The Weekend Railway

[WeekenderSteve]

Roddy, Gateshead's 'blinking eye' (shouldn't it be 'winking' as there's only one...?) certainly crossed my mind. It's an attractive structure, but it didn't seem right for our purposes: I didn't really fancy the second high-level hoop, and the design seems to make rather less sense if you don't need it to open. (Also, it seems to me it must be rather heavily reliant on the strength and correct functioning of the pivots at each end, as I can't see how the bridge bow assembly itself could remain balanced throughout its operation; if the pivots were free, surely the whole thing could just rotate around until it turned turtle, and ships could pass by sailing over it?)

So anyway, our bridge doesn't need to open, and I want to minimise how visually intrusive it is - in fact, how visible it is. The objective's to support the track with as little fuss as possible; and ideally to bear all the bridge loads on the approach trackbeds themselves.

There was also the matter of material to consider. I wanted the structural members to be as slim as possible, but also needed to consider the practicalities of construction. True 'cables' in tension would be all well and good, but perhaps rather difficult to mount and adjust reliably. Compromise solution, I'd weld the whole thing up from 1/4" steel rod; in effect the whole thing would just be a wire frame, except the deck itself.

With that decided, I could envisage a structure in which a series of rods formed a shallow cone. The rods at one side would support the trackbed; the rods the other side would be anchored to the approach timbers, and all loads would be borne through the apex where all the rods met.

There's an appealing simplicity to it, but trying to weld around a dozen rods together in a single point would be difficult: inevitably they wouldn't all quite line up with the same point, access for the welding itself would be difficult, as would grinding down the welds.

So I decided, in effect, to chop the top off the cone, and put a ring round where I'd cut it. That ring would comprise a series of short straights round the front semi-circle, while the rear semi-circle could just be simplified into a single backstay either side, because there was nothing on which to mount any intermediate rods - they'd just be pointing at Grumpy's bonnet or windscreen.

So here's what I built. Because it's all made of thin rod it's not the easiest thing to photograph, but with luck stage-by-stage pictures will make it reasonably clear. In writing this post I've realised picture clarity isn't helped by the amount of junk on Grumpy's bonnet, confusing the image further.

First, I attached the deck to the side timbers, propping it roughly in the right place, and bent an arch to join the two side members together from a single length of rod:

In that photo you can see several design compromises: the main diagonals are bent round at their ends to locate the trackbed. They ought to be braced to each other at the inner, not the outer, end of that section, but having the braces further out means they can also support the trackbed. Further, one rear backstay can be seen against the sky to have a curve near its end, which was necessary to clear Grumpy's front wing. For the same reason, the brace beneath the main arch joins it a short distance above its mounting point that side; ideally it would be attached right by the mounting washer, as it is the other side. All of these compromise the basic rod-and-node structural design, but they're possible because the materials are way over-specified: all these rods are far thicker and stronger than they need to be, so they're still strong enough even with bends in them where there shouldn't be.

The whole thing, as it hangs there to dry, weighs under 5lb, and used about 30 feet of 6mm rod (cost, less than a tenner). Here it is, drying on the ground after painting the bits I couldn't do the first time. It's the right way up here, which might help see how it works:

[aussietmrail]

Steve wow that metal arch is some engineering and what sort of welder did you used to do the welding, I haven't done any welding for years now, must get mine out and see if I still have those welding skills.

It also would of been hard to get the steel rods cut to the right size being on a gradient too, be awesome to see the first train run on the bridge.

How long does it take you to upload onto you tube, you have a 10 minute video clip, I am going to set up an account tomorrow on u tube so I can upload a 6 minute video in full HD of birds having a free feed on bread and honey, lorikeets part of the parrot family, they are honey eaters do eat seed too. Going to my train club on Saturday and taking video of my Flying Scot with the duel tender dive tenders pulling 11 coaches , bought an iPhone6 mobile, takes awesome video and pics, might take some other video of my other trains also.

Tony.

