The Low Quay Yard

[Richard H]

I understand that this forum encourages the use of pictures and I shall use them to illustrate material progress. This post, however, describes the actual historical setting for my fictional cameo layout, and is therefore text-based, the only illustrations being a couple of maps. Please forgive me!

My fictional Low Quay Yard is set in the Low Lights area of North Shields. The following is a brief and necessarily generalised account of the real historical setting … and its railways:

What became the Low Lights area was the site of a few medieval fishermen’s shacks (shielings, or shiels) clustered around the shore where a stream flowed into the Tyne near the river mouth. From this core, North Shields expanded west along the riverside, eventually developing as a port with fishing and other maritime trade, salt production and a variety of non-maritime industries.

Clifford’s Fort, an artillery emplacement, was established on the shoreline here in 1672, part of a national strategy to protect significant ports following the Dutch Navy’s raid on the Medway in 1667. The fort was garrisoned until the 1920s.

The Low Lights area probably acquired the name during the 18thC. Beacons had long been erected there to warn mariners of the shallows and vicious rocks surrounding the approaches to the river. In 1727 a permanent lighthouse, the Low Light, was built inside Clifford’s Fort and a corresponding High Light was erected at the top of the riverbank, so that mariners approaching the Tyne could align the Low and High Lights to find the narrow channel into the river mouth. The channel shifted over time, and so in 1810 two new lighthouses were built on the new alignment, being known as the New Low Light and the New High Light. All four survive although none are still in use as lighthouses.

By the middle of the 18thC those who could afford it were moving out of the old riverside town to new Georgian developments along the top of the river banks. This exodus hastened the decline of the old town as a place of residence. The riverside streets, and the buildings piled chaotically on the steep banks confining the old town, were increasingly left to maritime trades, commerce, taverns, industry, and people whose circumstances prevented them from moving to better accommodation.

During the 18thC the Low Lights became increasingly industrialised, and by the middle of the 19thC heavy industries were established in the Pow Dene / Low Lights area, including a large brewery, a large pottery with at least three bottle kilns, several foundries, smithies, a tannery, a gas works, a brick works, a flint mill, and other manufactories. There was also a large sector of industries and businesses handling and processing the fish landed at North Shields, and servicing the fishing industry and the port activities generally.

This OS 25" 2nd Edition map shows the Low Lights area at the end of the 19thC. The railway marked in blue is the NER Tynemouth Branch with its coal depot, and the approximate route of the old Whitley Waggonway is marked as a broken red line:

The established population, was supplemented by migrant and transient populations such as rural workers seeking employment and stability, and Scottish and Irish people seeking to escape dire circumstances in their homelands. There was a large transient population of mariners and other itinerant workers included militia regiments during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars.

The transient population included the seasonal influx of Herring Girls, the enormous mobile workforce that gutted and packed the fish landed by the fishing fleet as the boats followed the southward migration of the herring. During the season, these hard-working women would travel southward from the Shetlands to East Anglia, working at huge troughs filled with tons of fish and filing thousands of barrels with fish, salt and brine; using a razor-sharp knife they could gut and dress a herring in less than two seconds.

Fresh fish was carried by cart to Tynemouth Station as quickly as possible, to be exported by fast train; preserved fish and fish products were exported with less urgency.

In 1926 a local historian described the Sand End (of the fish quay) and the Low Lights in pre-industrial days as having been, "...the pleasure grounds of Shields. There were bathing machines and stalls in the summer time, and the place was like a fairground". The town offered seafarers other opportunities for distraction, however, that he felt unable to celebrate; a late 19thC survey claimed that the ½-mile long “Low Street” of North Shields accommodated 103 taverns and houses of (usually less than salubrious) entertainment, and an early 20thC missionary described North Shields as “the most vice-ridden port in Christendom”.

Today, the fishing industry is much reduced, and the heavy industries have gone. The Low Lights has some mainly light industry and commercial activity, and some fish merchants still trade there, along with a range of restaurants, bars and fish & chips shops; new residential developments are interspersed with sites awaiting redevelopment.

The Railways at the Low Lights and on the Quayside

Eight separate, independent railway systems are known to have existed at the Low Lights, on the Fish Quay, and the along the North Shields riverside at different periods between the early 19thC until the mid-20thC.

1. Between 1811 and 1848 the Whitley Waggonway was used to transport stone from Whitley Quarry and coal to a low staith at the Low Lights. The waggonway crossed the Tynemouth road on the east side of the Pow Burn (just east of the present railway/Metro bridge at the top of Tanner’s Bank), then ran down a steep rope-worked incline on the east side of the Pow Burn to reach the Low Lights area, then past the west side of Clifford’s Fort, to reach a low staith situated just west of the New Low Light itself and projecting past the Light into the river. After 1860 the line of the waggonway formed the foundation of part of the Blyth & Tyne Railway Tynemouth Branch which terminated just north of the Low Lights area. The Blyth & Tyne station remained in use as a coal depot until 1971.

The waggonway at the Low Lights is clearly shown on Wood's Plan of North Shields, surveyed in 1826:

2. From 1888 until about 1907 Clifford’s Fort housed the Tyne Submarine Miners; a unit of an Empire-wide force protecting harbours from attack and invasion, they assembled, laid and maintained a grid of submarine mines laid in the harbour entrance (i.e in the area between the long north and south piers). In the event of enemy shipping entering the mined area the ship’s position could be triangulated and the appropriate mine or mines could be detonated electrically from a control room in the fort. Inside Clifford’s Fort there were four storage sheds and an assembly shed connected by a narrow-gauge railway system, which then led through the final assembly and fusing shed before descended an incline to leave the Fort through a sallyport gate and run along a short quay (the site of the present RNLI station) to where the mines were loaded onto the unit’s minelaying vessel. The gauge appears to have been 18” (the normal Army narrow-gauge of the time) and would have been worked using small wagons (bogies) pushed by hand.

