7mm Heybridge Basin

[Richard Gawler]

Wood Siding looks like a diorama in its own right!

I could go for a sleeper or two chained across the end of the siding, and save the sleeper-built design for the track beyond the passenger platform. Doing this would leave space for a crane and a road vehicle in front of the siding; and the road vehicle could help to define the period.

 

[Richard Gawler]

Rather like Peco do for 00.

I remember Cyril Freezer had a layout he called Brill. I wonder if Wood Siding is how a sleeper-built buffer stop came to be a part of the Peco range? The 00 buffer stop has been in there for donkey's years, and the style wasn't particularly widespread.

 

[NHY 581]

And I can confirm that the Red Lion is still going strong. The Parade is very popular in most weather, ice cream and chip sales seem to remain buoyant.

John

Interesting, I still prefer a flake with mine. Modern cuisine...tssk, tssk.......

Rob

 

[Richard Gawler]

Here is the plan I drew up last year to compare with what I have built.


The maximum width is up to 500 mm but the new shape makes it all look a whole lot better from usual viewing angles.


I am happy with the rail joints at the connection to the fiddleyard. The pattern maker’s dowels were worth the effort.


The end of the inset track is cut flush for the sea lock extension. My first lesson in 0 gauge was finding Peco code 100 and 124 rails use the same rail joiners.


The baseboard sits on a shelf (really an unused baseboard) with the trackbed about level with my elbows. This has worked out well for building the track, hopefully it will be good for scenic work too.
I am waiting for the baseboard kit for the sea lock extension, so this completes the track laying at Heybridge Basin for the time being

 

[Jordan]

Inspired by @Jordan I have allowed myself to make this track less than perfect, ...... The error is about 0.5 mm.

Well, it's a start, I suppose....

Sprinting for exit.....

 

[Richard Gawler]

Well, it's a start, I suppose....

Sprinting for exit.....

There is also at least one mistake, which is stupid enough to make it different to an error.


I will try to fill the notches and move the cosmetic fishplates later. So they line up with the black mark and the closed-up sleepers. Then I will have a model of 30 ft rails, not 28 + 32 ft rails. I count this as "cosmetic tweaking" not "track laying".

 

[Richard Gawler]

The tiebar assembly uses two vertical lengths of 0.5 mm piano wire to move the point blades. So there is space to model a scale tiebar.

Well, I have added the latching mechanism for the A6 turnout and all of the wiring, and everything works great except I have made a proper schoolboy error at the heel of the A6.

I set the gauge of the stock rails to 31.5 mm, and so the wheel flanges hit the tips of the point blades. I tested the point with a wagon when I made it and it seemed okay (September 2022), but locos really struggle. Of course, if I had used 32 mm gauge I might have got away with it.

So - I have read somewhere, it is really bad to file away the insides of the stock rails. This leaves me with perhaps putting a tiny joggle in each rail, or moving the curved stock rail half a millimetre outboard of where is at the moment. Or even, cutting a slit right the sleepers here and spreading everything apart until I get enough clearance.

I wonder what most people do? Good running is more important than strict adherence to prototype.

 

[simond]

if you have plastic chairs stuck to the sleepers/timbers, I'd prise them off with a scalpel and restick them at 32mm gauge.

It would work ok on wooden timbers but I'm not sure how easy prising them off will be in plastic timbers.

 

[Richard Gawler]

Thanks Simon. If I destroy the chairs in the process I can clean up the timbers (ABS) and stick on new chairs.

 

[simond]

Ideally, you can just do one side, of course.

if they're ABS, and welded on with MEK, I fear you might have a bit of a fight on your hands. A trick I have used in similar circumstances is to flood the joint with more solvent, which seems to dissolve the glued joint more than the sold parts, and the scalpel will do the rest. Then leave strictly alone til it’s all dried off and hardened again. Good luck!

 

[Richard Gawler]

I have had a go . . .


Two chairs came off, but for the rest I had to chop out the entire timbers.