[WeekenderSteve]

By way of background, rod lengths were calculated in advance (I enjoy 3-d geometry!) to optimise cuts within the lengths I bought, then generally trimmed slightly after a trial fit before tack-welding into place. For rods that needed bends (main arch, the upper 'semi-circle' and the lower ends of the long diagonals that are shaped under the trackbed), I drew the required shape full-size on a piece of too-thin-to-be-otherwise-useful plywood, then bent and adjusted the rods until they matched the drawing. And the welder's a very secondhand hobby MIG welder, joint-owned with two friends, one of whom now lives in Peru....

Back at the plot, the question at the end of post 161 was, in effect, 'where next?'

At the point where the trackbed comes off the birdcage bridge, it's about 4.5" above the bottom of the steel channel. The channel slopes up towards the rear of Grumpy at about 2.7 degrees (around 1:20), while the trackbed is presently descending at 1:60. If it continues at that gradient, then in just over 60" it will meet the bottom of the channel - and have nowhere left to go, because the bottom of the channel's too steep, and there's still another 5 or 6 feet more of it.

Of course, if the trackbed starts to climb again off the bridge, rather than descend, it could make it out of the far end of the channel - but to what purpose? Grumpy's rear wing is right up against the Shed so it can't turn left, the Fence is too close to complete a 180 degree curve to the right, and straight on leads only to a dark inaccessible dead-end space between Shed and tree trunks. In any case, having descended continuously for over 25 feet of track, why throw that away by climbing again? That only really seemed to leave the option of a terminus station in the steel channel.

But, at around the time I was building the birdcage bridge, I was also exchanging emails with that welder-sharing friend in Peru (hello Paul!), in the course of which he was bemoaning the lack of interesting railways in Peru - or in his part of it, anyway. That rather surprised me: I've never been there, but I imagined there'd be Rio Grande-type zigzags climbing up and down rocky gorges all over the place.

And that gave me the solution.

Zigzags!

Thanks Paul. I think that makes you an honorary Weekender now! That's the solution, a zigzag. The channel's wide enough alongside the end of birdcage bridge to take a second track, just, and that way this branch line can continue its downward progress.

In general, there are two main drawbacks with a zigzag: firstly, maximum train length is limited by the 'headshunt' (is that the right term in this context?) at each reversal, and secondly, it's normal in the UK for locomotives to pull not push trains. But the present line is a branch so it doesn't need to take long trains anyway; further, most of the Weekend Railway's stock is Great Western, and the GWR was a great exponent of the autotrain, for the specific reason that the locomotive did not need to run round the train at the end of a branch. We've got two autocoaches and two locomotives of a type that were often auto-fitted, so a zigzag, worked only by autotrains, seems entirely practical. Indeed, it seems the ideal solution.

Next question then is how far up the steel channel can we get before the reversing point? That depends on the length of the 'headshunt' that needs to be fitted in beyond the point. The longest train we might reasonably run would comprise a locomotive, two autocoaches, wagoncam and a couple of flat wagons to separate that from the train far enough for the train to be in focus. I measured that train to be 41" long, using the prairie tank.

So the headshunt needs to be 42" long, to allow for the buffers. Maximum length can be obtained by inclining the headshunt upwards at the far end. A 42" length of track descending at 1:60 drops 0.7"; in the same distance, the steel channel descending at 2.7 degrees will drop almost exactly 2", so the separation will be 1.3". But I need to allow for the reversing point as well, and I'll assume that's level, to minimise the gradient changes into it. If the point's 11" long, the steel channel will drop another 0.5" in that distance, which means that if the trackbed descending off the birdcage bridge continues until it's 1.8" above the bottom of the steel channel, there'll still just be room to fit in the reversing point and headshunt.

The present piece of timber onto which the birdcage bridge attaches is 2x2, and almost at the bottom of the channel at its far end anyway; so it could only continue for about another 4" before reaching the location for the reversing point. That was ideal, about 9" before Grumpy's doorhandle obstructed the channel down to single-track width anyway.