3. A third railway system was installed on the Union Quay, consisting of a line of rails (wider than standard gauge) running along the quay quite close to the edge upon which a large self-propelling crane ran back and forth. Two cranes are known to have been used, the earlier one being steam-powered and the later one electric. This dedicated rail system was probably installed by the 1880s, and the electric crane was still in use in the mid-20thC with traces of the tracks remaining until about the 1980s.

4. The fourth system is shown on the OS “10 ft” Town Plan of c.1896 and consists of a single line between a yard and a building in a foundry at the Low Lights.

5. The fifth system, shown on the same map linked three buildings in the large pottery at the Low Lights. It is thought that these internal lines were probably worked with either horse- or man-power.

6. The 25" OS of c.1895 shows a line in the brickworks.

7. The seventh system is shown was an internal system at a graving (dry) dock called the Low Dock at the west end of the Western Quay; this connected two sheds, the quay side and the graving dock itself, and accommodated a travelling crane.

8. Finally, at the extreme western end of the North Shields riverside, Smith’s Dock had an extensive internal system serving its huge complex of dry docks. Smiths, who also had docks at South Shields, had a world wide reputation as ship repairers.

The Whitley waggonway was the only quayside railway connected to the world beyond the riverside.

In the 1860s there was a proposal to build a deep-water dock at the Low Lights, which undoubtedly would have required a railway system and a connection to main-line railways. This would have required some means of negotiating the significant incline from the railway at Tynemouth to the dockside, a vertical height of about 20 – 25 metres – difficult but not infeasible. The proposal was opposed by the B&T Rly, and after repeated delays was finally abandoned, essentially redundant after the opening of the Albert Edward Dock, and the expansion of the huge coal shipping complexes immediately west of North Shields.

My next posting will describe the fictional account of the Low Quay Yard,
Richard

 

[Richard H]

“THE LOW QUAY YARD”

“Low Quay Yard” is my attempt actually to finish a layout after decades of unfinished projects; if it doesn’t work I may have to relinquish all modelling ambitions, stop buying the magazines, and retire to a hermitage. I hope the ‘cameo’ approach will help me to bring a small layout to exhibition standard within the set time.

CONCEPT
Size of scenic area: 51” x 18” (nominal)
Overall size of layout: 51” x 18” x 18” high, plus dismountable fiddle yard extensions
Scale/gauge: 4mm / 00 gauge
Setting: LNER; mid-1930s; ex-NER Blyth & Tyne Rly area; urban/industrial setting; goods only

The track-plan is relatively conventional but very compressed, with a short loop to enable shunting and three main destinations for wagons, one siding being reversed in relation to the others to add ‘interest’ to operations. Trains will be short, but I want to be able to run two locomotives at any one time, and employ a variety of traffic.

The scenic board will be supplemented with three short, dismountable off-scene storage tracks, one at each end of the running track and one at the end of the long siding at the rear of the layout. It will also be possible to operate the layout in a limited way from the right-hand end only, if space is constrained.

The track-plan and scenery are justified by an “imagined history” rooted in the actual history of its location. The real history is well researched, but elements of the imagined history are undoubtedly whimsical and may require the occasional suspension of disbelief. Both histories will be explained in other postings.

It will be important (and sometimes challenging) to accept and manage the compromises necessary to meet the deadline; I shall use proprietary stock and kits where possible but build specifically local or defining items from scratch, adopting a theatre-like approach in which unseen parts of scenery are not modelled.

PLANNING
Planning is based on historical research. The initial concept for the model was explored using pencil, eraser and lots of scrap paper. That concept is being tested and refined on a sheet of foam-board the full size of the scenic baseboard, using track templates and paper/card representations of buildings. These are made from photocopies copies of my working drawings which are based mainly on old photographs.

This approach has helped me to grasp a sense of scale and the available space, and to work out how I might place the buildings in relation to ground levels and neighbouring structures. The small size of the layout makes this full size approach completely viable.

INSPIRATION
To conclude this introductory summary, here is a much enlarged section from a photograph showing the approximate site of my Low Quay Yard, as it was in 1958 - but little had actually changed here since 1913.

Richard H

 

[Richard H]

Even novice readers of spy thrillers know that an agent’s false identity has to be based on a ‘legend’, a carefully contrived mixture of verifiable evidence and mis-information that creates a false but (hopefully) credible narrative about the agent’s assumed identity.

Whilst freely acknowledging that railway modellers face fewer and lesser dangers than spies, I do feel that a model railway that does not portray a real place (i.e. a layout that has a false identity) also needs a ‘legend’ to underpin its credibility and coherence.

In this narrative, the fictive word ‘fict’ is used to denote a ‘fictional fact’; events and locations that are historically true are given in italics.

The Ficts about one of the many possible futures for the Low Lights after c.1848

An 1860s proposal for a deep water dock at the Low Lights was never implemented and the Blyth &Tyne Railway adopted the Whitley Waggonway as the foundation of their Tynemouth Branch. After establishing their Tynemouth branch they revived the disused line to the old staith with the primary intention of supplying coal directly from the S E Northumberland coalfield to the industries at Low Lights, and developing coaling facilities for the increasing number of steam-powered fishing vessels.

The anticipated secondary benefits of the line included traffic generated by the growing fishing industry (rapid transport of fresh fish to wider markets), and by many other industries at the Low Lights and along the riverside (at various times, preserved fish and fish products, salt works, chandlery and other maritime supplies, a tannery, a pottery, breweries, a brick works, ship repair docks, foundries and other engineering). There was also, potentially, a small amount of military traffic serving the garrison at Clifford’s Fort.

The Whitley Waggonway incline was deemed unsuitable for locomotive working so, a new Low Lights Branch was engineered, the gradients being no worse than those of the steep Quayside Branch at Newcastle. The single line to the old staith was relaid and extended to facilitate direct access to the quayside and two private dock systems, and a number of short sidings laid in to serve other industries crammed into the area. Some of these sidings were inconveniently (even eccentrically) laid out because of industries pre-dating the railway, so a very small yard was built with a ‘run-round’ loop to ease shunting, and minimal locomotive facilities.

