Sanity check.

I have a digitised file of an old imperial paper plan which was drawn at
a scale of 40 feet to 1 inch in 1913.

I need a printout of part of it at a scale of 1:76 (you guessed it - OO
scale.)

So the 1: 480 plan needs to be resized by 631 % yes?

Except what effect has the scanning process had on the image size?
Fortunately the plan has some other building drawings at larger scale
with dimensions shown.

Irfanview reports:

300 DPI
Size 15392 x 9134 Pixels (140.59 MPixels) (1.68)
Print Size from DPI 130.3 x 77.3 cm; 51.31 x 30.45 inches

The image has large borders each side and small top and bottom so the
original was presumably on some kind of imperial sized architectural
plan sized paper - antiquarian?

So resize a small selection the original image by 631 % (x 6.31) and
then print a selection at actual size on A4, measure a printed building
I have a dimension for in inches and it should be the annotated
dimension given feet / 480 ?

Or do I have to resize by 68/76 x 6.31 to allow for the scanning process?

Or to put it another way, a building shown as 30 feet long should be
120mm in OO on the printout.

I could convert to PDF and tile print on A4 but one big sheet would be
more wieldy so I want to upload a selection from the .jpg I have that
will print out at 1:76 on an A0 sheet.

So, I then have to cut out a selection of the resized image of a printed
width in mm that will fit landscape on an 1190mm A0 sheet and then it
should be effectively 1:76 on the paper?

Doing my head in.
Could ask on a railway modelling forum but they will all be anoraks
about GWR livery but possibly not digital image manipulation gurus.

-
Moto Morini 2C/375
Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
Honda CB250RS (Not Waynetta!)
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

On 11/12/2023 11:00 AM, Pete Fisher wrote:
> Sanity check.
>
> I have a digitised file of an old imperial paper plan which was drawn at
> a scale of 40 feet to 1 inch in 1913.
>
> I need a printout of part of it at a scale of 1:76 (you guessed it - OO
> scale.)
> ...
>
> So resize a small selection the original image by 631 % (x 6.31) and
> then print a selection at actual size on A4,  measure a printed building
> I have a  dimension for in inches and it should be the annotated
> dimension given feet / 480 ?
>
Presumably, the original has a scale somewhere on the drawing. (Or use a
simple wall dimension.) Just plot that out and do the arithmetic to make
the plot right.

> -
> Moto Morini 2C/375
> Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
> Honda CB250RS (Not Waynetta!)
> "Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

--
The erstwhile Thomas
FJR1300, R1200GS & ST1100 (in memoriam)

Pete Fisher wrote:

> Sanity check.
>
> I have a digitised file of an old imperial paper plan which was drawn
> at a scale of 40 feet to 1 inch in 1913.
>
> I need a printout of part of it at a scale of 1:76 (you guessed it -
> OO scale.)
>
> So the 1: 480 plan needs to be resized by 631 % yes?
>
> Except what effect has the scanning process had on the image size?
> Fortunately the plan has some other building drawings at larger scale
> with dimensions shown.
>
> Irfanview reports:
>
> 300 DPI
> Size 15392 x 9134 Pixels (140.59 MPixels) (1.68)
> Print Size from DPI 130.3 x 77.3 cm; 51.31 x 30.45 inches
>
> The image has large borders each side and small top and bottom so the
> original was presumably on some kind of imperial sized architectural
> plan sized paper - antiquarian?
>
>
> So resize a small selection the original image by 631 % (x 6.31) and
> then print a selection at actual size on A4, measure a printed
> building I have a dimension for in inches and it should be the
> annotated dimension given feet / 480 ?
>
> Or do I have to resize by 68/76 x 6.31 to allow for the scanning
> process?
>
> Or to put it another way, a building shown as 30 feet long should be
> 120mm in OO on the printout.
>
> I could convert to PDF and tile print on A4 but one big sheet would
> be more wieldy so I want to upload a selection from the .jpg I have
> that will print out at 1:76 on an A0 sheet.
>
> So, I then have to cut out a selection of the resized image of a
> printed width in mm that will fit landscape on an 1190mm A0 sheet and
> then it should be effectively 1:76 on the paper?
>
> Doing my head in.
> Could ask on a railway modelling forum but they will all be anoraks
> about GWR livery but possibly not digital image manipulation gurus.
>

I worked in a drawing office in the '80s. Back then the origionals were
drawn on a sort of plastic tracing paper and then printed on a contact
print machine that stank of ammonia.
One thing that was impressed upon me at the time was that only the
original is accurate, every print thereof or copy will be distorted in
one axis, especially any copy or print machine that uses rollers.
Copies of copies will change gradually each time and not necessarily
the same in both axes. This makes it very difficult to measure
acurately from an old drawing that has been re copied or scanned many
times.