So with all that worked out, I could start cutting timber. I decided the point and adjacent track would be mounted on a piece of ply, so that the changes in gradient would be a little smoother. The return trackbed could sit alongside the present one, and with a bit of careful shaping underneath, just rest in the steel channel. Here's the start of the woodwork: the point will be about where I'm holding it; the timber to the far right is the piece onto which the birdcage bridge attaches, that on the left will be the track descending back out of the steel channel. Both are notched for the ply I haven't fitted yet.

Here the plywood top's now been added (along with another piece out of sight beneath the ply):

And here's a shot zoomed in to where the point will be. If you squint and shut one eye - or ideally both - you can just about convince yourself you can see the 'ripple' in the plywood where the climbing gradient from lower right levels out through the point before climbing again for the headshunt:

The aluminium's underneath the top plywood layer, but what's not clear in the photo is that it's also at a rising angle relative to it, so that the near end of the aluminium is exactly where the headshunt meets the steel channel, and packing can be placed between its top surface and the track itself , when the time comes. Here it is in place (on my browser, I have to scroll the photo itself to see the aluminium bit at the bottom):

 

 

[traingeekboy]

This is just lovely. Want to see more of the new line being built soon.

[WeekenderSteve]

Griff, your wish is my comand - shortly.

But first, a horror film. Way back in post 16, I referred to my 2721 class pannier tank being reduced to just a single whistle. Now, over a year later, it's time to tell - and show - the full story.

I got a bit carried away experimenting with the mini camera. I thought I'd try it offset on a flat wagon, so that it could look down the side of the train it was attached to. The camera was secured by a blob of blu-tack, and I was definitely too ambitious with the first placement, because after only a few feet of travel the camera was starting to lean over. I repositioned it - as you'll see - and thought it was then safe to leave unattended. I was wrong, it only made to the point at which the track was the maximum height above ground level.

So here, in real time and then again in super-gory super-slo-mo, you can watch the disaster unfold. You might wish to do so from behind the sofa.

 

 

[WeekenderSteve]

With the video nasty out of the way, I'll return to the construction account, picking up from the end of post 163. That described the construction of the trackbed for a 'zigzag' type reverse, and left trains with the opportunity to fly out over a scale 150' drop.

So the next thing was to design something to catch them. Long-bristled soft brushes down the sides of a kind of funnel-shape might work; the difficult bit of course would be designing the catapult to fire them back up onto the track after they'd been caught.

It's OK, I'm kidding.

But I hadn't really got a plan for 'what next.' I think Mick's approach is rubbing off!

The options were just to stop (seems a bit defeatist), or curve back to the right (back round the front of Grumpy, but then that obscures her more, and doesn't lead anywhere useful), or to curve left, back towards the trees.

The drawback (or challenge) with the latter was that the track would need to cross the accessway between the trees and Grumpy: we need to be able to get up there for track cleaning, maintenance and so on. A fixed bridge would in fact be just about low enough to step over, but not comfortably. Inevitably it would get kicked or snagged, probably just when a train was approaching.

OK then, this section of trackbed needs to be somehow removable, and easily so. That seems to be leading to the idea of another lifting bridge, like those across the shed doorways; but the track connexions on and off those rely on fishplates being slid across the joints, so opening and closing them isn't the work of a moment, and requires the use of a suitable tool for sliding the fishplates. That's fine for something that's put in place and left there for a session, or a few days, but not really for something that might need to be moved aside during a running session.

So I thought I'd try and build a lifting bridge that opened and closed easily, without the aid of tools, lining up and connecting track without having to fiddle around sliding fishplates.

Getting a lifting section to land at exactly the right height isn't too difficult; getting it in exactly the right side-to-side alignment - accurately enough that trains don't derail - didn't seem so simple, especially when the bridge deck was going to be something over 30" long. The hinges couldn't be relied upon to ensure that alignment - I just didn't think I could make a bridge deck swing that accurately - so the abutment on which it lands would have to be such a shape as to ensure that it came down in the right place.

