What "wood" you do?

This Sunday just passed I handed over a couple of sheets of 1/4" ply to my father-in-law for him to slice up into 3"-ish wide strips for the framing of the baseboard.
But exactly what I will do with them when I get them back? I don't know.
There's two courses of action open to me:
1. Turn them into "I" and "L" girders to frame the baseboard. A method poularised by Iain C. Rice.
2. Make some ply/softwood beams the preferred methos of Barry Norman. Here you take two of the ply strips and every foot or so place some peices of 2x1 pine between them to lmake the beam.
Both methods are said to be strong and light.
I don't know which to use. I've never tried either. Let's face it for me even using wood is something of an adventure.
I'm going to end up flipping a coin I think...

Copping a quick feel...

... for the design...

Yesterday I had a move around in the model railway room and allocated a space for the layout. With that done I could move on to the next stage of the designing progress. Confirming that what I had on paper was going to fit. I threw some track down to the approximate plan, found some old buildings and boxes and scenic bits, placed them where I thought they looked OK and checked the siding lengths with some cars. Now I can really see how everything will come together. Take a look...

1. A general view of the middle of the layout. To give you an idea of the depth here a couple of the trees are over 1' away from the bulkhead flat car.
2. Left hand side. I was a tad concerned that there wasn't going to be enough room for the building between the two tracks. That worry was unfounded. This will be a nice vignette as I first thought.
3. The business end. The main building and wood chip loader. Again I think things will come together nicely here. It looks like there will be more of the low relief structure than the sketches had envisioned.

All in all the pictures give me a good idea of how the whole thing will come together and I think I'm on to something. It gets me all fired up to start work properly.

Ploughing the lonely furrow

Or is that plowing? All depends where in the world you read this I suppose. Plowing looks really, really wrong to me...

So I'm coming to realise that this P87 malarkey is quite the lonely field to be in. I've posted my P87 intentions on a few message boards and for the most part have been met with silence. Perhaps I just picked the wrong message boards.

Just my luck.

I have though, managed to find out that there is one more P87 modeller in the great state of Minnesota. Though I do have hopes for one more. You might also notice that the links section to your right is growing slowly too. This is all down to the members of the Yahoo! P87 group. So if you're interested in P87 I guess the only place to be is there.

This has to be contrasted with the adoption of more "proto" standards (EM, P4) in England. There, the interest is staggering by comparison. There healthy societies manufacture a huge range of bits and pieces for the aspiring finescale modeller. It is no exaggeration to say that when a new Ready to Run diesel locomotive is released that within a matter of perhaps weeks Ultrascale will have the P4/EM conversion kit for it released.

So why is this such a lonely furrow to plough? Why is it that so relatively few modellers in the US adopt "Proto" standards?

It can't be that they don't appreciate the details. US modellers are renowned the world over for their attention to detail in their locomotives, rolling stock and scenery. Then why on earth don't they adopt that same standard in their trackwork?

The arguments for changing from H0 to P87 are exactly the same as if you were to change from 00 to EM/P4. (Cost, time, yada, yada, yada...) I've heard them all before and I bet they are plastered all over the internet too. Of course there is no reply to the "I just don't care" argument. You can't beat that and that's fine by me.

But there's no two ways about it though if you desire a truly "realistic" model railroad then your trackwork has to be to proto standards. You can have a high level of realism in your models without them being realistic.

I think that deep down a lot of modellers realise this too. How many times have you marveled at a picture of a great model in a magazine only to realize the train is photographed so that you can't see the wheels and it is covering up the turnouts so you can't see "the Grand Canyon of crossing flangeways"?

You know I'm right...

But we're still not answering the question 'Why are there so few P87 modellers out there?"

It must be that most people are ignorant of what it takes to be a P87 modeller.

That's fine. So am I. I'm less ignorant than on Sunday December 6th when I started this blog. But I still have astounding levels of ignorance about P87-ing. However I figure that with my enthusiasm and the small band of P87 modellers out there I can solve the problems that come my way.

Perhaps you think P87 is deadly serious and that I'm being too flippant about it. Perhaps Proto modelling is perceived as a deadly serious branch of the hobby. Maybe I can help put that straight for when it comes down to it this is only a hobby and hobbies are about having fun. If as a result some more of you come over to the world of P87 that will be a bonus.