The only viable site for the Low Quay Yard was so constricted that the track-work had to be built to virtually industrial railway standards, and only short-wheelbase locomotives could be used.

The B&T merged with the North Eastern Railway in 1874. By this time the fishing, ship-repairing and other industries were thriving and the NER deemed the Low Lights branch sufficiently profitable to maintain. For a couple of decades after 1888 its value was enhanced by the importance of the Tyne Submarine Miners, as the Tyne was seen as a strategic east-coast harbour. The Low Lights Branch and the Low Quay Yard therefore survived despite the dominance of the coal and cargo facilities lying west of North Shields.

In 1885 T.W Worsdell left the GER to become Chief Mechanical Engineer of the NER, inheriting responsibility for its diverse and ageing locomotive stock. He faced an immediate problem concerning the motive power on the Low Lights Branch, as by then the legacy B&TR locomotives were beyond economic (and, in fict, even practical) maintenance. Small, versatile shunting locomotives were needed, which could be operated safely in the peculiar environment of the Low Lights ... and they were needed urgently.

One of Worsdell’s last projects (in 1883) before leaving the GER had been to design locomotives for the docks and rural tramways of the GER; these were the GER G15 (later LNER Y6) 0-4-0 tram locomotives. In the absence of any readily available standard NER design, and initially as an interim measure, Worsdell adapted his 0-4-0 tram locomotive, modifying the design to create an 0-6-0 capable of coping with the gradients on the branch but small and light enough to work the lines on the branch and the quayside.

Worsdell’s modified design was, in fict, virtually identical in external appearance to the GER C53 (LNER J70) class 0-6-0 tram locomotive introduced some years later in 1903 by Holden – this is not surprising as they were both developed from Worsdell’s functional and successful 0-4-0 design (and of course Holden had the advantage of referring to Worsdell’s little-known 0-6-0 design).

Worsdell built two locomotives to this modified design for the Low Lights Branch where, in fict, they proved both efficient and completely safe in the crowded and usually somewhat chaotic quayside environment. They worked exclusively on the branch and at the Low Quay Yard, leaving only to make the short trip for stabling and maintenance at Percy Main locomotive shed and depot. Later, these locomotives were occasionally supplemented by NER locomotives such as the Class H (LNER Y7) 0-4-0Ts and Class H2 (LNER J79) 0-6-0Ts.

Thirty-five years later, Worsdell’s venerable tram engines were suffering terminal strain due to four years of increased workload combined with reduced maintenance during WW1. Shortly after the Grouping the decision was made that they must journey along the same Final Tracks as their B&TR predecessors. The LNER then faced the same problem that had taxed Thomas Worsdell, but this time they implemented the obvious solution to working the branch and cascaded two of Holden’s tram locomotives, which subsequently worked the branch almost until its closure.

The Low Lights Branch survived WW2, then during the 1950s and into the 1960s continued to serve the now-declining industrial area, although traffic diminished steadily as a result of road competition and changes in the operation and economics of fishing and other industries.

Eventually, the British Railways Board issued a statutory announcement that, in view of the economic ficts, disbelief could no longer be suspended and services must cease; the branch was finally closed some time before the old B&T Tynemouth Branch (renamed ‘North Shields’ in c.1864), which survived as a coal depot until its closure in 1971.

 

[Richard H]

This posting illustrates initial progress on one of the buildings overlooking The Low Quay Yard, and includes reflections on the process of making it.

The building was chosen because it represents the late 18thC / early 19thC period of building along the Union Wharf at the foot of the riverbanks. I cannot date the building precisely; the earliest verifiable reference I have found lists it as an inn in 1834 but the building itself could be earlier than that. It remained an inn for the rest of its existence, and is modelled as it appeared in the 1930s.

The photograph shows only the modelled front of the building, which will form one component in a range of buildings yet to be built. There are still details to add and most of the glazing, some low-relief interior detail, and the entire roof structure are yet to be modelled. The asymmetry is authentic.

Because this is my first attempt at scratch-building in a couple of decades, I have regarded it as a practice piece and used it to re-learn a number of techniques and processes such as:

• interpreting photographic evidence (often tantalisingly incomplete),
• counting bricks,
• making pragmatic working drawings and sketches,
• re-counting bricks,
• having the right tools to hand,
• being prepared to use or improvise aids to alignment, and holding tools,
• attention to detail,
• trying to anticipate possible difficulties,
• checking and double-checking … before cutting or fixing … every time …
• … and checking the brick-count,
• re-discovering some intuitive sense of scale,
• beginning to re-discover the ‘stagecraft’ of model-making to create the illusion; a model doesn’t have to be constructed like a building just because it portrays one, and sometimes complicated shapes or structures can be regarded for modelling purposes as a series of relatively simple geometrical shapes.

I have also had to face some personal challenges, chiefly relating to:

• accepting whatever compromises might be necessary (or perhaps just desirable),
• patience! (which is sufficiently critical to require that ‘!’) and the self-discipline it demands
• coping with the unexpected snags, and the inevitable errors (often associated with the lack of either anticipation or patience).

I have recalled important processes and criteria, such as identifying key features and assessing their “make-ability”, then portraying them with such accuracy as I can manage, but primarily trying do so with neatness, consistency, and within a reasonable time in order to create the desired effect … and I’ve realised that I need to manage all these multiple dimensions without the aid of a Sonic Screwdriver.

As examples of compromises:

• I have used styrene sheet with embossed bricks representing “English Garden Wall” bond (produced by S E Finecast) as the nearest textured match I could find to the original brickwork. The difference lies in the number of rows of stretchers between the reinforcing rows of headers; English Garden Wall has three rows of stretchers whereas the original building has five, and,
• I have to confess that the heavy ornamental mouldings on the pilasters at each side of the ground floor are much simplified. I decided that neither my skills nor the time available could support an attempt to produce the highly ornate carvings satisfactorily, and that it was better to compromise than to produce badly made and visually confusing detail.