But could even that ensure that rails aligned precisely enough to run a train over? Maybe, if the joint was on a straight section of track - but both ends of this bridge needed to be on curves, so I felt I needed some sort of positive engagement between the ends of the rails. So I started experimenting with specially-shaped rail ends.

This is the design I came up with.

And here they are with the bridge 'closed'. The rails nearer the camera are simulating a smaller overlap on a cold day:

In the photo, the new section of trackbed can be seen, comprising the arris rail to the left of the image (the triangular-section piece), the short deep section secured to tree 7, and the longer piece to the right of that. The top line of these three descends at 1:60 to the left. The far right piece of new timber is just there to give a horizontal: its underside is dead level, and gives me something to aim at for the next 'headshunt', with the line coming off the lifting bridge.

Even with space for another track between the bridge hinges and the trees, to get the widest reasonable opening I needed the bridge hinges to be partly underneath existing trackbed (right under the scissors junction, in fact). So the hinge line couldn't be horizontal: the bridge deck would need to tilt as it opened.

Here's the next stage of construction:

DSC06802r39.JPG[/attachment]

Since the previous picure, I've added the outer hinge mount (also with an angled face in its top surface), a diagonal prop to hold the whole lot in place, and the lifting beam itself, with hinge mounts either side. For now, the Grumpy end of it is just resting on a protruding edge of the block under the trackbed in the steel channel.

Here's the bridge half-open. The skew mounting of the hinges ensures it leans outwards just enough to clear the scissor junction baseplate mid-swing:

DSC06812r39.JPG[/attachment]

You can see that slightly skew hinge axis again - and also that the screws for one of the hinges were slightly too long!

In time, there'll be something to support the far end when the bridge is open, so that the weight isn't actually taken by the track.

Here's the bridge viewed from Grumpy.

[traingeekboy]

This just seems like so much fun. I love your additions.

[WeekenderSteve]

The next thing, then, is the work required at the Grumpy end of the lifting bridge, to ensure it always closes in the same place. I decided it can't just rest in place, it has to be secured against being disturbed while a train's on the bridge. But it needs to be secured by something that can be operated quickly and easily by hand, without the need for tools.

The two shed door drawbridges were each secured down by a single big tower bolt. A single bolt works well enough in those cases, where the design requires fishplates to be slid across to complete the connexion. But if two bolts are used - one either side - and are accurately-enough positioned, then they alone ought to be sufficient to ensure alignment good enough for the shaped rail ends to do the rest. And moreover, if there are two bolts, and they're made of a non-corroding metal, then each can also look after one of the electrical connexions too.

So I bought (bought!) a couple of bathroom door bolts, in brass, and installed one each side:

DSC06884r39.JPG[/attachment]

DSC06902c.JPG[/attachment]

And here they are with the bridge lowered:

DSC07334cr52.JPG[/attachment]

As you can see, it's just made by cutting a short section from one side of a length of flexi, and slipping the stub-sleepers in the gaps between the existing ones (once the webs between them had been cut away of course). It doesn't look right, because the check rail chairs should be on the same sleepers as the running rails, but I couldn't find another way to do it that seemed likely to stand up to outdoor conditions. Any better suggestions will be welcomed, but in fact I think the checkrail demonstrates that the type of rail ends used at the other end of the bridge would be OK here after all: the hinges are far enough offset from the track joint (because of the skew cut in the timbers) that the end of the checkrail that sticks out over the gap doesn't foul the far sleepers, as you might expect it to, when the bridge opens. So I reckon at some future time I'll just make up another set of rails to match the ones at the other end, and install them instead.

Anyway with those special track sections in place, the railhead could now be advanced around the birdcage bridge, through the first reversing point, over the lifting bridge and all the way to the second reversing point:

 

[aussietmrail]

It's going to pretty awesome when you finish off laying the reverse track and how you are going to run the train onto that track and onto the birdcage bridge, the Zig Zag railway in NSW Australia, there is second shunt track where the loco and shunt around to the other end of the train and head up the second track.

Keep the good work up, nice to se the progress moving along nicely and see the first test train running on the new section.