Page from my sketchbook

I said I could see a vignette in my minds eye concerning the front left hand corner of this layout. It wouldn't go away so I had to sketch it out on paper to get it out of my head. Maybe to create some more room for a few more ideas too...

Looks pretty reasonable to me...

Plans and problems

Well then, here we go another round of planning inspired by the baseboard.

First things first, when I sketched out the first plan back here. I drew a nice smooth arc between the two front corners of the triangular baseboard. When I cut it out of the wood I cut the arc to the circumference of a 4' radius curve. That is how I ended up with over 3' of depth.

This opened up a whole new track of thought for me. The front siding now no longer parallels the front edge of the baseboard and I gained a lot more space to sit the railway into the landscape, (away from curious little fingers at a train show).

(OK I know I drew a tree as the scenic break front left, a real cop out. But I can see a really nice vignette here for the train to pass through with the tree, the lumber company office and the premises sign there by the roadside)

However I immediately started to see problems.

I plan to display this layout as a "stage set" with a proscenium arch picture frame front. Similar to Wingetts. So I immediately began to wonder if a 5' 8" long curved front fascia board would be practical. Is that length too long? would it sag, or even worse topple the layout with the weight from the lighting inside it? I could add supports from the rear. But where would they be sited? Has anyone got any ideas or experiences on the matter?

So the idea develops and more problems emerge. I'm sure they will all get resolved before long though.

January Thaw

The January thaw is a wonderful thing. It is a welcome respite from the bitter Minnesota winters. It is that brief period of a week (perhaps two) when the temperatures approach and even pass freezing. As the week previous to the thaw had seen temperatures as low as -30C todays passing of freezing point was greeted with much jubilation. So, with a rush of blood to the head I ventured into the garage to cut the baseboard surface for the layout from an 8' x 4' sheet of 1/4" ply I had. The reasons to do this were:

Reason 1. So that I could see the size of the layout. It's all very well sketching an idea on paper and liking what you see. You can even work your plan up with the most detailed track planning software and come up with superb 3D CAD renderings. But when it comes down to it things still have to look right full size and I maintain that the only way anyone can do that is working full size. Some people make scale models of their layouts which is great for your basement filling opus but this one is only 4' long so it doesn't really matter. Now I can take this baseboard down into the hobby room and place items on it to see if everything will work as I envision it.

Reason 2. It's the January thaw! The past few years I've been building baseboards in the depths of winter when it's been in the low teens in the garage and the fluorescent lights have struggled to come on (and make funny noises when they do), and I've had the heater on at my feet and still had to come inside to warm up every 30 minutes. The joys of working in temps above freezing had to be celebrated. By heck! I even had a lighter weight jacket on and no hat to boot!

Now my woodworking skills are not the greatest but after some careful marking and cutting I ended up with this that you see below which will probably pass muster as the baseboard surface.

My first thought was.

"Oh my! It's much deeper than I thought, It's three foot four inches deep I didn't expect it to look like that"

My second thought was...

"Oh Ho ho! It's three foot four inches deep! Belter!"

I've always a wanted a layout with real depth too it ever since I first saw Barry Normans' "Petherick" (about half way down this linked page) at a model railway exhibition many years ago. Now here is my chance.

Both Barry Norman and Iain C. Rice have both espoused a layout presentation theory of 3:1 of length to depth this one at 5' 8" x 3' 4" isn't even 2:1 so it might look a bit unusual. But heck! It's a triangular baseboard anyway. So I'm breaking new ground there. Looking at it now it could have its depth reduced by six inches and still look pretty good.

That then, is it so far. I'm going to get my father-in-law to cut me some nice square straight 3" deep strips of 1/4" ply for the framework. Because he's a craftsman woodworker and has access to the equipment to do that sort of thing. To be honest though when I get them back I'm really quite undecided wether to use those 3" strips as "L" girders or with softwood spacers to make "Barry Norman" beams, where two strips of ply are spaced apart by small pieces of softwood to make a strong, lightweight beam.

Anyway thats a thought for another day. For now I can look at the baseboard and dream of what I want this layout to be...

Icicle Works

Some of you will have seen this already if you're on your toes.
Otherwise http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/01/ice-to-see-you-to-see-you-ice.html
What I find fascinating is that the icicle is pretty much shaped to the loading gauge...