The Weekend Railway

[aussietmrail]

Hi ChrisC,

My mistake keep your girlfriend interested in the hobby a good stress reliever for her after a hard day a teaching kids, not right she has to get classes ready for the next day in her time, wish I could get my wife interested in the hobby. I get out when I can on the layout as we have a disabled son that is 24/7 care and only get an hour break from him a day that is about to change after the 1st of July more funding coming in

She is a good cook to and miss the home made cookies , we get Light and Easy meals delivered saves her that time also just a matter of heating them up in the micro wave

I used to be a Scout leader and only lasted three years a it and I only had the boys or a few hours at night and on weekend camps, never again.

Keep the pics and videos coming.

Tony

[Andrew]

Tony,

Let's not get cut up about scissors or crossovers. And there's many a slip...!

However, my understanding is that single or double slips are, if you like, variants of the diamond crossing where two tracks cross one another, with the extra characteristic of being able to route trains from one of the diagonal tracks to the other. A scissors crossover is where two otherwise independent tracks are linked by pairs of points - it's like a facing crossover and a trailing crossover placed together with a diamond crossing (but not a slip!) in the centre.

So with a scissors crossover, two trains can run simultaneously on the separate tracks (provided of course that the points are set correctly), whereas you can't do that on a slip.

Do you get my point?!

Looking forward to seeing your layout developing further. Good luck with the spiral.

[aussietmrail]

Hi Andrew,

No worries I get what you are going on about with the cross overs being called scissor type a good idea as you save all that room with extra points an looks heaps better in routeing a train from one track to another, always wanted to do that and able to access the third track too a nightmare in switching a double slip cross over, got a single slip too, haven't made up my mind if I will motorise them .

Have changed my layout name from Camdle to Camdale which should of being in the first place, was happy I could sort it out thanks to Mick.

Aiming for a couple days this week to do some work on the layout, winter is here and the progress will be slow.

Tony

[WeekenderSteve]

Andrew, beautifully put!

As I understand it, a 'scissors junction' simply describes the train movements that are possible - basically there are two separate parallel(-ish) tracks, joined by two intersecting crossovers. Normally you'd make a scissors junction from four simple points and a diamond crossing, but in the present case the limited space and the curvature of one of the tracks meant it was easier to make the junction from two points and a single slip, the single slip taking the place of the other two points and the diamond crossing.

But anyway, here on the uphill side of the planet - and laying aside all discussion of misidentified spouses - it must be time for another update. In fact it's way past time for an update, forum posts are running several weeks behind progress at the moment, but I'm sure they'll catch up when the weather's less demanding of outdoor-only activities.

A couple of months ago I ran a battery-powered train round the line for a visual survey of the trackbed, from which it was clear that the gradients weren't as consistent as they might be, so as ChrisC intimated a few weeks ago, the next step was to try to measure gradients reasonably accurately.

The ideal tool for the job was the electronic 2-axis clinometer that Chris happened to build some years ago as an undergraduate project, and which conveniently just about fits within a OO loading gauge.

The clinometer measures accurate to 0.1 degree (roughly half a millimetre in a foot) which ought to be good enough for the present purpose.

We initially thought we might be able to use it to measure spot gradients at 1-foot intervals, assume each gradient applied for the next foot of track, and from that derive a gradient profile, but it rapidly became clear that small-scale variations rendered the results hopelessly inaccurate. One of the advantages of a line that goes round in a circuit is that the total rise and fall around that circuit must sum to zero. When instead it summed to over 40mm, it was clear the data collection method wasn't suitable.

So instead, I built a rigid wagon, with a 9-inch wheelbase, to carry Chris's clinometer. This meant that if we recorded gradients at exactly 9 inch intervals, we'd have surveyed the whole track, and no extrapolation would be necessary. The system was for one of us to record the data, while the other operated the wagon: take a reading, mark where the leading wheel is, roll it forward until the trailing wheel aligns with the mark, take another reading, and so on, until you get back where you started. Despite the somewhat challenging access to parts of the circuit, the entire survey took only about an hour.

(There were two reasons for choosing a 9" wheelbase for the wagon: firstly, it's a quarter of 36, so a Peco Streamline joint should occur at the same point in every fourth measurement, and secondly, anything longer would have resulted in the axles being at too much of an angle to the track on the tighter curves. As it was, flanges were binding, but it would just about sit comfortably on the track.)

Here's the wagon, with the clinometer mounted:

ABCD profile_C6.jpg[/attachment]

Which is all well and good, but it's difficult to interpret, since it doesn't reflect the way the line loops around.