--

Geoff
NTV650

On 12/11/2023 20:05, Turby wrote:
> On 11/12/2023 11:00 AM, Pete Fisher wrote:
>> Sanity check.
>>
>> I have a digitised file of an old imperial paper plan which was drawn
>> at a scale of 40 feet to 1 inch in 1913.
>>
>> I need a printout of part of it at a scale of 1:76 (you guessed it -
>> OO scale.)
>> ...
>>
>> So resize a small selection the original image by 631 % (x 6.31) and
>> then print a selection at actual size on A4,  measure a printed
>> building I have a  dimension for in inches and it should be the
>> annotated dimension given feet / 480 ?
>>
> Presumably, the original has a scale somewhere on the drawing. (Or use a
> simple wall dimension.) Just plot that out and do the arithmetic to make
> the plot right.

I should have remembered your credentials in this area.

There are lots of wall dimensions to choose from on very detailed
elevations and sections of building drawings. The 'General plan' in one
corner is annotated "Scale 40 feet to one inch" and shows two of those
buildings at that scale.

So I've been playing about with Irfanview and printing an A4 sheet with
a wall showing a dimension and measuring that. Getting close using the
back of an envelope calcs I posted.

The other issue is that this high quality scan (from the National
Archives) is a 17 Mb file at the 'scale' it is now (1:68 as far as I can
tell). Just the 'General Plan' area, resized to 'OO' creates a 100Mb
file. Probably got to upload to an online services as a PDF though so
not an issue. In any case for this initial purpose fine detail isn't
required. So doing the resize at the printing stage using a percentage
would do,

I stuck a general plan selection through a DXF convertor and loaded it
in to LibreCAD but the learning curve is steep just to use the
measurement tool.

I still have my late uncles beam compass and drawing instruments so I
ought to be just drawing it out on a roll of wallpaper lining paper.

--
Moto Morini 2C/375
Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
Honda CB250RS (Not Waynetta!)
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

On 12/11/2023 22:39, GeoffC wrote:
> Pete Fisher wrote:
>
>> Sanity check.
>>
>> I have a digitised file of an old imperial paper plan which was drawn
>> at a scale of 40 feet to 1 inch in 1913.
>>
>> I need a printout of part of it at a scale of 1:76 (you guessed it -
>> OO scale.)
>>
>> So the 1: 480 plan needs to be resized by 631 % yes?
>>
>> Except what effect has the scanning process had on the image size?
>> Fortunately the plan has some other building drawings at larger scale
>> with dimensions shown.
>>
>> Irfanview reports:
>>
>> 300 DPI
>> Size 15392 x 9134 Pixels (140.59 MPixels) (1.68)
>> Print Size from DPI 130.3 x 77.3 cm; 51.31 x 30.45 inches
>>
>> The image has large borders each side and small top and bottom so the
>> original was presumably on some kind of imperial sized architectural
>> plan sized paper - antiquarian?
>>
>>
>> So resize a small selection the original image by 631 % (x 6.31) and
>> then print a selection at actual size on A4, measure a printed
>> building I have a dimension for in inches and it should be the
>> annotated dimension given feet / 480 ?
>>
>> Or do I have to resize by 68/76 x 6.31 to allow for the scanning
>> process?
>>
>> Or to put it another way, a building shown as 30 feet long should be
>> 120mm in OO on the printout.
>>
>> I could convert to PDF and tile print on A4 but one big sheet would
>> be more wieldy so I want to upload a selection from the .jpg I have
>> that will print out at 1:76 on an A0 sheet.
>>
>> So, I then have to cut out a selection of the resized image of a
>> printed width in mm that will fit landscape on an 1190mm A0 sheet and
>> then it should be effectively 1:76 on the paper?
>>
>> Doing my head in.
>> Could ask on a railway modelling forum but they will all be anoraks
>> about GWR livery but possibly not digital image manipulation gurus.
>>
>
> I worked in a drawing office in the '80s. Back then the origionals were
> drawn on a sort of plastic tracing paper and then printed on a contact
> print machine that stank of ammonia.
> One thing that was impressed upon me at the time was that only the
> original is accurate, every print thereof or copy will be distorted in
> one axis, especially any copy or print machine that uses rollers.
> Copies of copies will change gradually each time and not necessarily
> the same in both axes. This makes it very difficult to measure
> acurately from an old drawing that has been re copied or scanned many
> times.
>
>

This original is held by the National Archives so no idea how they do
the scanning or how many times this one may have been requested.

