Metrocamel's Layout- Modern Engineers wagons - pics page 51

[egroeg93]

I love this layout Gonna be anymore??

[Metrocamel]

Seems like ages since I posted here, or on the forum in general (probably because it was ages ). In any case, I'm hoping to get some work done on the layout soon.

At the moment its in a pretty bad state and I just can't enjoy running it the way it looks right now, so the plan is to relay the track with a couple of minor revisions to the tarck plan (might get rid of the smallest of the three sidings). Newer track (since some has been replaced before) will be cleaned up and reused, but older stuff (as in the sidings which look awful) will be replaced with code 75. I really wish I'd used this from the start, but the cost of repalcing all the points would be hard to swallow, so I'll just have to mix with the code 100.

I'm also planning to alter the sleeper spacing on the track by cutting between sleepers to move them out closer to correct 4mm scale spacing. I know some say this creates a narrow gauge effect, but a few experiments have looked pretty good to me, so I might just extend this to the whole layout (the points excluded). Reballasting is also on the agenda, this time with fine grade ballast rather than the medium grade used before. I'll try to pick a lighter colour, since the main issue with the ballast has been that it's too dark and the ammount of airbrushing I've done to try and improve it has ended up creating an eyesore.

I've also been getting back to some weatheirng (starting with a 100t Shell tanker - pics to follow) and might consider OHLE and/or 3rd rail on the layout.


Hopefully some pics soon and some trains running (I've almost forgotten what that sounds like ).


Cheers

Liam

[Polyrhythms]

A very nice layout you have there, I am particularly envious of your ample space, and your ability to make it look even bigger. Also your overall effect of decay and dismay is nicely executed, you've inspired me to go off and crack on with track weathering
Looking forward to further developments

[Metrocamel]

Space? Me?? I think the reason it looks that way is because it runs round the walls, hence the board itself doesn't take up much room when the last section is stored. The roughly 6 by 4 I had before actually took up more space since it was a solid board.

Glad you like the layout My advice with regards to track weathering is to stick to your guns - don't try and change it once its already down and use light shades to create the look of more space. I chose grey ballast, tried to paint it brown, then tried to lighten it again - not good at all.

Here's a few pics from today - managed to run a few trains and took some pics of the layout as it is now for comparison.





Looking none too pretty













This is old track with the sleepers spaced to about 8mm. Looks alright to me, but would appreciate your opinions. Any new track for the layout (that's at least the main sidings) will be code 75.





Took the plunge and weathered a hundred tonner Looks alright I think but the underframe is a tad light and the oil streaking had to be redone in places several times. Comments welcome.

Will start taking the track up soon and cleaning everything up. More updates soon


Cheers

Liam

[sishades]

Welcome back stranger.

[PTmodeller]

Liking the weathering!

[Bufferstop]

Getting the sleeper spacing right is a beggar. I simply didn't bother with my layout as it's close to eye level and you don't get many clear views of the sleepers. The standard sleeper with code 100 looks too far apart if you set it to prototype spacing. That's 'cos the sleepers are too narrow. Then the height of the rail makes the sleeper ends look short. I can't see why Peco didn't take the opportunity of producing correctly spaced and width sleepers for code 75. They've done it for the Americans how much do the sell there compared to the UK?

[Metrocamel]

Welcome back stranger.

Strange? Yes, I've been called that...

With regards to the sleeper spacing, I assume you mean that the sleepers themselves should be longer? However, if they were the correct length I've got a feeling they would emphasise the narrower gauge track. It's just a case of getting the balance right - I've found that the spacing (depending on reference) could be anything from 8mm to 10mm, I've opted for eight since ten really does look like narrow gauge. Whatever spacing I choose though, I wont be leaving it as bought this time.



Cheers

Liam

[0121modeller]

This is old track with the sleepers spaced to about 8mm. Looks alright to me, but would appreciate your opinions.

Hi Metro & great to see you back with your fine modelling.

On the sleeper spacing , I'm no expert but the sleepers spaced at 8mm looks a touch too much IMO , 6mm spacing may look better ? ,... 6mm would be equal to 18 inches in real life sleepered spacing , I may be wrong though...

Dave.

[Dead Man's Handle]

I can't see why Peco didn't take the opportunity of producing correctly spaced and width sleepers for code 75.