So with a bit of manipulation, the profile can be folded around, to look like this:

[traingeekboy]

Wow that's some serious hi tech train gear.

I don't even need one of those devices to see there are serious grade issues on my layout. I was eyeballing the thing and could see some posts have sunk causing dips in my mains. irregularities are part and parcel of this outdoor stuff though.

[WeekenderSteve]

Griff, technical overkill strikes again!

My original idea for measuring the gradients involved a large ball bearing - about 1.5" diameter, it sits happily on the track, and the faster it rolls the steeper the track must be. I thought perhaps I could time it from a standing start at 1-foot intervals, and then try to interpret the results. Having listened patiently to my plan, Chris said "why not just use my electronic clinometer?!"

So we did.

Also, I'm pleased to say I've even worked out how to colour-code the profile:

[aussietmrail]

Hi Chris that is some electronics you have put together to measure the grades, what course was it you did, I would love to have that running on my layout to measure the grades as my spiral is 9 inches high and the spiral length is 23feet by a 7ft diameter, each foot it drops down 3/8 inches or every 3 and a half feet it drops down 1&5/16 inches.

If you go to my Camdale post to page 3 you will see in the pics how I worked the grade out on the spiral, actually to my surprise it did work out fine, I think the grade works out at 3 percent, someone told me he Tehachapi loop spiral is 2.4 percent, but the real things diameter will work out to be 8foot across, didn't have the room for that, unless I moved the spiral onto the yard more.

I like the way you did those profile chart pics, pretty good, pity you didn't do a video of the clinometer in action.

Tony.

[WeekenderSteve]

Having measured the gradients and established where the worst problems lay, the next step was to try and fix them. Two main methods have been used: either adjusting timbers to move the trackbed, or inserting thin plastic shims under the track to adjust its level - a Weekender-ish equivalent to repacking the ballast, perhaps. The first approach is most suitable where a significant length of trackbed needs to be moved, or where track needs to be lowered: I've found it very difficult to find negative-thickness plastic with which to make track-lowering shims.

As I've mentioned before, most of the 'proper' timbers have stayed where they were, and needed very little work; the problems mainly lay in the OSB sections, where the OSB itself has distorted, and triangulated supports have moved.

The big jobs were tackled first: a thicker support was inserted on Grumpy's seatback for Upper Grumpy Curve, the beam from Tree 14 supporting Lower Grumpy Curve was lowered, and the diagonally-braced beam that supports the outer ends of both tree curves was raised quite a bit. (Incidentally, on the subject of that tree, I think I've finally got a positive identification. It does all sorts of impressions - its leaves resemble lime, it drips sap like a birch - but now it's started growing hazelnuts, which is either a giveway, or its best impersonation yet.)

Upper Grumpy curve illustrates well how much of a problem the OSB has (predictably) become. It swelled a lot over the Winter, so in places where it's well-supported the trackbed has risen; in places where it's not so well supported, although it's still swelled, it's also sagged. So I had to lower the supports for the mid and upper parts of Upper Grumpy Curve to get the top part back where it should be, but then insert an awful lot of packing to get the gradient right on the lower part of the curve, too. Even though the OSB's changed shape, it's not at all amenable to being forced back to the shape it should be. So, here's how it's ended up: there's no packing at all in front of the little house, but masses needed round the rest of the curve, because the OSB under the point (by the corner of the Shed) has buckled. The gradient through the point was about 1:21.5 before adjustment!

DSC06575r39.JPG[/attachment]

Steps had developed where track transitions from timber to OSB. Generally these could simply be eased by packing, although in places the timber had to be lowered a bit first, to keep the gradients within tolerance: often the end of the OSB rests on the same piece of timber, so dropping the timber would lower the OSB surface to back where it should be, and the track could then be packed back up to match. (Of course, lowering timbers wasn't always without consequences to overhead clearances on tracks below...) The next two photos show typical packing on approach to an OSB transition, and the relatively smooth result:

ABCD2profile_looped_D8.jpg[/attachment]

And here are the old (red) and new (green) profiles, on the same plot:

ABCDcomparison_D8.jpg[/attachment]

Overall, I'm pretty pleased with the results, although the resulting gradients are still rather steeper than originally planned: the B level and outer extremes of A were aimed at 1:50 - 1:60, but in places the average is hardly any better than 1:40. Similarly, C and D were aimed at a maximum of 1:76, but there are significant lengths at close to 1:60. Clearly I'm not as accurate with a spirit level as I thought I was.