Super accuracy isn't essential, just reasonably accurate positions at
4mm to 1 foot. Probably going to have to 'compress' the track features
in length in any case to fit in what I want in the space available.

--
Moto Morini 2C/375
Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
Honda CB250RS (Not Waynetta!)
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

Pete Fisher wrote:

> On 12/11/2023 22:39, GeoffC wrote:
> > Pete Fisher wrote:
> >
> > > Sanity check.
> > >
> > > I have a digitised file of an old imperial paper plan which was
> > > drawn at a scale of 40 feet to 1 inch in 1913.
> > >
> > > I need a printout of part of it at a scale of 1:76 (you guessed
> > > it - OO scale.)
> > >
> > > So the 1: 480 plan needs to be resized by 631 % yes?
> > >
> > > Except what effect has the scanning process had on the image size?
> > > Fortunately the plan has some other building drawings at larger
> > > scale with dimensions shown.
> > >
> > > Irfanview reports:
> > >
> > > 300 DPI
> > > Size 15392 x 9134 Pixels (140.59 MPixels) (1.68)
> > > Print Size from DPI 130.3 x 77.3 cm; 51.31 x 30.45 inches
> > >
> > > The image has large borders each side and small top and bottom so
> > > the original was presumably on some kind of imperial sized
> > > architectural plan sized paper - antiquarian?
> > >
> > >
> > > So resize a small selection the original image by 631 % (x 6.31)
> > > and then print a selection at actual size on A4, measure a
> > > printed building I have a dimension for in inches and it should
> > > be the annotated dimension given feet / 480 ?
> > >
> > > Or do I have to resize by 68/76 x 6.31 to allow for the scanning
> > > process?
> > >
> > > Or to put it another way, a building shown as 30 feet long should
> > > be 120mm in OO on the printout.
> > >
> > > I could convert to PDF and tile print on A4 but one big sheet
> > > would be more wieldy so I want to upload a selection from the
> > > .jpg I have that will print out at 1:76 on an A0 sheet.
> > >
> > > So, I then have to cut out a selection of the resized image of a
> > > printed width in mm that will fit landscape on an 1190mm A0 sheet
> > > and then it should be effectively 1:76 on the paper?
> > >
> > > Doing my head in.
> > > Could ask on a railway modelling forum but they will all be
> > > anoraks about GWR livery but possibly not digital image
> > > manipulation gurus.
> > >
> >
> > I worked in a drawing office in the '80s. Back then the origionals
> > were drawn on a sort of plastic tracing paper and then printed on a
> > contact print machine that stank of ammonia.
> > One thing that was impressed upon me at the time was that only the
> > original is accurate, every print thereof or copy will be distorted
> > in one axis, especially any copy or print machine that uses rollers.
> > Copies of copies will change gradually each time and not necessarily
> > the same in both axes. This makes it very difficult to measure
> > acurately from an old drawing that has been re copied or scanned
> > many times.
> >
> >
>
>
> This original is held by the National Archives so no idea how they do
> the scanning or how many times this one may have been requested.
>
> Super accuracy isn't essential, just reasonably accurate positions at
> 4mm to 1 foot. Probably going to have to 'compress' the track
> features in length in any case to fit in what I want in the space
> available.

If it is scanned from the original then it should be reasonably
accurate, I take it the National Archives use good kit.
It all sounds very interesting, what is it?