Then I drove in this peg (headless panel pin) to push the gauge out to 32 mm.


Tested with all of my locos and then rebuilt.

The headshunt is too short for the Y14, but its wheel sets do behave themselves at the blade tips. So fingers crossed for the time when I have a longer track attached, and the loco and its tender can both run clear of the turnout.


This is not too pretty. More distance from tiebar to baseboard joint would allow for a slower transition from 32 to 31.5 mm.

Some of the chairs were clearly stuck down forever. I have used up all of my plastic timbering and I will use plywood timbers in future. Simply because chairs can be adjusted so much more easily. I am so glad I am building this diorama as a learning project. Just imagine building a layout and making the same mistake many times over before realising.

For my future trackwork, I will happily use 0-MF at crossings and for inset track, but I will use 0-F for the heel ends of points and tighter curves. This leaves a decision for other plain trackwork . . . I reckon, neither standard will look better or worse, and neither will run better or worse at the low speeds of a light railway.

 

[Hayfield1]

I have had a go . . .

View attachment 211916
Two chairs came off, but for the rest I had to chop out the entire timbers.

View attachment 211920
Then I drove in this peg (headless panel pin) to push the gauge out to 32 mm.

View attachment 211917
Tested with all of my locos and then rebuilt.

The headshunt is too short for the Y14, but its wheel sets do behave themselves at the blade tips. So fingers crossed for the time when I have a longer track attached, and the loco and its tender can both run clear of the turnout.

View attachment 211919
This is not too pretty. More distance from tiebar to baseboard joint would allow for a slower transition from 32 to 31.5 mm.

Some of the chairs were clearly stuck down forever. I have used up all of my plastic timbering and I will use plywood timbers in future. Simply because chairs can be adjusted so much more easily. I am so glad I am building this diorama as a learning project. Just imagine building a layout and making the same mistake many times over before realising.

For my future trackwork, I will happily use 0-MF at crossings and for inset track, but I will use 0-F for the heel ends of points and tighter curves. This leaves a decision for other plain trackwork . . . I reckon, neither standard will look better or worse, and neither will run better or worse at the low speeds of a light railway.

It may be the angle of the picture but I cannot see a set (sharp bend) just before the switch blade on the curved stock rail. I don't know how fine you have filed the switch blade head, to me it looks like it has not been filed

Check the gauge when the straight switch blade is against the curved stock rail

 

[PhilH]

Richard,
I think your point blades are a bit too thick at the ends. As well as tapering the outside of the blade (where it butts against the stock rail) the head inside should also be tapered so at the end its level with the web.

​

I used to joggle the stock rails with bullhead track as shown in the photo as I think this was prototype practice (although I may be corrected on that ?), but this may not be necessary in model form if you have a good taper at the end of the blade.

 

[Richard Gawler]

In post number 171 I described the alterations I made to this turnout to make it work. That is to say, so the trains stayed on the track. I ended up with a gauge of 31.5 mm at the tips of the blades. Which is a lot better than the 31 mm as I built it.


The blades were part of a Waverly Models kit and they arrived planed on the outside. I have now taken them out(!) filed them on their inside faces, and put them back in. This is the result.

I think this is better, though probably not by as much as it appears here because I composed my final photo in post 171 to make things look as rough as I could.

 

[Dog Star]

Richard, this topic may be of interest to you.

 

[Richard Gawler]

One process I have practiced and refined quite extensively over the years is to make something, improve it to make it work, and then try to make it even better and break it. At the moment, my locos run on both legs in both directions and can do this facing each way, and I consider this to be a cautious success.

Graham I have bookmarked your superb post on making point blades. This will come into its own when I come to build the pointwork for Heybridge itself. For the present blades, the planing is about 63 mm long and was done on a straight blade; the tips measure about 0.020 and 0.022 inches thick after my filing on the opposite sides; and I seem to be getting away with this.