Three main gradient-related problems still remain. Firstly, there's a sag on Lower Grumpy Curve (around pos=125 in the lowest plot; towards the far left of the C level on the looped profiles). Here the track bed is unsupported between where it leaves the external timber structure (pos=122 or so) and where it rests on Grumpy's seatback (127 or so). Although the OSB here is reinforced underneath, it's still sagged. There's not really anything to support it on from below - or above - so maybe some type of coach-frame type stretcher underneath might be necessary. Still pondering this one. Secondly, a hump's developed around pos=140, that wasn't there until I 'fixed' the gradients. It's where the track squeezes behind Tree 12, and there's a short piece of OSB in there, so that might be the culprit. Finally, Upper Grumpy Curve is still steeper than ideal - especially given how tight the curve is - but there's no simple solution to this one, because in essence the problem is insufficient track 'mileage' between where it passes over and under the arch bridge, and the gradient could only be eased by increasing the mileage, or steepening the section off the top of the curve - but that'll be part of the 'express' circuit if/when that's reinstated, and the curvature/gradient there is already marginal for express use. So we might just have to live with that one.

One final observation regarding the comparative profiles: nothing at all has been done to the trackbed between pos=40 and pos=50 - yet the two profiles don't agree on that section. The discrepancy is likely simply to be the result of cumulative measurement error. The clinometer measures accurate to 0.1 degree; an error of 0.05 degree is equivalent to 8mm over 30 feet (40 measurement stations at 9" spacing), and the profiles aren't that far apart. Conclusion, this levelling method is great for measuring short/medium-scale gradients and smoothing out gradient profiles, but errors can accumulate over longer distances.

Anyway, all the gradient work that might require lifting of track is now done, so the next step should be seeing whether the rails still conduct electricity well enough to run proper trains.

[traingeekboy]

By the looks of it, it seems as if things really shifted a lot. Your shims made me remember that I need to place some shims under my curves to make them elevated for high speed running.

Did you see a real change in the performance of the trains themselves with all that bowing in the wood; with lots of derailments, or is it merely trying to smooth things out a bit?

[WeekenderSteve]

Griff, the only train that had run this year prior to all the surveying and regrading work was the battery-powered one, illustrated way back in post 107. The videos taken by that train (and some of its derailments!) made it clear that the track had moved a lot since trains ran last Summer. Since remedial work would be needed and such work would be likely to involve lifting track, there seemed no point trying to restore power to the rails, nor to run (derail) other trains. The battery train was a test case, and maybe, with the high centre of gravity of the batteries, a worst-case too; but it also ran slowly, and came off a lot. There were particular problems on a couple of points - the one by the Shed corner, and the one into the yard not so far away. In both cases the point in question straddled a joint in the accursed OSB, and differential swelling had skewed the point.

You've seen how much packing the triangle one took to get it flat again; the other I fixed by lifting the point and the line into the yard, and digging an inclined trench into the OSB so the point could lay flat again:

[traingeekboy]

Now it all makes sense and can be explained with three letters: OSB. The stuff does not hold up to weather very well at all. Seems you've found a fix for it all though, so now all we need is some actual train cam videos.

[WeekenderSteve]

Hmm. I'm not sure I've found a fix. I've found a bodge that works for now, but I can't imagine the OSB will ever stabilise - and I reckon a decent frost will do a lot more damage than the wet ever did.

The only long-term solution would be to replace it with ply - like all you other bright sparks do in the first place! My only defence is that it was only ever meant to be a temporary thing anyway. Best-laid plans, etc etc....

It wouldn't be an easy job, getting the OSB sections out; ideally they'd come out intact, so they could be used as templates for cutting ply. I'll have to wait for the necessary enthusiasm level to be attained.

What amuses me most is that the one piece of OSB that hasn't given a problem is the one that looks the dodgiest of the lot - the base of the lexan bridge. That's only 11mm OSB (the rest is 18mm - well, it was when it started, it's closer to 25mm now!), with a strip of lexan nailed to it down each side - and it's fine. Just fine. Level, straight, not a care in the world. Beats me.

Anyway, for now the track was smooth good enough to be worth testing it electrically. I expected all sorts of disasters, but for whatever reason, they didn't materialise. I gave the whole length a good rub with a track-cleaning rubber, connected up the power supply and one of Chris's Relcos, put a loco on the track - and it went. Just like that.

I've had to clean up the contact faces of point blades with a fine file, but that's it for electrical recommissioning. Didn't have to jiggle a single fishplate to get it to conduct.

The odd bit I'd missed with the rubber didn't work at all, but that was easy to remedy. And once cleaned, the points behaved fine - shunting was even possible in the yard, where there's a ridiculous number of points.