--

Geoff
NTV650

On 13/11/2023 09:30, GeoffC wrote:
> Pete Fisher wrote:
>
>> On 12/11/2023 22:39, GeoffC wrote:
>>> Pete Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sanity check.
>>>>
>>>> I have a digitised file of an old imperial paper plan which was
>>>> drawn at a scale of 40 feet to 1 inch in 1913.
>>>>
>>>> I need a printout of part of it at a scale of 1:76 (you guessed
>>>> it - OO scale.)
>>>>
>>>> So the 1: 480 plan needs to be resized by 631 % yes?
>>>>
>>>> Except what effect has the scanning process had on the image size?
>>>> Fortunately the plan has some other building drawings at larger
>>>> scale with dimensions shown.
>>>>
>>>> Irfanview reports:
>>>>
>>>> 300 DPI
>>>> Size 15392 x 9134 Pixels (140.59 MPixels) (1.68)
>>>> Print Size from DPI 130.3 x 77.3 cm; 51.31 x 30.45 inches
>>>>
>>>> The image has large borders each side and small top and bottom so
>>>> the original was presumably on some kind of imperial sized
>>>> architectural plan sized paper - antiquarian?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So resize a small selection the original image by 631 % (x 6.31)
>>>> and then print a selection at actual size on A4, measure a
>>>> printed building I have a dimension for in inches and it should
>>>> be the annotated dimension given feet / 480 ?
>>>>
>>>> Or do I have to resize by 68/76 x 6.31 to allow for the scanning
>>>> process?
>>>>
>>>> Or to put it another way, a building shown as 30 feet long should
>>>> be 120mm in OO on the printout.
>>>>
>>>> I could convert to PDF and tile print on A4 but one big sheet
>>>> would be more wieldy so I want to upload a selection from the
>>>> .jpg I have that will print out at 1:76 on an A0 sheet.
>>>>
>>>> So, I then have to cut out a selection of the resized image of a
>>>> printed width in mm that will fit landscape on an 1190mm A0 sheet
>>>> and then it should be effectively 1:76 on the paper?
>>>>
>>>> Doing my head in.
>>>> Could ask on a railway modelling forum but they will all be
>>>> anoraks about GWR livery but possibly not digital image
>>>> manipulation gurus.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I worked in a drawing office in the '80s. Back then the origionals
>>> were drawn on a sort of plastic tracing paper and then printed on a
>>> contact print machine that stank of ammonia.
>>> One thing that was impressed upon me at the time was that only the
>>> original is accurate, every print thereof or copy will be distorted
>>> in one axis, especially any copy or print machine that uses rollers.
>>> Copies of copies will change gradually each time and not necessarily
>>> the same in both axes. This makes it very difficult to measure
>>> acurately from an old drawing that has been re copied or scanned
>>> many times.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> This original is held by the National Archives so no idea how they do
>> the scanning or how many times this one may have been requested.
>>
>> Super accuracy isn't essential, just reasonably accurate positions at
>> 4mm to 1 foot. Probably going to have to 'compress' the track
>> features in length in any case to fit in what I want in the space
>> available.
>
> If it is scanned from the original then it should be reasonably
> accurate, I take it the National Archives use good kit.
> It all sounds very interesting, what is it?
>

Model railway layout in OO fine (code 75 track[1]) scale of a not far
away GWR station on a long defunct line (opened 1925) that is now a
traffic free cycle route. The station building is still there and is now
a cafe. Not a complex layout, but the single line went double through
the station and there was a goods loop and goods yard with a couple of
sidings and a shunting arm.

Needs quite a long set of baseboards to model all the track from the
first set of points 'Up' to the last set of points 'Down'. I have a
large loft space available so already 4m of surface erected but allowing
for 'fiddle yards' would need about twice that. So the goods loop and
platform length as modelled may have to be shorter than it was in 1933
when passenger services finished. Goods carried on until 1965, so I can
run a variety of locos and rolling stock in virtual scenarios from
1920's steam railcar, to Hall class 4-6-0 locomotives pulling numerous
tanker waggons.

The plan is in colour and the detail on the building drawings is
fantastic. If I am prepared to pay for it, a laser cut plywood model of
the station building could be produced to a very fine detail.

Also going to get a wall poster made (for my own personal enjoyment) as
it's a wonderful example of GWR drawing office work from exactly 100
years ago.

[1] Not 'bullhead' track though as points for that are HFM x n ?