Finally, to illustrate why I need to re-learn so much, here’s a picture of an item that has survived unused in my small stock of scenic odds-and-ends since I first aspired to modelling railways; this is a pack of plastic lettering date from before 1971 and was marketed for use in making titles for cine films which used silver halide photography. For anyone who has only known decimalised coinage, 5/9 means “five shillings and ninepence” which converts to about 28p.

With apologies for the introspective woffle, I am actually just reporting a tangible start; I have not yet reached a milestone, but perhaps the first furlong is in sight,
Richard

 

[Richard H]

Last week I spent a very happy three days with my friend of many years, Paul (the Squire of Old Parrock), working together to design and build our respective baseboards. Using the same general design concept and overall dimensions, we each produced the main frame of our baseboards, including the curved backscene. We used 6mm birch ply, 3mm MDF, and waterproof wood glue. Here are three photos of my board, and one showing the twin boards together.

The first photograph shows my baseboard lying on its back to facilitate fitting the lower part of the fascia, showing how that was clamped up while the glue set. The ply baseplate of the structure stabilises the outer frame and the cross-members which give shape and stability to the structure. Inside the end of the frame at the right-hand end you can see the apertures for the drawer runners which will support the fiddle yards at each end.

The following photograph shows my board with lower fascia fitted and the drawer-runners extended; these are asymmetrical, the right hand ones being 500mm long and the left 450mm - this is to fit the space I have available when the layout is in situ.

Finally, to show the very real benefits of active co-operation, here is a portrait of the two baseboards, Paul's and mine, together, illustrating the similarities of the design and the differences in detail reflecting our respective track and scenic plans. (When this photograph was taken my board was still without its lower fascia.) Paul's is the one on the right, with the more immediately interesting profile cut in the fascia.

Perhaps getting to this stage this counts as my first milestone,
Richard

 

[Richard H]

Wondering about lights for the layout and, not having used LEDs before, I decided to experiment. I jury-rigged a single 120cm row of LEDs on what will become a "lighting gantry" so that they cast an overall, even light from above the front of the layout. Although this used just a generic type of LED strip that I happened to have available, the LEDs are mounted without any attempt to direct or reflect the light, and the 'gantry' does not project beyond the fascia of the baseboard, the effect convinced me to use LED lights on my layout ...

... ready when you are, Mr. deMille!

 

[Richard H]

The Squire of Old Parrock suggested a progress report so, with a duly obeisant tug of the forelock, here are some photographs of my recent activities.

I have been working on the two fiddle yard boards (right hand one a nominal 500mm long, and the left one 450mm) and a dismountable control 'desk'. Each fiddle yard has a drawer-like box under the running surface, sitting between the extendable drawer runners. These boxes are intended to hold dismountable structures and stock during transit. The fiddle yards incorporate softwood bearers that locate directly onto the drawer runners, and the boards are then locked into place against the main baseboard using single-hand operating ratchet clamps.

The first photograph shows the basic box / drawer structure of the fiddle yard boards. This is the right-hand one (looking at the front of the layout); the floor of the well that carries the short cassettes has not yet been fitted. At the front corner it is possible to see the channel which sits over the extendable drawer runners.

The next photograph shows the base of the well in place, supporting a temporary cassette. I shall contrive a very simple locating system for cassettes. The track at the rear of the board will be a fixed track, a simple extension of a siding on the main board.

The third photograph shows this fiddle yard board inverted to reveal the hole in the bottom of the drawer (on the centre line) which is used for clamping this boards to the main board. The clamps are simply one-hand ratchet clamps, size 50mm, bought from Wickes (fourth photograph).

The boards are contructed by glueing the ply, and this requires some fairly careful clamping to hold everything in place while the glue sets. In this sense "careful" means using set squares to align components, then lots of (cheap) clamps, with improvisation as necessary. The next photograph shows the left-hand fiddle yard clamped up in situ to make sure that everything locates accurately, with a spacer bar to keep the laterally unsupported drawer bearers the right distance apart at the outer 'open' end. You can just see, wedged between the fiddle yard and the main board, a strip of thin polythene with a black squirly pattern (cut from a carrier bag) placed as a mask to prevent parts sticking together where this is not wanted. Careful masking is absolutely necessary when glueing in situ, to avoid unintentionally ending up with a permanently and depressingly integrated structure.

The sixth photograph shows the "control desk"; this rather pretentious name translates as "box holding the controls for my train set", but it is a separate unit and so needed its own name. It is designed to sit on top of the right-hand fiddle yard in use and to be stored inside it for transit (the layout will be operated from the front both at home and if ever at an exhibition).

The layout will be operated using a Gaugemaster Prodigy Advance for train control, and DCCconcepts Cobalt Alpha electronics for points and accessory control using a mimic panel with a schematic diagram. The control desk accommodates the Gaugemaster and three Alpha components - the LED switches interface, the digital encoder, and the Adaptor / "Sniffer" unit. The irregular shape of the control desk is a result of "form following function". The control desk also acts as a partial screen for the fiddle yard. The schematic diagram seen in the photograph is a mock-up.

The dismountable control desk will connect to the layout wiring with loose cables. This method also allows for the same control equipment to be used on different layouts. The schematic mimic panel and the small shelf holding the handset both lift out to allow clear access to the electronics for programming, etc. and the schematic switch panel could easily be replaced with one for another layout. In use the whole unit is held in place with short removable dowels.

Clearly, there is still finishing work to do on the baseboards; I also need to construct a screen / information board for the left-hand fiddle yard, and fit LED lights to the lighting gantry. I now know that the main layout structure is viable, though, and should provide a good foundation for tracklaying, DCC and actual modelling (which are, of course, the scarier parts of the project).

