Ivor The Engine

[Dad-1]

Thanks Phred,

My artistic side - well I did get a GCE 'O' level in art in Summer 1958.
Really it's just that my first building was a failure because I hadn't done
full detail scale drawings of the exterior elevations. Then I started doing
better scaled drawings and everything fitted !!

Since then I go from one extreme to the other. Either detailed, or scenically
from the 'picture' in my head and I know which has proved the most reliable !!

Geoff T.

[Dad-1]

My final minimum curve.

So long as Youtube don't recognise some distant music in the background
the should be a live run.

https://youtu.be/0Uimrsd6go8

Now to begin thinking about the layout.
Thinking takes a long time, plus planning without the actual locomotive &
stock is risky !!

Geoff T.

[Mike Parkes]

I suscpet Ivor may have a good deal of their Y7 mechanism in it, just with larger wheels. Its the diamenter of the wheels which are going to have some bearing on the minimum cuvre radius.

[Dad-1]

Hi Mike Parkes,

Even the flange depth will have an influence when you're pushing limits.

As a result in the short term - like however long it takes to get delivery,
I will stop track making.



Next is to look out my ply and probably cut to 24" wide, anything wider starts
to become a problem in handling. I used to build things very strong & heavy, but
now drifting towards the end of my exhibiting career, like I'll be 83 before this
is built I need simplicity, ease and minimum weight.

Who knows it may never happen ?

Geoff T

[Dad-1]

I'm now racking my few remaining brain cells as to how I can make a folding, but
lightweight layout board that will also offer some variation in landscape. I just hate
totally flat 'On the board' layouts, even those that squeeze in some height above track
datum. There needs to be space underneath for the occasional culvert and ditch !!

My Thomas folding layout is now just too heavy, but that was made on a robust framework
which, even after over 50 exhibitions is virtually un-damaged. I also don't intend to make
this one 'Free Standing' and the chosen length needs to be secure on a 6 foot table.
I'm thinking of an overall length of not more than 90". The average standard saloon car has
somewhere around, but slightly more than 48" across the back seat, so 90" folded in half
would be well inside that.

Currently thinking 50 mm x 20 mm for the hinge end beams - will that be strong enough ?
I certainly can't live with any warping. Here you can see the 70 mm x 20 mm frame used on
Thomas which has an additional 20 mm square timber all along the lower inside onto which
the ply base is secured. All tough but heavy !!



Much thinking to do - the base need to be decided on before even thinking about any track
formation. Everything dictated by space & weight.

Geoff T

[aleopardstail]

outer frame as you have, then a 3.3mm ply base, infill with 1" or 2" expanded polystyrene insulation? track bed as you have in the picture.

3.3mm plus is pretty lightweight, could even go for maybe 6mm ply sides once you get away from the hinges?

[Dad-1]

aleopardstail, thanks for the comment.
There will be weeks of thinking as to how the timber work will be constructed.

In the meantime my modified tight turn coupling arrangement has been tested.
The video explains it all until at the end I couldn't remember what was going to
be closer, or more open. I can't do 3 things at once - Video, Talk, Drive, something
has to give !

https://youtu.be/vmueA454cJg

Then there is a close-up of the shaft. I was wondering if I could solder a 3 link across
the shaft ?? With a pop-in fitting could I have the shaft underneath the NEM stubs where
a 3 link would look even better ???



I will have to add that later as my |Hosting is not functioning at the moment !!

Geoff T.

[Dad-1]

On my super tight turn the two Roxey 7'6" WB wagons coupled with the straight pin.
These look quite happy and I can shorten the shaft by a mm, or two for eventual
usage. I still have to fix a NEM pocket to one end of the longer wagon. Getting
these on has been a test of imagination, but means I can use straight pins, Kadees,
or Bachmann narrow tension lock depending on what I'm running on at the time.



I now need to look at an actual layout structure. Rapido hurry up !!

Geoff T.

[Mountain]

Is interesting sharp curves and methods to use to go round them. On my narrow gauge stock, I found I could both close the gap between vehicles even turing on curves that are around 10 or 11 inch radius (Turns 180° on a 2ft wide board), but this is because I am using centrally mounted buffers of a reasonably large size. The issue with standard 00 stock is the buffers themselves get in the way, and there are two solutions to this. One is to do what you are doing and widening the gap between vehicles so the buffers don't collide and another is to place a wire or a strip sideways across the buffers so one effectively forms a new "Bufferless" body, and uses a coupling hook such as a Sprat&Winkle or similar (May need experimenting as they work fine on 1st radius but never found out how tight they will work) in order to hold a distance enough so there are no problems. (If this does work with S&W's as coupling method (Onto wire across the bufferbeams) then it will likely allow much closer coupling, but experimenting is needed to see if it works).