Testing complete, it was time to run an autotrain, and take some snaps of it. The 14xx got the honour, because its unplanned purchase was one of the triggers for the whole silly enterprise. You can see the (redundant) electrical multimeter parked in the yard in the first picture.

[WeekenderSteve]

The video processing problem's solved, so it's time to start bringing the thread up to date. We'll start with a couple of videos, recorded back in June. First, the autotrain stops to pick up passengers from a tiny temporary halt on the S-bend at the start of the upper tree curve (you can just see the platform as the train approaches, then again as it pulls away), before making its way to another tiny halt, in a new location. And then it comes back again - albeit with some minor wheel-slip problems.

WzN73M0_-Ow

">

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

CmZmS0pmuYI

">

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

These videos were actually made before the re-grading of the track was complete, so most of the nasty lumps and bumps you see have been eliminated now.

[traingeekboy]

I like this shot.

http://www.oogardenrailway.co.uk/download/file.php?id=1906' alt='URL>'>

[ChrisC]

I've just found the video to go with Steve's post from 7th July

Autotrain silhouette

sm-SpUt2pPs

">

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

[WeekenderSteve]

The Saga of Stuart's Spur.

Now you've seen the videos it's time to explain why on earth there's a station there - and why the clearances on the track that leads to it are quite so tight. Basically, it's all Stuart's fault. This is Stuart-Weekender, he who, at 3pm on the Sunday of that original weekend looked at a 20-foot gap through free space between two railheads and said "we've got to join the ends up". He's had other clever ideas too. One he suggested involved a line passing across Old Mrs Grumpy's dashboard, entering through one front quarterlight and leaving through the other.

In that form, it wasn't possible: OMG leans so much that a workable gradient between the quarterlights isn't practical, and in any case the dashboard is below window level.

But the trouble with silly ideas like that is that they stick in the mind, and you end up wondering if perhaps some elements of it could be used, somehow. After all, because Grumpy slopes, the passenger side of the dashboard is higher than the ledge of the driver's side quarterlight...

I made the mistake of trying that quarterlight, and discovered that it still opens fine - and when open, there was indeed just enough space to fit a train through. Next question then, how on earth to get a train to it? To come in through the quarterlight it would have to approach along the outside of the car, so it was time for some surveying to see where it might join on to the existing layout - or to prove that it couldn't.

A check on levels indicated that, on an acceptable 'branch line' gradient, about 25 feet of trackbed would be needed to descend from somewhere near the lowest point of the existing circuit to the level of that quarterlight. So, very roughly, that would be up the outside of the car, across the boot space, and back along the other side, climbing all the way. That would give the right sort of track length - but what about avoiding all the existing track? It would have to cross existing alignments somewhere, but tracks can only cross on the level, or with more than a loading-gauge's worth of vertical separation, and that didn't seem very feasible in the mare's nest of tracks that already existed round the rear of OMG. But it was worth a more detailed survey.

Which revealed that, working backwards from the quarterlight on the 'branch line' standard uphill gradient, it looked like the trackbed would be at a suitable height to pass round the outside of the rear right roof pillar, and could probably achieve that on an acceptable curvature radius. Moreover, it would be low enough to pass below the existing Lower Grumpy Curve too, just. What's more, if it climbed across the boot space at that same gradient, it would also, just, clear the sill of the (missing) rear passenger side window too. Continue climbing like that for another ten feet or so, and it could meet up with the existing D level by Tree 10, at the end of the longest scariest (but least visible!) bridge of all.

And by a fluke of the original construction, it could get there there without conflicting with existing track alignments, because the 'C' level curve past trees 11 and 12 is actually (and unusually) a few inches away from the trees that support it - so the new track could fit between the C level and those trees. The existing trackbed structure would be in the way of the necessary alignment, but the track itself wouldn't.

You can see this in the following photo: there's room for another track between the lower level (by 'NO STEP') and the big tree; and though it's out of shot, the same applies to the next tree round, too. That track would be at a slightly lower level, but it would fit....

DSC06305r39.JPG[/attachment]

The existing level D bears off to the right at the point; the new branch goes straight on, and then curves gently left. It's almost impossible to judge levels in that photo, so with luck perhaps the next will make things clearer. Here level C is nearest camera, with the new branch just beyond. 'NO STEP' is just out of shot to the left, on the beam with the brown smears on it. You can see how the other two level C beams have been cut away to make room for the new branch, which is at a lower level than C here, but not low enough here to pass beneath it.