Happy Christmas, and best wishes for 2018!
Richard

 

[Richard H]

When I worked with Paul, the Squire of Old Parrock, to design and build our main baseboards, we divided the remaining ply between us to use on fiddle yards, etc. My share of the stock is now virtually exhausted and I've reached the stage where I'm trimming offcuts of offcuts to make usable parts. Today I worked on a box structure and had to use said offcuts, one of which was a strip of ply that I'd previously avoided because it was bent. In glueing up the basic box, I had to devise a method I can only call Überclamping. Essentially I had to hold everything in alignment but at the same time hold the front and rear longitudinal pieces so that they were straight.

I took a photograph illustrating the essence of Überclamping - holding a simple box together on its base (a 450 x 22mm footprint) required six clamping blocks fitted into the jaws of a workbench, along with a total of eight other clamps of different sorts.

The silly thing about this effort is that the box is to some extent an experiment, and I'm not entirely sure that my projected use for it will actually work. I'm beginning to whether if I should have taken up Lego modelling.
Richard

 

[Richard H]

I had to reconstruct something today, when I realised that the box I'd made to support the screen on one of the fiddle yards was too high to fit inside the storage 'drawer' for transit. Oops! Very Oops! The first viable option was to trim the top of the box to fit. Cutting a slice off the top of an already constructed box of slightly irregular shape (it has a raked front panel) was a mildly interesting challenge, but the photograph shows the result:

The necessary adjustments are now finished with the results that (a) the box is now reconstructed for use in supporting a fiddle yard screen, and (b) it fits inside the fiddle yard storage drawer to provide storage in transit. Moral of story; measure twice and cut once ... but think hard before deciding what to measure!

 

[Richard H]

Today I was able to put all the various sub-assemblies of my baseboards together for the first time. Some of the components still need paint, but the photographs below show how they fit together. I have (admittedly rather roughly) edited the backgrounds out of the photographs so that the baseboard structure is apparent.

Built primarily for home use, the layout and both fiddle yards will be operated from the front. The screens are intended for use should the layout ever be exhibited. Despite the unfinished paintwork, I feel that I have a viable baseboard system (scenic board, fiddleyards at each end, screens doubling as display/information panels, integral storage, lighting gantry and control desk), and that this represents my second milestone.
All I have to do now is build a railway on it.
Richard.

 

[Richard H]

The recent e-mail from Simon Castens & Iain Rice had a positively diuretic effect, triggering the sudden recognition of an urgent need. I urgently need to turn again to my layout, as in recent months my only significant railway-related activity has been to enjoy Mick Bonwick’s superb one-day courses on weathering.

I realised some time ago that traversers would allow easier operation and more effective off-scene storage than the cassettes I had originally intended, but this decision led only to resolute procrastination until last week when, with much ecouragement from Paul (of Old Parrock), I took a saw to the right-hand fiddle yard.

I calculated that I had space to fit a three-road traverser approximately 430mm long. I wanted a simple sliding mechanism that could be fitted entirely within the existing baseboard, and be removed if necessary for maintenance, but with sufficient space beneath it for electronics.

The traverser is a simple ‘inverted tray’ consisting of a trackbed of 9mm birch-faced ply, braced underneath with sides and end pieces. One side of a runner mechanism is screwed to each end of the traverser table. The other side of each runner mechanism is screwed into L-shaped brackets constructed from 9mm ply, which are screwed beneath the original baseboard at either end of the aperture for the traverser table, and are designed to ensure the accurate positioning and aligment of the runners. The picture below shows the runners and brackets fixed to the traverser table, thus forming an integral unit; in this view the whole assembly is inverted, as if seen from below the baseboard. The sketch which follows the photograph shows a cross section of the runner arrangement.

In order to fit the runners to a plywood surface without a machined groove, both parts of the runner unit must be securely fixed at or near both ends and this required the drilling of one new hole in the part that would normally be held in the drawer groove.

Fitting the traverser assembly into the aperture required aligning the top surface of the traverser with the top surface of the baseboard trackbed, and ensuring just enough clearance at both ends for free movment. This was achieved by careful measurement then using two pieces of thin card as a spacer when fitting the traverser into the aperture. To ensure accuracy, pilot holes were drilled for the screws through the baseboard top.

From above the final result looks like this:

Below the fitted traverser there is just over 50mm clearance, which will be used to accommodate most of the electronic components of the DCC system and the LED transformer. The ‘patched-in’ appearance of some of the visible ply surfaces is a result of the structure being made from my few remaining offcuts of 9mm birch ply.

I have a traverser! I still need to make something similar for the other fiddle yard, but the next stage is to get beyond the foundations and work on the parts that might actually, eventually, look like a railway. I hope to be able to report some progress before I reply to Simon & Iain’s email.
Richard H

 

[Richard H]

Today I modified three Peco Code 75 Electrofrog points. The modifications are intended to improve the appearance of the points by removing the various plastic exrescences around the tiebar, and the tiebar itself. The technique was devised by Simon Cullen and described by him in an article in 'Railway Modeller', July issue 2017, pp.594-6. I'd like to record my thanks to Mr Cullen for sharing his very neat design. His method is well worth considering as a way of improving the appearance of Peco Code 75 points. The article gives comprehensive and detailed instructions, so I shall not describe them here.

I have deviated from the original design, though, in that I have changed the way the linkage attaches to the tiebar, replacing Simon Cullen's wire loop with a piece of tube to make it easier to connect the tiebar to the actuating wire of a DCCConcepts points motor fitting in the normal vertical position.

The first photo illustrates the intention behind the job (essentially to make the points look better) and this overview gives an idea of how the points look after modification.

Underneath the points the original plastic tiebar has been replaced with a new one made from 4mm scale 'copperclad' sleeper strip. The new tiebar is fitted with three tubes, the outer pair of tubes holding 'L-droppers' which are soldered to the underside of the point blades while the centre tube takes the actuating wire from the point motor. The next photos show the underside of the points and the new tiebar arrangement.

In addition to the tiebar, the points have been prepared for switched frog operation.