I know my couplings do not have the right visual looks for standard gauge, but they will work round pretty sharp curves and hold vehicles close.
The other two issues are as you have described. Wheel flanges and wheel arrangements etc. While one could do with deep flanges to try and help stop them jumping rails, at the same time deep flanges grind on the rails... The solution I found was in using smaller wheels so one did not have to reduce the flange depth. I have on my thread somewhere a wooden scratchbuilt 4 wheel coach that is a little longer than I would have liked, which uses 10.5mm wheels carefully positioned to allow it to take curves. Shortening the wheelbase helps sharp curves, but ten creates overhang and gives challenges to the couplings due to the overhang, so it is a case of positioning wheels just right to get the best of both scenarios in order to make it work.
If one does not mind too much about cost, Kadees can actually be used on very tight curves, though I saw them used with buffered 0-16.5 stock. They were actually in use turning 180° on a layout only 18" wide which was the actual limit to what they would do. Remember though that these were in use on bufferless vehicles as the Kadees themselves became the buffers on centrally mounted buffered stock.
While using 0-4-0's is natrual, I was surprised to find some 0-6-0's also turn sharply especially if one removes the flanges on their middle pair of wheels. It is more about the length of their wheelbase. The longest wheelbase 0-6-0 I have uses a Lima class 09 chassis, and centre flanges are removed. It is about the limit of what can go round my sharp curves, though I did get a Triang "08" shunter round there, though the flanges didn't really like it.

[Dad-1]

Hi Mountain,

On my down to 10" diameter curves, note diameter, not radius I don't have flange problems.
That includes using standard replacement Hornby wheel sets with their deeper flanges.

This is now getting to the creative state. The strict outline is a folding clam shell approach as
I've used before on two different "Thomas" layouts. This time I plan 2 x 24" width ply boards
edged with timber about 45 mm x 20 mm, they will each be in the 42-44" length.
They will be joined in the centre with 4, or 6 hinges to give an opened length of just over 80"
folded that will fit across the back seat of the average 4 door saloon car.

My nightmare situation is in making easily moveable by one person, but at the same time have
the right feel for the subject. If you watch any IVOR videos you'll note that most pictures show
running on an embankment. That is because the original trains (people & animals) were drawn
on flat card so had to be viewed from the side - It couldn't work looking down into a cutting !!
For a layout build this means raised track beds, that brings an insurmountable problem regarding
the depth available in a clam-shell design. I'm pondering on using 70 mm x 20 mm for the central
hinge beam, that adds weight, a weight penalty not acceptable for the whole outer frame. Using
the deeper hinge line means 45 x 20 sides would not enclose ??

A lot of careful design needed and in the end I suppose I will have to have some lift off scenic
elements, like hills and buildings something I want to keep to an absolute minimum.

Geoff T.

[Dad-1]

Time to get an impression of what my two very tight half circles look like
when laid onto a 24" wide piece of ply. I have another matching piece in the garage
so I can start thinking what I can include & where.
There should be the Engine Shed, Water Tank, Signal Box, LLainog Station, Gas
Works, Gold Mine, Coal Mine. Just what can I fit In ??



I have been looking at the Rapido Ivor wagon range as running at a Rails of Sheffield
open day presentation of Rapido products. A sigh of relief as well as a slight disappointment
because they have added standard railway running gear, outer axle boxes as per normal.
When the original 'Ivor The Engine' stories were written and drawn the wagons really didn't
have axle boxes, running on some invisible bearings inside the solebars.

To keep 'continuity' of visual standardisation I can now look to scratch building my own
Bluebell wagon and a coal hopper with side door unloading. All a bit crazy, but hey this is
fun.

Geoff T.

[Mountain]

Have you thought about drilling holes in the areas where the track is not going to go on, and then covering holes with card or something light weight?
I actually have the ideal chassis to make an "Ivor" with.

[Dad-1]

Hi Mountain,

Cutting out non-structural weight is something I've done before on the
St Oval base.



I have to see how thin a sheeting of insulating material I can get. Not to be
the full base, but to act as a raising method because the track needs to be
on a small embankment for much of it's route. If track is built, and currently
I'm thinking of 100% home made code 75 copper-clad sleeper track, on top
of insulating board there can be holes cut anywhere and everywhere so long
as structural strength remains adequate.

With old age comes slightly different requirements. My two Thomas layouts
were made child resistant, therefore strength was one of the top requirements.
This will only have a life expectancy of 5 to 7 years of non child driving strength.

Geoff T.

[Mountain]

A little mistake I made when making my track was to make it with very few track sections. I need to rebuild and repair some track due to this. If I had cut the track into smaller sections I would have avoided the issue. What happens (As my railway is designed with portability in mind) is if something snags, instead of taking just a short section of track out, it takes an entire length. Add to this that the very rigid track is under its own stress, (As I should have pre-curved the rails) it is under tension. As you are aware, track made the soldered way is very rigid. Somewhat brittle but extremely rigid, unlike factory made track where the rails usually have the ability to slide in their sleeper bases).

So I do plan on lifting the track, painting my layout boards, especially where the track will go, cutting the track into sections and laying the track again. This will hopefully mean no further issues. They were only minor issues as the rail that snagged off can simply be superglued back on (It separated the copper from its PCB base. The copper was stuck solid to the rail itself via the solder).

[Dad-1]

I work on the basic principal that if I can draw it, I can make it.
That doesn't cover 'working well', something as non-standard as this will no doubt
have problems with function.
Anyone who has looked at Ivor The Engine stories will know that most 'adventures'
begin at the Engine Shed. In front of the shed there is a triangle of track that can
allow Ivor to reverse his direction of travel. easier than a turntable.

Here is my compact track layout drawing. Currently I'm thinking that I will not have
working pointwork. The route out will be fixed. I don't believe that I can make such
a short 'Y' and two ultra short points to be reliable.



I must be crazy !!
The ultimate idea is for this to be a spur to a roundy-roundy track, so I will need one
working point, NOT as short as would be needed here !!

Geoff T.