Dealing with Data

One of the joys of modelling the CVLR is the sheer amount of data available, the difficulty is how to collate all of that information so its easy to find what you want. I've been pondering over it for a while, looking for a simple solution to all of the multimedia sources available. In the end, I started from the perspective of what I was trying to achieve, what I needed to do that, and how I wanted to see the data that enabled me to make the right decision.
The key objective is to be able to work across the whole spectrum of the railway - changes to the line, types of traffic, rolling stock, engine types and infrastructure and to do so in a concurrent fashion. Part of choosing what to model is down to the versatility I can get from each diorama - some subjects are going to be able to represent a wide timescale and be suitable for a selection of locos, some others will not, and that is going to impose extra restrictions. It doesn't help that I have chosen the late 1962 onward period as that is where there was a lot of change in infrastructure - keeping tabs on what is suitable for what period, in what state of dereliction / abandonment is the tricky bit.

In the end, I have chosen to use MS Excel because it offers the flexibility and functionality I want. The primary sheet is shown below - its very much a work in progress so you'll have to forgive any spelling mistakes or format errors you observe.

The idea behind it is to document the line in terms of distance from Tiverton Junction towards Hemyock in rows, noting all the features of the line.  Heading from left to right are columns relating to years in order to capture the various changes.

There is a long way to go yet, the starting point has been to read through the description of the line chapter in The CVLR Book by Colin Maggs which has given me the basics in a chronological order (I have got as far as Hemyock, but I figured a sample of the sheet was enough, its almost illegible as it is). The next task is Appendix 1 from the same book where all the bridge numbers are listed, together with a distance from Tiverton and a brief description. Lots of the desired information is captured in the photograph captions, so that will be the following turn of duty, before starting all over again with the Messenger / Twelveheads Press book! Its going to be a pretty long task, but lets be fair - I'm reading about the thing I want to model so its not exactly testing :-)

Once the line features have been noted down, locomotives, rolling stock (passenger and goods) and finally goods traffic will be added to the bottom of the sheet. My theory is that one picks a subject from the line list, scrolls across to the right to see the changes over that objects life, picks a year of interest and then scrolls down to get an idea of the traffic, engines etc that would have been observed passing past, through etc.

Excel works nicely in that extra columns or rows can be added as a when new information becomes available, extra sheets can also be added to contain copies of photos or interesting features. There is a danger that collating the information becomes the hobby, but over the long term I need some way to help drive decisions and choices. Will it work, well there is only one way to find out...

Testing

My test track is a strange thing, built last year utilising some Neil Rushby points that I had stored away from the last EM phase that didn't get off the ground. It was assembled using offcuts of timber which is why it is shaped this way.

The two main curves are 30" and 36" (the latter on a slight gradient) whilst the points were deliberately arranged to give me a set of doubled reverse curves - the idea is that if things work on here, they should work anywhere. It is wired up with all lines constantly powered and switched vees using slide switches that also throw the switchblades. It can be used for DCC as well as DC which is why there are just two wires to connect.

I sunk the magnets from the MSE starter kit into the cork roadbed, cutting the holes slightly undersize with a knife to ensure that the cork gripped the magnets - easy to remove and put somewhere else then. With the wagon, coach and Pannier, I discovered just how strong the magnets actually are

I have some tidying up to do of those loops too...

It gets a bit boring playing with just a couple pieces so another wagon has had the S&W couplings installed and I made a front loop for the Pannier too. In keeping with the rear loop, this one is demountable as well.

I started by filing a taper into a 1/8" square section of brass.

A length around 1/8" was cut off - this can then be inserted into the hollow section of the front sandboxes.

An offcut of scrap brass was cut to make an L shape bracket and soldered to the tapered section.

They both fit neatly into the sandboxes

The view from underneath

A coupling loop was folded up from 0.5mm brass wire and then soldered into place,  I used a toolmakers clamp to keep the bracket and tapered section together.

The assembly was given a good scrub in Viakal with a toothbrush, cleaned off, burnished with a fibreglass brush and then chemically blackened.

I gave it a minor tweak to set the alignments then dropped it into place in the Pannier chassis.

With the body on

Time to play test some more.

Sprat and Winkle

A day of learning today, playing with Sprat and Winkle couplings. I've never used them before, but as I'm finding 3 links in 4mm scale to be frustrating these days, I thought it worth trying an alternative. Alex Jacksons are certainly the most discreet coupling option available, but they can be a little fragile and prone to needing adjustment I've been told. Sprat and Winkles seem to have a good reputation and I like the idea of hands off operations and delayed uncoupling. You can buy a trial pack from MSE but I went for a starter pack instead, figuring I could experiment on a greater range of stock and get a better idea of their capability. A pack of the mounting plates made it into my basket as well on the grounds that they make the whole job of assembly and mounting easier.