One characteristic of the under-baseboard tiebar is that it holds each point blade in position individually by sideways pressure from a vertical length of piano wire. I think this pressure will almost double after I can arrange some kind of cosmetic tie bar and FPL, and this will be a good thing.

 

[Richard Gawler]

If I am sensible, I can keep the external wiring into the layout down to two wires. I have wired the track as if for DCC and for me this will support one analogue loco and a high frequency lighting unit. If a second loco enters the stage, this will be using radio control. The lighting unit can run a couple of gas lamps as well as coach lighting.


My busbars are copper wire on brass wood screws, and the colour coding is using up the colours I rarely use. The cable clips are ones for 3 to 5 mm round cable, fixed underneath the baseboard with screws in place of the masonry nails.


I turned the layout as needed to let gravity hold the wires, this makes looming a lot easier and neater.

I rather like the droppers off the blades idea. It gives a decent length for them to flex, so I don't think I'd worry about torsion.

A short length of brass wire with a loop at one end for the Tortoise spring wire, and soldered at the other to your tie bar should do the trick.

I have extended the under-baseboard tiebar as suggested by Simon.


The block of plywood is here to make sure I get enough throw from the point mechanism. I cut the block oversize to give me more area for the glue holding it under the baseboard.

This is a “Blue Point” mechanism of North American origin. It gives me a latching mechanism and a changeover switch, but the action above the baseboard is as clunky as a solenoid

The mechanism supports a second push rod, so I could arrange control from the front of the layout one day if this is useful.

The push rod is, of course, a bicycle spoke. The nipple can get a locknut when I find a suitably primordial-spec fixing. Probably a "2-56".

But at last, I can play trains

 

[Richard Gawler]

The Setrack point has its own tiebar latching mechanism and umpteen test runs haven’t shown any need to electrify the Unifrog. Still, some form of remote control seems sensible.


I suppose the ideal would be to work both points as a crossover but putting in a second push rod is an awful lot easier.


The electrical terminal carries a U-shaped extension, and this extension moves a Z-shaped linkage which moves the Peco tiebar. The mechanism has enough slack to let the push/pull action of the push rod move the tie bar at its angle of 15 degrees(*), and enough tightness to work.


The block of plywood was to mount a pivot for an angle crank I then decided I didn't need. It is now stuck here Forever.

The Setrack point blades need to move much further than the blades on the A6, but somehow I have ended up with much the same amount of travel on both push rods.

I feel I now have a completed "basic railway" which I can enjoy as it is or work up with scenic treatments.

Edit:
(*) 1:6 crossing angle on A6 gives 90 / 6 = 15 degrees.

 

[simond]

I installed a crossover on a pal’s model of Swanage many years back. For some reason he was keen to use only one Tortoise for this so I arranged a “see-saw” under the layout with the pivot vertically under the centre of the crossover and each end operating each tiebar.

Whilst you’re not using motors, a single knob operating both ends of the crossover avoids the otherwise inevitable “oops”

 

[Richard Gawler]

Hmmm! I had a rocking lever like this on an N gauge layout where I was determined to persuade one H&M point motor to work two points. Eventually I got it to work, but after the layout was stored for a while it didn’t!


In broad terms, I see operations a bit like this:

• For freight, a loco will haul a wagon from the fiddle yard (right) into the headshunt and then propel it into the kickback siding. When a loco passes over the Setrack point, it “kicks” the blades into place if they are set incorrectly. (Though most likely they will be correct following the last exit of a train from the headhunt).
• For passenger, a loco hauls its coach into the passenger platform. The task of getting the loco onto the other end of the train for its departure will involve setting back and then the use the headshunt and a rope. The route of the Setrack point stays unchanged throughout this.

If this all works out okay, I’ll stay with it. If I really want single-lever control of the points, I might look at a bowden cable from the actuating arm of the Blue Point around to the Setrack point. Or of course a rocking lever. This might be easier in 0 gauge than N gauge because it will be longer and will rotate further.