We have cooler weather this week been pretty hot highest was 41 degrees, just about finished one side of my tunnel module, got some grass stuff and lichen mix for low shrubs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zig_Zag_Railway" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[doublecee]

when I first saw this thread when it was just a one pager, I thought no, no, no, no, no.

But I cant help but say yes, yes, yes & yes to it all now. Its really grown on me. Its mad, bonkers, eccentric and plain outrageous... but it works! This has been a fun topic to follow.

I salute you & your endeavours

[WeekenderSteve]

Doublecee, I hope not too much distress was caused by those early posts. Nor those yet to come...

At the end of the last update, track had been laid over the lifting bridge, and the points for two 'zigzag' reverses. As I remarked then, the next step was to reinstate the removable section past Grumpy's rear door. It was originally made to lead to the first iteration of Stuart's Spur, and now here it is again, with its gradient eased and the track at the downhill end slightly realigned to link up with recent construction:

DSC06936r39.JPG[/attachment]

At the time there were thoughts about something else which might replace this rather stark straight in due course. Those plans have changed several times since, but that beam's still there at the moment.

Before going any further with tracklaying, I realised I needed to do something about electrical feeds to these track sections. Isolating points are generally a Good Thing, but less so here. This, at the moment, is a branch line to somewhere. The points are there to allow a train to zig-zag its way downhill - with more space, long curves or spirals could have been used instead. For the time being, there's no intention that the reverses will ever divide the branch up into sections on which trains might be operated separately, so on that basis, the electrical switching function in the points can simply be short-circuited, to make the whole branch a single section, electrically.

So I soldered some wires to fishplates and installed them like so:

DSC07496cr48.JPG[/attachment]

This means that the very end of the spur - about the last 6" before the buffers - inclines upwards rather more steeply than the rest, but it seemed worthwhile adding the extra length while the opportunity presented (I had a piece of flexi exactly the right length!) rather than later wishing that slightly longer trains could be accommodated.

That's all well and good, so now trains can get from the main layout, via the 'squeeze' in Grumpy's boot, the birdcage bridge and the zigzags - to where? We needed an objective.

And there was one looking at us. It's visible in the last picture of post 169. Here's a close-up:

DSC06948r39.JPG[/attachment]

Answer, about an inch below the saddle. So if the downward gradient was eased a little, a cutting could be made through the first saddle, and the track then taken across the top surface of the second one.

On the other hand, what's also become clear is that the track's actually getting quite close to ground level now - which is quite something, given how high above the ground the main layout is. So maybe that was a better objective: carry on downwards, lowering both tree saddles, and see if the track could reach ground level before it tried to disappear up the side of the Shed. Weekender Chris agreed, so the next morning, out came the heavy tools:

 

[traingeekboy]

I hadn't expected the double tracks into the car side area. This should add a lot of train movements.

[Ironhorse]

This is just fantastic, way cool! It is the island of Sodor, little engine that could and Yellow Submarine rolled into one. Keep the photos and videos coming Steve.

[PaulinPeru]

As I'm the Paul-that-is-in-Peru mentioned in Post 163, I felt obliged to finally register on here. Good stuff Steve (and Chris), keep it going. If I ever get started on my planned 0-16.5 layout outside (a bit of Welsh narrow gauge in Peru), I'll be sure to start a thread, although it won't even be close to Steve's epic! The zig-zags were in a conversation about the railway from Cusco to Macchu Picchu, if I recall correctly..

[WeekenderSteve]

Paul, welcome aboard! - as if I didn't lead you into it...

Robert (Ironhorse), I like that - though I hope the submarine reference doesn't come too literally true. Or the island one, for that matter!

Griff, I think you'll enjoy that bit on future videos - I do!