--
Moto Morini 2C/375
Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
Honda CB250RS (Not Waynetta!)
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

On 12/11/2023 22:39, GeoffC wrote:
> Pete Fisher wrote:
>>
>> Doing my head in.
>> Could ask on a railway modelling forum but they will all be anoraks
>> about GWR livery but possibly not digital image manipulation gurus.
>>
>
> I worked in a drawing office in the '80s. Back then the origionals were
> drawn on a sort of plastic tracing paper and then printed on a contact
> print machine that stank of ammonia.
> One thing that was impressed upon me at the time was that only the
> original is accurate, every print thereof or copy will be distorted in
> one axis, especially any copy or print machine that uses rollers.
> Copies of copies will change gradually each time and not necessarily
> the same in both axes. This makes it very difficult to measure
> acurately from an old drawing that has been re copied or scanned many
> times.
>

I remember those. We used them in my first ever job for duplicating
circuit diagrams etc. Lemon yellow paper that went white under UV and
after fixing with the ammonia, the shaded bits went a sort of purplish.

--
Pip

CHUMP #1

On 11/13/2023 2:23 AM, Pete Fisher wrote:
> On 13/11/2023 09:30, GeoffC wrote:
>>
>> It all sounds very interesting, what is it?
>>
>
> Model railway layout in OO fine (code 75 track[1]) scale of a not far
> away GWR station on a long defunct line (opened 1925) that is now a
> traffic free cycle route. The station building is still there and is now
> a cafe. Not a complex layout, but the single line went double through
> the station and there was a goods loop and goods yard with a couple of
> sidings and a shunting arm.
>
Excellent. Too bad you're so far away. The San Diego Model Railroad
Museum probably has some excellent resources.
https://www.sdmrm.org/

--
The erstwhile Thomas
FJR1300, R1200GS & ST1100 (in memoriam)

On 13/11/2023 10:23, Pete Fisher wrote:
> On 13/11/2023 09:30, GeoffC wrote:
>> Pete Fisher wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/11/2023 22:39, GeoffC wrote:
>>>> Pete Fisher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sanity check.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a digitised file of an old imperial paper plan which was
>>>>> drawn at a scale of 40 feet to 1 inch in 1913.
>>>>>
>>>>> I need a printout of part of it at a scale of 1:76 (you guessed
>>>>> it - OO scale.)
>>>>>
>>>>> So the 1: 480 plan needs to be resized by 631 % yes?
>>>>>
>>>>> Except what effect has the scanning process had on the image size?
>>>>> Fortunately the plan has some other building drawings at larger
>>>>> scale with dimensions shown.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irfanview reports:
>>>>>
>>>>> 300 DPI
>>>>> Size 15392 x 9134  Pixels (140.59 MPixels) (1.68)
>>>>> Print Size from DPI 130.3 x 77.3 cm; 51.31 x 30.45 inches
>>>>>
>>>>> The image has large borders each side and small top and bottom so
>>>>> the original was presumably on some kind of imperial sized
>>>>> architectural plan sized paper - antiquarian?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So resize a small selection the original image by 631 % (x 6.31)
>>>>> and then print a selection at actual size on A4,  measure a
>>>>> printed building I have a  dimension for in inches and it should
>>>>> be the annotated dimension given feet / 480 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or do I have to resize by 68/76 x 6.31 to allow for the scanning
>>>>> process?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or to put it another way, a building shown as 30 feet long should
>>>>> be 120mm in OO on the printout.
>>>>>
>>>>> I could convert to PDF and tile print on A4 but one big sheet
>>>>> would be more wieldy so I want to upload a selection from the
>>>>> .jpg I have that will print out at 1:76 on an A0 sheet.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I then have to cut out a selection of the resized image of a
>>>>> printed width in mm that will fit landscape on an 1190mm A0 sheet
>>>>> and then it should be effectively 1:76 on the paper?
>>>>>
>>>>> Doing my head in.
>>>>> Could ask on a railway modelling forum but they will all be
>>>>> anoraks about GWR livery but possibly not digital image
>>>>> manipulation gurus.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I worked in a drawing office in the '80s. Back then the origionals
>>>> were drawn on a sort of plastic tracing paper and then printed on a
>>>> contact print machine that stank of ammonia.
>>>> One thing that was impressed upon me at the time was that only the
>>>> original is accurate, every print thereof or copy will be distorted
>>>> in one axis, especially any copy or print machine that uses rollers.
>>>> Copies of copies will change gradually each time and not necessarily
>>>> the same in both axes. This makes it very difficult to measure
>>>> acurately from an old drawing that has been re copied or scanned
>>>> many times.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This original is held by the National Archives so no idea how they do
>>> the scanning or how many times this one may have been requested.
>>>
>>> Super accuracy isn't essential, just reasonably accurate positions at
>>> 4mm to 1 foot. Probably going to have to 'compress' the track
>>> features in length in any case to fit in what I want in the space
>>> available.
>>
>> If it is scanned from the original then it should be reasonably
>> accurate, I take it the National Archives use good kit.
>> It all sounds very interesting, what is it?
>>
>
> Model railway layout in OO fine (code 75 track[1]) scale of a not far
> away GWR station on a long defunct line (opened 1925) that is now a
> traffic free cycle route. The station building is still there and is now
> a cafe. Not a complex layout, but the single line went double through
> the station and there was a goods loop and goods yard with a couple of
> sidings and a shunting arm.
>
> Needs quite a long set of baseboards to model all the track from the
> first set of points 'Up' to the last set of points 'Down'. I have a
> large loft space available so already 4m of surface erected but allowing
> for 'fiddle yards' would need about twice that. So the goods loop and
> platform length as modelled may have to be shorter than it was in 1933
> when passenger services finished. Goods carried on until 1965, so I can
> run a variety of locos and rolling stock in virtual scenarios from
> 1920's steam railcar, to Hall class 4-6-0 locomotives pulling numerous
> tanker waggons.
>
> The plan is in colour and the detail on the building drawings is
> fantastic. If I am prepared to pay for it, a laser cut plywood model of
> the station building could be produced to a very fine detail.
>
> Also going to get a wall poster made (for my own personal enjoyment) as
> it's a wonderful example of GWR drawing office work from exactly 100
> years ago.
>
>
>
> [1] Not 'bullhead' track though as points for that are HFM x n ?
>
>

