton Signalbox (great service by the way - order and cheque sent first class on Monday, (signal)box of goodies arrived yesterday.

I hope that Brian comes back with an acceptable answer.

cheers

Mike

 

[Dikitriki]

Hi Dave

That's an unacceptable error. Pretty upsetting too, on what is not an inexpensive kit. I would have expected better from Brian. Still, errors can be made, and it's how they are sorted out that is important.

Richard

 

[daifly]

Further investigation this morning reveals that the instructions are correct and it is the dock decking that is overlength as well as the brick platform support and rear window wall strengthener. This had the effect of pushing out the end walls. It was the only way that it all fitted. How did I discover this? Well I tried placing the roof panels in place and they neatly dropped between the end walls onto the dock below!

Richard, you're right. It was £120+ for a kit with design errors that a numpty like me found very quickly. I'll report back with Brian's response.

Ho hum.

Dave

 

[JimG]

It looks as though the parts are made from rectangles of the same size and it is the registration of the parts in the laser cutter when cutting out the window openings that is the problem - i.e. all the dimensions given add up to 39.5mm. So probably not a design fault, but an operational one. If so, I wonder why Brian didn't cut the parts in one operation in the laser cutter which would have ensured accuracy - I dare say he had a good reason for not doing so.

Jim.

 

[daifly]

Thanks Jim. I'll tackle Brian again on that later. I'm away from home for a couple of days so I can't set about the shed with a vernier to identify the locations and possible causes of the off-centre windows.
He replied earlier today to my emails and, having checked his drawings, accepts that the decking etc have been cut 6mm overlong thereby distorting the whole build. He has offered to manufacture f.o.c. all of the replacement parts to enable me to start again with correctly-sized items.

The errors in manufacturing are unfortunate but I can't fault the speed of Brian's responses to my emails or the willingness to rectify the problems.

Cheers

Dave

 

[daifly]

Just to wrap up this part of the goods shed story, I promptly received a full set of parts to replace those already used in the faulty build. They arrived shortly before we went off on holiday for a couple of weeks so were added to the remaining parts in the original box. Having returned from holiday, there was another distraction - the arrival of the baseboard kits!

Dave

 

[daifly]

The baseboard kits were ordered from Model Railway Solutions in Poole. Delivery was arranged to occur after we returned from holiday and they duly arrived by courier on mid-October.

I had splashed out on the full package – birch ply with legs and baseboard tops. The precision of MRS’s cutting and the ease of assembly made it worth every penny. All screws, bolts etc. are included. As I mentioned in post #1, there are three baseboards. A 5’ x 3’ ‘king’ board with two sets of legs on to which a centre 6’ x 3’ and another 5’ x 3’ board are attached. Each of these last two boards has a single set of legs. I chose these large boards as it minimised the cost and number of joins. The layout is not intended to be portable but is required to be dismantleable.
Construction was very quick and easy and the king board was quickly completed.

This shows the 6’ board under construction:

The leg braces were not fitted at this stage but the board was still very sturdy without. One problem encountered during the fitting of the leg was the requirement to drill a 10mm hole for the bolt holding the top of the leg.

Clearly, my typical drill fitted with a 10mm bit was not going to work! This photo shows the inverted U-shaped piece of ply which is glued and screwed to the inside of the sideframe for the top of the leg to slot in to. The leg had a pre-drilled hole to ‘help’! The drilling problem was resolved by marking through the leg bolt-hole and then drilling a very small pilot hole from the inside using a 1/16” drill bit. As this drill bit is much shorter, I could get the drill into position OK. This hole was then opened up from the outside using the 10mm drill bit. This resulted in some tearing of the ply surface as the drill exited the timber but this is hidden inside by the leg. Having learned that lesson, I clamped a sacrificial piece of softwood on the inside of the ply for all of the other holes that I drilled and the issue was resolved.
The leg braces seemed to be too short. I would have expected a 45deg angle to be formed when fitted.

This photo also shows that the leg was fastened by an M10 nut and the brace by a M10 wingnut. The construction guide photos provided show wingnuts in use so I bought a few from B&Q. I emailed MRS with some constructive criticism regarding the drilling issue above. I also suggested that the length of the braces should be increased and wingnuts provided. I got a very prompt reply thanking me for my feedback which they rarely get from customers. A couple of days later a package of wingnuts and longer braces arrived – excellent customer service!
The leg braces were fitted by drilling as described above to ensure that any raggedness was hidden from view but the sacrificial softwood did the trick and all of the holes were very neat.
The three boards completed and bolted together with M10 bolts in the garage:

And in their new home:

The reason for the 36” height is now apparent, I hope! These boards are, as I expected, VERY heavy, but they are sturdy and 16’ x 3’ looks HUGE!
The fun part now starts of plonking pieces of C&L track and mocked up buildings to form a considered opinion of my proposed plan.
Cheers, Dave