Simon Cullen's original design included a cosmetic tiebar made from plastic and glued to the new functional tiebar. I modified this aspect of his design when I realised that the centre tube would work better fro me, and could also be used to support a length of 2mm scale copperclad sleeper strip, soldered in place to represent a tiebar. This obviates the need for glued plastic. While the cosmetic tiebar is not a detailed, accurate model of the prototype it could form a foundation for further detailing.

This tiebar replacement method produces points which work accurately but very freely, the blades moving easily under the effect of gravity when the point is tilted. I have two more points to modify, then I can start tracklaying. It's been quite encouraging to find that I can remember how to solder and that my modelling skills have not been lost in the wilderness years since my last (amost finished) layout.
Richard

 

[Richard H]

This has been another one of those days when the Railway Modeller really came in useful:

I've been fixing underlay in place and needed weight to ensure it dries flat and level - if ply boards with 16 years worth of RM on them can't do that then I'm sunk. The adhesive is Evostick spray carpet adhesive - something I have not used before. I made some experiments with patches of underlay and ply, and it seems pretty effective, but the real test will be when I take the weights off. Both of the materials to be joined need to be sprayed, and although the aerosol is reasonably controllable I masked everything to ensure I could work quickly and cleanly. Positioning the underlay was 'interesting', as the glue makes a more-or-less instant bond upon contact.

Leaving the underlay to dry, I started work on constructing a traverser for the second fiddle yard. This involved joining offcuts of ply from my scrap box to make panels large enough to use as the traverser platform. The ply I used was the last of the slightly larger offcuts, and what now remains in the scrap box is of only limited use:

The last task of the day was to laminate two layers of my ply panels to make the traverser platform, so that can be worked tomorrow. At the same time I also made the two brackets (L-shaped in section) to which the traverser's groove-runners will be fixed. Paint tins made lo-tech but adequate weights for laminating, while clamps served for the L-brackets:

Tomorrow's first job is to construct the 'inverted tray' forming the traverser itself, and then I need to cut the hole in the baseboard surface to accommodate the traverser, and cut transverse holes in part of the framing to accommodate the runners - as with the previous fiddle yard conversion, that's a source of some apprehension. The remaining time will be spent on tracklaying.

This resurgence of activity has led to material progress on the layout; apart from that being fairly motivating in itself, I now feel justified in replying to that diuretic email from Simon Castens and Iain Rice, confirming that I am still "in" the Cameo Competition.
Richard

 

[Richard H]

After a long weekend of working on the layout, I have the trackbed laid (the Evostick carpet adhesive and the 16 years of Railway Modeller volumes did the trick. That allowed me to focus today on assembling the second traverser and modifying the existing fiddle yard to accept it. One of the challenging parts of the job was cutting away some of the internal structure of the baseboard (the part that supports it on the drawer runners) whilst leaving enough timber in place to keep everything rigid and stable. I think I've achieved that.

Cutting the aperture was tricky enough, but cutting away sub-structure was trickier. The traverser has about 1mm of clearance beneath it and slides smoothly to serve two tracks.

One of the things that make it worthwhile is that, although it's only a two-track traverser, one of the tracks is in a cassette, which means that this small traverser can be used to serve any number of trains. The cassette road serves the track which leads to 'the west end of the quayside' where shipyard railways produced traffic. I believe that this system will give me most of the flexibiltiy I need.

Here's a photo of the new traverser fitted into the left-hand fiddle yard:

The track is not fixed, but is temporarily there just to give the effect. A cassette with 'Perspex' sides is sitting in its channel on the traverser table and is aligned with the rearmost track at this end of the layout; the cassette road also serves the track at the front of the layout.

I have to admit that this feels like a big step forward, in that I can now concentrate on the tracklaying, DCC controls and the scenic modelling.
Richard

 

[Richard H]

One of my traversers accommodates one fixed track and one cassette, and I have built a total of four cassettes of two different lengths to use with it. Rolling stock, though, has an inherent tendency to ... roll, and so the use of cassettes requires some means of inhibiting this unfortunate characteristic if we do not want to see trains behaving like lemmings.

As a temporary measure (which may yet become a permanent solution), I've devised a simple, clip-on end-stop that will fit any of the cassettes and is cheap, quick and easy to make. The Mk1 version requires a sprung wooden clothes peg and a lolly-stick of decent quality. First dismantle and reverse the arms of the clothes page so that it acts a clamp with straight inner faces. (This is in any case a very useful way to making versatile clamps for small tasks.) Cut a small groove the width of the lolly-stick in one of the side faces of the peg and glue an appropriate length of lolly-stick into it, so that when the peg is clamped on vertical side of the cassette, the lolly-stick projects across the track at about buffer height, and essentially acts as a buffer stop. This clamp can be used at any point along the cassette, and thereby immobilise rakes of any length. See the first photo.

become

The Mk2 version (below) is intended for use at the ends of a cassette; it has the 'buffer stop' in a different orientation and has the added refinement of a piece of foam padding on the outer arm of the peg. In this version a piece of 4mm ply replaces the lolly-stick, glued into a small housing cut in one arm of the peg:

The photos below show the clamp in use. It allows for some small variation in position but is essentially only an end stop. The inner arm of this particular peg is just narrow enough to miss the side of the vehicle - the arm could be further thinned if necessary.

To give the photos a slightly more specific sense of scale, the width of the ply trackbed is 45mm.
All of this activity, of course, is little more than an amusing diversion from the real job of tracklaying, which is going rather slowly.
Richard

 

[Richard H]

May 31st, and I've reached another milestone; the tracklaying is finished. Here's a photo to compare with the original plan posted on the first page of this blog:

I realised, once I'd started, that I had an unanticipated problem; my original intention had to use small radius Peco points which are only available in flat-bottomed rail with unprototypically close sleeper spacing, and to use the new Peco bullhead track for the rest of the trackwork to take advantage of the more protoypical sleeper spacing and a more prototypical rail section. It was soon apparent, though, that the different sleeper spacings simply looked wrong when mixed, especially given the number of short sections of plain track.