Correct in what scale? It's 00 - the gauge is always gonna be to 3.5mm scale... you can't change it (well, if you do then you're going EM or P4 and everything that entails). The Locos etc. are 4mm scale (except the wheel spacing). Do you match sleeper size and spacing to the gauge or to everything else? If you're going to view the track in isolation, then everything being 3.5mm scale (H0) will look less disproportionate. If you look from angles where the gauge isn't apparent, then wider spacing will fit better with the locos on the track. It's always going to be some kind of compromise, so there is no 'correct' solution (other than P4).

With regards to the sleeper spacing, I assume you mean that the sleepers themselves should be longer? However, if they were the correct length I've got a feeling they would emphasise the narrower gauge track. It's just a case of getting the balance right - I've found that the spacing (depending on reference) could be anything from 8mm to 10mm, I've opted for eight since ten really does look like narrow gauge.

That's it exactly. The eye might be fairly forgiving of the disparity in scale between separate elements such as locos and track, but picks up errors in proportions easier. If you do everything to 4mm scale other than the gauge, then you will emphasise the narrower gauge as much as possible.

This is old track with the sleepers spaced to about 8mm. Looks alright to me, but would appreciate your opinions.

On the sleeper spacing , I'm no expert but the sleepers spaced at 8mm looks a touch too much IMO , 6mm spacing may look better ? ,... 6mm would be equal to 18 inches in real life sleepered spacing , I may be wrong though...

Are we talking about 8mm being the size of the space, or centre of sleeper to centre of sleeper? 8mm is a lot if the former, not a lot if it's the latter. To me, it does look a lot in the photo, so I'm guessing 8mm is the measurement of the gap. In that case I wouldn't go for 8mm either. I'm not sure what the prototypical spacing should be in 4mm - a quick Google suggests between 9 and 10mm centre to centre (although maybe I've read that wrong). I don't have any Peco track to hand (so I don't know what the spacing is), but the SMP track I have has a gap of 5.5mm (about 9mm centre to centre). The SMP stuff is along the lines of what I guess Bufferstop would like Peco to produce, if it were flatbottom rail (it's bullhead) - i.e. a stab at 4mm scale spacing on H0/00 gauge track. It doesn't look bad, but bullhead tends to pronounce the narrowgaugeness a lot less than flatbottom (to my eyes at least). So I don't think I'd go beyond the SMP spacing.

Ade

[0121modeller]

Hi Ade, Sorry, I meant to say;- IMO that the 6mm was the spacing gap between each sleeper would look better

Dave.

[Metrocamel]

It was 8mm in the gap, not centre to centre. I was expecting there to be a standard measurement in the UK, but all I could find were numbers of sleepers per 60ft (anything from 24 to 26). I'll try 7mm and 6mm and see how that looks anyways

Cheers

Liam

[Dead Man's Handle]

Hi Ade, Sorry, I meant to say;- IMO that the 6mm was the spacing gap between each sleeper would look better

Ah I thought you were talking about the gap, Dave. I just asked because the 8mm Liam said would seem more like a reasonable centre to centre measurement for 00 (I'm not sure what Peco is?) and I think the info I was looking at for the real thing was centre to centre, so just wanted to clarify that we're all talking about the same thing.

It was 8mm in the gap, not centre to centre. I was expecting there to be a standard measurement in the UK, but all I could find were numbers of sleepers per 60ft (anything from 24 to 26). I'll try 7mm and 6mm and see how that looks anyways

It's surprisingly hard to find, and as you've found it does vary somewhat. I've scribbled down 2' 4" and 2' 7" (which I think is centre to centre) but I'm not sure where I got it from now. I just did another Google search and it brought up this thread


Ade

[Bufferstop]

It was 8mm in the gap, not centre to centre. I was expecting there to be a standard measurement in the UK, but all I could find were numbers of sleepers per 60ft (anything from 24 to 26). I'll try 7mm and 6mm and see how that looks anyways
Cheers
Liam

It was quite common for the gap at the joint and the one either side to be narrower, up to about six inches, hence the difference in the number of sleepers. The head ganger would "just know" by how much to close the gap.

[Infrontcat]

Hi Metro

You're not the only one that has been AWOL Good to see things are ticking over mate. I think the 100t looks just fine from what I can make out on the picture. Does it come up lighter of somethingi in the photo? 'Cos, as I say, it looks fine to me!

Cheers fella

Tim