<back online again>

You really must come and have a rummage through all the stuff - there's
loads and loads of modelling material which I 'm sure you can make
better use of than I.

--
/Simon

On 15/11/2023 16:58, Simon Wilson wrote:
> On 13/11/2023 10:23, Pete Fisher wrote:

>> Model railway layout in OO fine (code 75 track[1]) scale of a not far
>> away GWR station on a long defunct line (opened 1925) that is now a
>> traffic free cycle route. The station building is still there and is
>> now a cafe. Not a complex layout, but the single line went double
>> through the station and there was a goods loop and goods yard with a
>> couple of sidings and a shunting arm.
>>

>> [1] Not 'bullhead' track though as points for that are HFM x n ?
>>
>>
>
> <back online again>
>
> You really must come and have a rummage through all the stuff - there's
> loads and loads of modelling material which I 'm sure you can make
> better use of than I.
>

I must.

What you have is most likely code 100 track if 'Peco', or possibly
Hornby or Peco 'setrack' , but with a conversion joiner I could make use
of it in the fiddle yards. The locos and rolling stock may, however,
have wheel flanges that are too deep for code 75. I already fell foul of
that buying a couple of old 0-6-0 pannier tanks off Ebay. A Bachman
version runs fine over the code 75 points but a Hornby one derails if
running backwards.

If you could get your vernier calipers out and check some wheels,
apparently 0.045" flange is the max that will work OK through my points.
< 1970's stuff may be deeper.

The materials might be handy. Are there transformers, controllers,
switches etc. too?

Having sussed out how to tile print the most important bit of the plan
on to loads of A4 sheets, I can now start actually laying out the layout.

Modelling the platforms will be fun. It seems half of each one was
timber not brickwork construction. Might have to build that part from
matchsticks!

--
Moto Morini 2C/375
Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
Honda CB250RS (Not Waynetta!)
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