Given that I have no realistic choice at this stage about the points, I considered different ways of using the bullhead track (for instance on the longer front sidings) but the effect was always an unsatisfying and rather disquieting visual jumble. In the end I concluded that neatness and consistency was more important than having accurate sleeper spacing in only parts of the layout, and I decided to adopt 'standard' Peco Code 75 flat-bottomed track throughout. This is essentially an '00-gauge' compromise and a result of my original decision to use proprietary track system.

I ended up using a stock of track that I bought many years ago for a layout based on the Stadtbahn in Vienna. Although the track had been laid and electrified this became one of those unfinished projects with which my modelling career is littered. To finish the Low Quay Yard I had to use every decent length of track I had to hand, but luckily there was just enough, and to illustrate that, here's a photograph of everything that is left:

What might appear to be subtle weathering on the sleepers, isn't - it's a layer of dust which corresponds to the age of the track.

On the up side, the track works. To get from end to end of the layout a vehicle has to exit a traverser, cross two board joints, negotiate up to four turnouts and some relatively sharp curves, pass through two narrow apertures, and enter the other traverser, one of the tracks on the left-hand traverser being a cassette.

To give an idea of the track between the left hand traverser board and the main baseboard, here's a photograph showing the board joint, a short length of track to link from there to the traverser, and the end of the traverser itself. In this picture the cassette (on the right in the photograph) is aligned with the siding it serves.

The fixed track on this traverser (on the left in the photograph above) aligns only with one of the entry tracks, whereas the cassette road can be aligned with either of the entry tracks.

The photograph below shows the same joint from the baseboard side; the wagon is on the running track and the traverser is set to align its fixed track with the running line. The track on the left of the picture is the end of the front siding, which can only be used beyond the board joint if the cassette is aligned with that track, and the photograph shows that the cassettee ia not aligned.

The most unforgiving test I could devise to check the trackwork was to use a single, very light (and very expendable) wagon as a test vehicle, and persuade it to hurtle along every route on the layout at the highest speed I could contrive. Happily, I found that even when projected at the speed of an APT it would stay on the tracks, running from end to end of the layout and having to be caught at the end of the fiddle yard to prevent any emulation of that lemming behaviour mentioned in my last post. Not at all like the scale speed operations seen on fine-scale layouts, but great fun.

So, I have track that works. The next major step is to install point motors, electrics and electronics, and get the DCC working - a whole new area for me. Then, all I have to do ....

 

[Richard H]

We're entertaining friends this weekend, so the railway had to be taken off the workbench and put back in its normal habitat, and my "Light Railway Workshop No.1" was once again relegated to its less exciting secondary role as "the spare bedroom". This was the first time the layout has been re-erected after rebuilding the fiddle yards as traversers - it worked, and everything fitted as it should. I know that this is as it should be, and that there was no rational reason to anticipate a problem, but I was deeply apprehensive that I'd missed something, or made some fundamental miscalculation, or the foundations of the house had moved, whatever. Anyway, my fears proved unfounded and my sense of relief was almost as profound as my anxieties (it never quite catches up).

Before this I had managed to determine a location for the Gaugemaster base unit underneath the baseboard and fix it in place. People who read the early stages of this blog may remember that I had made a cunningly-contrived housing for the Gaugemaster and the switch panel, which would sit on the front of a fiddle yard; this cunning contrivance went the way of most Cunning Plans when I converted the said fiddle yard to a traverser. I belatedly decided that integrating the electrics and electronics into the main board was more in the spirit of a cameo layout anyway (thereby rather dubiously reclaiming the moral high ground) and set about working out how to do it.

Not as simple as it sounds, for the stylish Gaugemaster base unit has no fixing points, but as the operating (and relatively valuable) heart of the layout it needs to be secure and safe, and it needs access for connections at both ends. It also requires its own power source. I realised, though, that as an electronic device with no moving parts it could operate upside down, standing on its side, or even "the right way up". (This seems to work in the International Space Station, so there's at least a chance that it should be OK on a small model railway.)

The solution was to identify a site under the main board where it was safe, accessible, and adequately clear of other structures, wiring runs or anything that might need maintenance or attention, and then to tie it in place. In the absence of fixing points, I used cable ties and cable tie mounts, like these:

These are readily available, cheap, easy to use, self-adhesive but with holes for a reinforcing screw, and very strong. They also, by chance, fit rather well around the feet of the Gaugemaster, which makes it easy to secure the unit against lateral movement. The next photograph below shows the base unit in place, with the power block mounted nearby using the same technique.

The mains supply is clearly marked and 240v wiring kept as short as possible. The yellow cable is a 'tail' to connect the mains input. The Gaugemaster power source is mounted on a small ply panel fixed over the drawer runners which support one of the fiddle yards (but removable if necessary). The next photographs shows more detail of the mounting system:

Six cable tie mounts are used under the Gaugemaster base unit, each reinforced with a screw. The four mounts at the corners locate against the Gaugemaster feet to prevent lateral movement, and the ties are narrow enough not to impede ventilation to interfere with the slide switches.

Nothing will get done over the weekend, but getting to this point feels like progress,
Richard

 

[Richard H]

My recent quietness resulted from my struggle to install and begin to come to terms with DCC. Despite having read about it I soon discovered that I had very little real understanding of the actual practice of DCC. However, thanks to the kindness, tolerance, guidance and good advice offered by the chaps at DCCConcepts, I now have a working layout, albeit one that uses DCC at a pretty basic level. This also involved building a new design of control panel which can be mounted in either of two different locations, primarily for home use but with a different location for use should the layout ever reach an exhibition. I found myself unable to focus on other aspects of the layout until I had the DCC sysem and all the other electrics/electronics working.