Where I had got to, then? At the end of post 172 cuttings had been hacked into the 'saddles' of Trees 9 and 10, as the branch line made a determined bid to reach ground level. The next significant hazard to get past was Tree 12. 11's quite small and set well back against the Fence, but 12's big and sticks out a long way. Moreover, this close to the ground it's also hard up against the Fence at the back, so the track would have to come round the front of it. But there's a big diagonal prop mounted against it at ground level, which can't really be moved or weakened, because it supports the beam that's used to climb over into the space inside the two return loops at that end. And to take the track 'outboard' of the prop as well as the tree (ie, Grumpy side of both) will make it very vulnerable to being trodden on as Weekenders clamber past. The troublesome prop can be seen in the distance in the far left of the last photo of post 172, and more clearly here:

too low[/i] when it got there! It's descended so far in the loop round Grumpy and the zigzag that, even with a bit of clearance work on the prop, it can't get over it if it continues downhill at the same rate.

That discovery prompted a bit of thinking - and some more surveying. The present objective is to reach ground level. At the moment, the track's descending as the ground rises; but reverse again (ie, another zigzag) and the track will be chasing the ground downhill again, and the ground drops away more steeply than the track can.

On the other hand, the survey revealed that if the track climbed a little to find a path over that prop, and then continued on that upward gradient, it would still barely reach Tree 14 before it disappeared entirely underground! So that's the plan then.

In pursuance of which, this shows the trackbed past Tree 11 and on to Tree 12, and a little bit of clearance work to allow the track to get over the diagonal prop:

DSC06992r39.JPG[/attachment]

It's sufficiently low that I've had to push in a piece of scrap timber and a large pebble to stop the dust-dry soil spilling onto the trackbed. It'll need a more permanent structure to serve as a retaining wall.

But doesn't that all seem a bit of an anti-climax? Only a few days earlier, when the track had just made its way off the lifting bridge, a couple of feet above ground level, reaching the ground seemed quite a challange. And now, less than a scale half-mile further on, we're burrowing.

So there's only one thing for it: start tunnelling!

No, not underground. Like this:

DSC07024r39.JPG[/attachment]

In fact that's not quite all of it, because if you look closely at the nearest tree in the previous picture, you'll see there's already a 1/4" hole in it. Each tunnel started off with a hole like that, on the right alignment, made simply by driving a piece of rod (a spare from the birdcage bridge) with a sharpened end through the tree. A plastic tube through the hole like this

DSC07020r39.JPG[/attachment]

And here's a picture looking back the other way. The trackbed's already in place between them - and actually in the distance, from the point location, too, though you can barely see it:

DSC07028r39.JPG[/attachment]

This starts to give an idea just how much the ground slopes: the trackbed descends all the way from its subterranean position by Tree 14, yet here it's a considerable distance above ground level again.

It must be time soon to lay some track and run some trains - and make some video! - but not quite yet.

[WeekenderSteve]

Before going any further with track or trains, a small modification was needed to recent trackbed. The conifers have now been dead long enough that the ground beneath them is starting to recover and support life again, including a tiny horse chestnut and two oak seedlings, one of which can be seen in that last photo beneath the latest section of trackbed. That timber and the one above it, at the moment, will rob the oak of almost all its sunlight; so now that I knew where the track needed to go, out came the jigsaw to cut away unnecessary parts of those two beams to let some light through. The edge of the upper one also needed a trim to make clearance for trains coming out of the second tunnel:

DSC07044cr51.JPG[/attachment]

through the site of the next reversing point

DSC07049r39.JPG[/attachment]

I wanted to lay the track without the reversing point intially, so that clearances could be checked, curvature optimised, and the correct turnout chosen. I wondered if a straight point would fit between the opposed curves, but the alignment looks much better if one curve flows directly into the other. With a bit of fettling, the point of inflexion is just close enough to tree 12 to allow a curved point to fit, so that's what we'll use. Peco's 1:1 scale point plans, downloadable from their website, were invaluable for this.