I made a couple of couplings up last night, fitted them to a wagon with the loop at the recommended height of 12mm above the rail and stumbled across my first problem - I was having to bend the loop up above the bottom of the headstocks meaning the hook part of the coupling was now pointing skywards instead of being horizontal.

An quick email to Geoff and he suggested that 10mm above the rail was a far better height, but also that I was best to start with some coach bogies and use those to establish the height for everything else. I had just bought a Hornby Hawksworth Brake 3rd to go behind my Pannier so this seemed the best option for a gauge and coupling conversion. In terms of changing the coach to EM, I'll just point you towards Geoff's post on his Penhydd blog where he did the same, the only thing I did differently was to use a screwdriver to gently pry the bogies from their mounts.

When it came to mounting the couplings, I soldered a length of nickel silver to the mounting plate to create a T shape - it was then possible to locate the T along the centreline of the bogie giving a bit of room for adjusting the final position of the loop in relation to the buffer faces.

Whilst that worked nicely, it was pretty obvious that the mounting plates were hitting the coach steps, limiting the radius around which the coach could travel. The easy fix was to just trim the excess mounting plate off with a fret saw.

Mocked back up in position, the bogie now has a greater amount of swing.

The mounting plates were then glued into position with epoxy before the coupling loops were adjusted slightly to sit at the required 10mm above rail height. A simple jig made from layers of plasticard does the job of a height gauge.

After a bit more playing about, I finally ended up with two converted bogies that would happily couple and uncouple from each other, so I then converted a wagon for comparison.

The last job of the day was to create a coupling loop for the rear of my Pannier, a couple of nickel silver plates and some 0.5mm brass wire did the honours.

It mounts using the two screws that hold the bunker in position.

Testing times tomorrow then.

Why have I chosen EM?

Modelling at 4mm to the foot was my first choice for this project and that was based on my opinion of it providing the best compromise between detail, the space at my disposal and what I actually want to achieve. Having decided on the scale, the next choice was which track standard to apply. There are lots of different things to consider when making that choice and the answers will be different for everybody. Personally, I enjoy building  / making things the most, very closely followed by taking said things and running them in the company of friends.

Everything else is of secondary importance to those two objectives and if I'm honest, its the latter of those which was the driver for my choice, when I look at how I spend my free time, what I read about and who I talk / socialise with etc, I am exposed to more EM than I am 00 or P4.

I can see definite advantages in modelling with 00, particularly if one can have the layout / diorama with the rail close to eye level and the view largely perpendicular to the track orientation - PMP has shown this off (and many other things) to a great extent with Albion Yard.

Albion Yard at its last public showing, Warley 2013.

The need to not re-wheel stock is a huge advantage, particularly if you are modelling steam. My options are a bit limited in display terms though and I also want to take head on photographs - it is those type of views that highlight both the narrow gauge and larger flangeways of 00. I suppose one could also consider 00-Fine which has the same flangeways as EM but I believe it comes at the expense of a slight narrowing of the gauge to accommodate this. One also wonders at that point whether its then worth fitting wheels to an EM profile to improve the looks...

I did mention flangeways then, and having clocked that the flangeways on the real life railway were narrower than the actual railhead, its something I notice all the time. Some people are skilled enough to be able to hide any conceit in that area, or draw attention away from it with extremely well crafted scenes, me, I am prepared to accept the compromise of having flangeway and railhead close in size and thus sit neatly between the 00 and P4 options.

I do have some experience of the EM scene, I converted a Warship many moons ago (during one of my yo-yo periods of EMGS membership) and last year, with some encouragement from Geoff Forster (Llangunllo), I converted a Bachmann Pannier. Both have racked up some mileage on Neil Rushby's Morfa so I have some confidence that I will at least be able to get stuff up and running...

This is the Bachmann Warship, re-wheeled with Alan Gibson products, scratchbuilt steps under the buffer guides and some heavy weathering.

The cab interiors could do with some toning down and a light covering of muck up the sides won't go amiss either. The Pannier has just been re-wheeled using Gibson products again with the new components weathered to match the factory finish, it is shown here running over the bridge on Morfa and pulling some of Neil's stock.

Whilst neither of those two engines represent anything that actually ran on the CVLR, they will both prove useful in terms of validating my track construction and establishing the constraints of couplings, uncoupling magnet position etc. They also have given me the confidence for my chosen modelling period in that I should be capable of tackling the 14xx's and diesels I'd like to use.