So, the track has power and the test locomotives move under control, and the digital point motors points driving the successfully modified points are operated from a mimic control panel fitted with LED route indicators. The LED layout lighting is in place. I have a power take-off dedicated to a rolling road, and a programming track fitted with a different sort of connector to those on the main layout, so that it is physically not possible to connect the programming track to the main track circuit and thereby blow up the Gaugemaster. Although the wiring underneath the baseboard is horriby amateurish I can follow its function and maintain/repair it should it become necessary, and everthing is contained under the one main base board.

It was chastening - and to some extent depressing - to realise that some aspects of my original planning simply did not work, and required either modification or a complete re-think as I went along. Perhaps the most visible example of this was arrangement of tracks in the left-end fiddle yard; after empirically testing and re-evaluating the design concepts in practice (which really means, "playing with the layout a bit") I decided to (a) ensure that both the exits from the layout aligned with a track on the traverser at the same time, and (b) discard the cassette idea in favour of fixed tracks, which required me to modify the traverser itself.

Having got to that stage a couple of weeks ago, I then felt able to tackle some scenic work, and opted to start by kit-bashing a small trackside goods store. I'll describe this and current projects in a separate posting.
Richard

 

[Richard H]

It's almost a month since my last posting; I'm a slow worker anyway, but that rather fraught month has included some major household re-decoration, family commitments, and a couple of "interesting" domestic plumbing emergencies. Progress on the Low Quay has therefore been limited but I can now report that my first two 3D buildings are complete. The photos below show them painted in a base colour; they will be weathered at the same time as other structures to help achieve a coherent appearance.

The larger building completely masks the "hole in the sky" through which the rear siding exits the layout at the right-hand end, while the smaller wooden building partially masks the exit of the main running line at the right hand end, and distracts attention from it. There will be another structure to help mask the actual hole. The bulk and height of the larger building also creates a strong visual "full stop" at that end of the layout.

The building is based upon, but is not an entirely accurate copy of, the headquarters of R. Hastie & Sons, trawler owners, chandlers and fisheries. The original was built in 1913 on an irregular site to replace an earlier building destroyed by fire. The visible end of the model is a fairly close copy of the prototype and the general structure of the building with its large lift-tower is also representative, but the side walls are not prototypical, the side steps and entrance are an invention, and the entire structure is modelled as a mirror image of the original. It is constructed entirely in plastic (largely Wills' rendered concrete) with windows modified from Wills products. Parts of the building that will not be seen by the viewer are not modelled.

Detail is yet to be added to the roof, which was used for making and repairing large fishing nets, hence the need for the lift and the staircase access to the roof - the net-making clutter will help disguise the fact that the building is truncated by the backscene.

The lower, wooden building represents a small goods store owned by the railway company, and is a deliberate contrast to the mass of the concrete building. In the imaginary world of the Low Quay Yard, this shed is thought to have been re-built by the Blyth & Tyne company when they acquired and developed the line, the original structure having been associated with the Whitley waggonway. It is painted according to the pre-1937 LNER colour schedule. Squeezed into a very narrow site, it accommodates the limited traffic in small consignments, most of the quayside traffic actually being handled at the locations of the various industries. It lies on a siding that originally led to a boatyard, but was truncated when the boat-building ceased and now serves only the railway goods store.

The goods store is constructed from parts of two Wills generic small goods store kits and additional plastic sheet representing the additional weatherboarding and the English Bond brickwork of the plinth. It is modelled with front and rear doors open and some interior detail (the goods inside are HO continental details left over from an unfinished earlier project.) so that the viewer can look through the shed to see a locomotive passing behind it. This is seen in a photograph taken during construction in unpainted condition:

Caveat: the photos show the buildings simply placed in their respective locations. They will only be fixed in place as the track ballasting and the surrounding ground levels and textures are developed and put in place. Once in place, ancilliary details will be constructed, such as a stock yard for Hastie's and a small crane somewhere along the goods store siding.

While making the model of Hastie's building I have realised that my initial estimate of the scale of my scenery was wildly inaccurate - essentially I had lost my intuitive sense of scale. As it has slowly returned, I have been forced to modify my ambitions for the scenic area in the centre of the layout. My next focus will be the view-blocker at the left end of the layout and the frontage of the range of 18thC buildings lying west of the Newcastle Arms at that end. This will "anchor" both ends of the scenery and help me to determine the detail of the central area ... I hope.

It's quite a relief to find that signing up for the competition has had the desired effect in helping me to reach this stage in the layout; while there's a huge amount yet to do, parts of it are now taking shape and becoming intrinsically rewarding.
Richard

 

[Richard H]

Hi All,
With apologies for having been absent for so long (I've been very busy with a couple of non-railway projects), I'm writing to announce that I've decided to withdraw from the Cameo Competition. There are two primary reasons for my decision.

I've reached a point at which I know that I can not in any circumstances finish the layout before April 2019 and obviously this is a fundamental problem in terms of meeting the criteria for the competition. One element in this was that I was too ambitious in what I thought I might achieve.

The second reason, though, is that working on the cameo has indeed re-kindled my interest (one of my primary aims in entering the competition), but I have realised that some of the decisions I made when designing my entry no longer satisfy me. Chief amongst these was the decision to save time by using 00 track standards, and I have come to realise that using very short-wheelbase locomotives with proprietary 00 track is likely always to be inherently problematic. I have therefore decided to continue to build my cameo layout (outside the competition), but to re-lay the track using EM standards, although this may require some adjustment to the track plan. I also want, at least in some measure, to improve upon some other aspects of the design and construction.

Essentially, one of my aims in entering the competition (motivation) has also ready been achieved but, in order to maintain my interest and nourish that motivation, I need to re-focus my intentions and adopt a longer-term plan for finishing the layout.

I have enjoyed being a member of WT (my first ever railway forum) though, and I've greatly appreciated the constructive comment and encouragement in a friendly environment, so I shall retain my membership and post from time to time in the 'Layout Progress' forum. I shall also enjoy reading the postings of 'forum friends' I have made. Thank you again - I congratulate you all on your entries and I wish you all the very best of luck,
Richard