So the point was purchased and installed, track alignment finalised, and the railhead pushed on through the tunnels:

DSC07082cr39.JPG[/attachment]

The vertical separation's quite pronounced as the track leaves the second tunnel. You can also see this section's laid on another narrow trackbed:

DSC07093cr44.JPG[/attachment]

Two problems remain to be solved before it's time to make an onboard video: firstly, that most recent reversing spur needs some sort of avalanche shelter to keep soil off the tracks; and secondly, Kelloggcam won't fit through the tree tunnels. That was a deliberate decision: the camera installation is much taller than any scale rolling stock, and I've got fed up with having to leave excessive overhead clearances just so the camera will fit. So, the tree tunnels are tall enough for rolling stock, with what looks about the right clearance for steam loco chimney blast, but no more - and we need a new wagoncam design.

We also need a plan for where the branch is going next. At the moment, the prop under the lifting bridges is right where the track wants to be:

[aussietmrail]

Hi Steve, will have to ask are the trees still alive , like your tunnel boring machine, what do you think of the Dewalt I use Ryobi and my wife said I could have a Ryobi impact driver for Christmas, can't wait to use it and will use the other screw driver dill for drilling and countersinking , no more leads to get caught , do plan o buy next year 18volt jig saw.

Be awesome to see the trains running through the tunnels, and all the levels, how many are there now, still planning to go down to ground level, my layout is slow going doing some work last weekend on the second tunnel model.

Had a good break in the hot weather, but we are copping storms for the next week, good to see the rain again, so long as they aren't as bad as the ones last week with 146k's an hour winds sure did a lot of damage in Brisbane, we coped a storm the week before with 60 to 90 k an hour winds, a bad one predicted for today.

Tony.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Guest

[WeekenderSteve]

Looking back at that last post, I'm wondering if I need a different approach to writing these updates. At the moment, I tend to look through the photos, post the worthwhile ones, and add some text to describe what was going on. And stop when I hit the limit for inline attachments. All well and good, but when I've taken rather a lot of photos, I can fill a post with very little progress - like that last one, which could all be summarised in the sentence "I laid some track"! Methinks I need to be a bit more selective with the photos - and a bit more concise with the text too.

The next bit's best told almost entirely in pictures, though: the prop under the lifting bridge hinges needed to be modified to allow the passage of a lower-level track, without allowing the hinge mounting points to move. And that meant never leaving them unsupported, because there's rather a weight of timber hanging out there. The starting point was illustrated at the end of post 177; here's the rest of the process:

DSC07115r39.JPG[/attachment]

It's as close to the tree as it can be, having regard to overhead clearances. The vertical prop under the outer hinge means the whole assembly sticks out a little further from the tree than it used to, but no-one's walked into it yet so I think it's OK.

I then pushed the trackbed on a bit further, and extended the railhead as far as present track stocks permitted:

DSC07160r39.JPG[/attachment]

DSC07187r39.JPG[/attachment]

And here are a couple of resulting videos - in which you'll also see how the 'avalanche shelter' at the end of the lowest reversing spur turned out. The first descends from the 'longest scariest bridge' on level D all the way to the present railhead, while the second comprises the return journey, facing the other way - while a Weekender tries to keep himself (mostly) out of shot. I've cut out the worst of the long pauses while Weekenders clambered around to switch inaccessible points.

UfqIaJXW3kw

">

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gkpIyP0oFt4

">

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The higher 'eyeline' that results from having the camera the right way up in its new installation gives an interesting perspective on some of the overhead and lineside clearances.

[Andrew]

Congratulations on this latest impressive phase of construction, Steve. Your capacity for harebrained engineering is a constant source of wonder! The new track looks great, and I particularly like its passage through the saddles and tree tunnels, which latter must be a model railway first. Now you not only have a station (one up on me) but it has an avalanche shelter too. It's all very exciting, and I look forward to seeing how your muse will lead you once the track hits ground level. Good luck with this entertaining and inspiring work.

[aussietmrail]

Hi Steve yeah have to agree on what Andrew has said I like the small station too, be interesting what your plan is once you hit ground level, do you have a main yard in a shed where the trains start from.

I saw on our news channel they did a story on surfing using the latest goPro full HD video cam, pretty awesome if I go that way have seen on eBay the goPros going for under $100 and pretty small,

fit well on a flat wagon.

Keep the good work up and video coming like watching them.