[Andrew]

That's a helpful and fascinating account, Steve, and you almost make it possible to follow the complexity of a layout design exercise that resembles 3D chess. From the account, it seems that the project is probably completed, so we look forward to the full visual evidence emerging in due course. And I'm reassured to see from the photos so far that you seem to have abandoned OSB as a trackbase in favour of good old timber -- that should certainly help the durability (if the car doesn't rust away first). Best wishes for the road ahead!

[WeekenderSteve]

3D chess. I like that. Pawn takes Queen's Bishop, having squeezed past Knight and tunnelled under Rook....

You're right that I'm reporting on something that's already completed - or more precisely, that version of it was completed. There are wagoncam videos back in post 133, from which you'll see that the objective wasn't really achieved: the dashboard can hardly be seen from the train. So there's been a re-think since, but I'll try to keep the build thread chronological, or it'll get even more confusing.

We've certainly learned that OSB is not a long-life material. Mind you, it wasn't intended to be a long-life railway!

[WeekenderSteve]

The Saga of Stuart's Spur: Part Two

In the last substantive post (post 136) the new trackbed had reached the inside of Grumpy's boot. From there, the next major obstacles to progress were the struts supporting the big beam that holds the triangle junction and Upper Grumpy Curve, and which needs to be strong enough to stand on. Two struts got in the way: a small 2x2 which is little more than a steady, and the big 3x3 one that takes most of the load. Luckily, not too much of a notch was needed in the latter. The former had to be cut away more, so I added a reinforcing piece of the side. The end result looks even more of a lash-up than usual, but I'm pleased to report that the necessary test - jumping up and down on the beam afterwards - did not result in collapse, or even noticeable movement.

The diagonal strut cut-outs can be seen best in the various wagoncam videos (post 133, and others forthcoming). They're almost impossible to photograph with a human-held camera, so you can imagine what it was like trying to saw notches in them - let alone notches that needed to be very precisely cut, to minimise the loss of cross-section whilst still just allowing space for a train to pass. Again, you'll see in the videos how tight the clearances are. The following photo's the best I can do:

DSC06332r35.JPG[/attachment]

The near end of the autocoach is in the cut-out in the 3x3 strut.

The next hazard to navigation was the (accursed) OSB trackbed of Lower Grumpy Curve, the underside of which had to be 'relieved' a bit. 'Hacked away' doesn't sound half so technical. The cut-away OSB can be seen directly above the autocoach in the last photo. In fact, normal stock would clear the OSB, but Kelloggcam's taller than that. In some of the videos, you can just hear it contact the OSB, if you listen carefully.

That squeeze under Lower Grumpy Curve was the last time the Spur needed to cross existing tracks though. Next was the curve to bring the line of the track round the remains of Grumpy's rear pillar to run along the outside of the car. A 23" radius curve (the same as most of return curves at the ends of the main layout) would just do the job, with adequate clearance to the wall of the Shed and the downpipe from its gutter. The next picture shows that curve, made roughly in ply. The picture was taken before the OSB above was hacked away to clear, and with the downpipe removed for access: its support bracket can be seen though.

DSC06335r39.JPG[/attachment]

Bizarrely, I seem never to have photographed the bridge out of position, so I'd better press on and describe the next bit, which was the curve into the driver's quarterlight. That too needed to be removable, so it was simply supported by a number of short pieces of 2x1 assembled so that they rested on the boot of the car alongside, and aligned against Grumpy's door and window frame. As with the bridge (and as with the shed door drawbridges) track and electrical continuity would be achieved simply by sliding fishplates back into place. I wanted this piece to be removable so that the quarterlight could still be closed, to keep rain off the dashboard. Despite the state of the car, the front part stays remarkably dry inside, and it's good to keep it that way. Here's that removable curve out of position:

IMAG1498r33.jpg[/attachment]

The final component was the length of track across the dashboard, incorporating space for a small station. That had to have a hinged support leg so that I could get it in, but at least it didn't need to be removable - or so I thought, till three days later it had to come out again, so that I could salvage a horn relay from the fuse panel mounted below the glovebox. Here it is, in place:

DSC06384r35.JPG[/attachment]

Then the train in 'Glovebox Halt'

IMAG1502r33.jpg[/attachment]

[ChrisC]

The final component was the length of track across the dashboard, incorporating space for a small station. That had to have a hinged support leg so that I could get it in, but at least it didn't need to be removable - or so I thought, till three days later it had to come out again, so that I could salvage a horn relay from the fuse panel mounted below the glovebox.

Cars on driveways talk. They talk about things they have broken recently so the others can join in and they discuss which bits you've recently made really hard to get at so that one of the others can make you go and get it!

I've no idea how they do it, but they do!