On 15/11/2023 18:06, Pete Fisher wrote:
> On 15/11/2023 16:58, Simon Wilson wrote:
>> On 13/11/2023 10:23, Pete Fisher wrote:
>
>
>>> Model railway layout in OO fine (code 75 track[1]) scale of a not far
>>> away GWR station on a long defunct line (opened 1925) that is now a
>>> traffic free cycle route. The station building is still there and is
>>> now a cafe. Not a complex layout, but the single line went double
>>> through the station and there was a goods loop and goods yard with a
>>> couple of sidings and a shunting arm.
>>>
>
>>> [1] Not 'bullhead' track though as points for that are HFM x n ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> <back online again>
>>
>> You really must come and have a rummage through all the stuff -
>> there's loads and loads of modelling material which I 'm sure you can
>> make better use of than I.
>>
>
> I must.
>
> What you have is most likely code 100 track if 'Peco', or possibly
> Hornby or Peco 'setrack' , but with a conversion joiner I could make use
> of it in the fiddle yards. The locos and rolling stock may, however,
> have wheel flanges that are too deep for code 75. I already fell foul of
> that buying a couple of old 0-6-0 pannier tanks off Ebay. A Bachman
> version runs fine over the code 75 points but a Hornby one derails if
> running backwards.
>
> If you could get your vernier calipers out and check some wheels,
> apparently 0.045" flange is the max that will work OK through my points.
> < 1970's stuff may be deeper.
>
> The materials might be handy. Are there transformers, controllers,
> switches etc. too?
>
> Having sussed out how to tile print the most important bit of the plan
> on to loads of A4 sheets, I can now start actually laying out the layout.
>
> Modelling the platforms will be fun. It seems half of each one was
> timber not brickwork construction. Might have to build that part from
> matchsticks!
>

I honestly don't know the detail of everything I've got, but it's
several tens of boatloads. It's unlikely there are any super modern
digital contollers but even that I'm not sure about. He sure did like to
play with as many things as possible. Like father like son of course.

--
/Simon

Pete Fisher <peter@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:krkfk9F3st1U1
@mid.individual.net:

> Modelling the platforms will be fun. It seems half of each one was
> timber not brickwork construction. Might have to build that part from
> matchsticks!
>

can't you repurpose the Contiplas? [1]

[1] had to look up that, we always refer to it as melamine

wessie wrote:

> Pete Fisher <peter@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:krkfk9F3st1U1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>
> > Modelling the platforms will be fun. It seems half of each one was
> > timber not brickwork construction. Might have to build that part
> > from matchsticks!
> >
>
> can't you repurpose the Contiplas? [1]
>
>
> [1] had to look up that, we always refer to it as melamine

You mean "Formica" ?

--

Geoff
NTV650

On 15/11/2023 20:36, wessie wrote:
> Pete Fisher <peter@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:krkfk9F3st1U1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>
>> Modelling the platforms will be fun. It seems half of each one was
>> timber not brickwork construction. Might have to build that part from
>> matchsticks!
>>
>
> can't you repurpose the Contiplas? [1]
>
>
> [1] had to look up that, we always refer to it as melamine

Ah, the fitted wardrobe demolition I mentioned in another place.

The timber platforms were supported by an open framework of 14" x 7"
sleepers (unsurprising choice for a railway). So half a matchstick width
at OO scale. Think I'll settle for a printed facing. The board may
indeed be about the right thickness for a base finished with scenic
materials.

Armed with my circular saw, I might also knock up a storage unit for the
garage or shed with those plastic block joint things. Cutting the board
if necessary outside wearing an N99 mask though, as the dust can be
literally lethal (long term),

Not cheap to buy new in wardrobe door size I see. I might bung them on
Freegle, though I'm increasingly disenchanted with our local one.
People say they will have something, then when they check how far away
they are never turn up. I did deliver something to a deserving cause
once, but there are limits to public spiritedness.

--
Moto Morini 2C/375
Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
Honda CB250RS (Not Waynetta!)
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

On 15/11/2023 20:27, Simon Wilson wrote:
> On 15/11/2023 18:06, Pete Fisher wrote:
>> On 15/11/2023 16:58, Simon Wilson wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2023 10:23, Pete Fisher wrote:

>>
>> The materials might be handy. Are there transformers, controllers,
>> switches etc. too?
>>
>> Having sussed out how to tile print the most important bit of the plan
>> on to loads of A4 sheets, I can now start actually laying out the layout.
>>
>> Modelling the platforms will be fun. It seems half of each one was
>> timber not brickwork construction. Might have to build that part from
>> matchsticks!
>>
>
> I honestly don't know the detail of everything I've got, but it's
> several tens of boatloads. It's unlikely there are any super modern
> digital contollers but even that I'm not sure about. He sure did like to
> play with as many things as possible. Like father like son of course.
>

I shan't be going down the DCC route. Not a complex enough layout. Only
needs a few isolated sections to DC control locos standing on loops
while others move.

The DCC approach appeals to my coding habit but I'm hoping to use mostly
pre-loved locos [1] without DCC capability. The whole project is
starting to make restoring SOBs look like a cheap pastime.

[1] In a realistic scenario there would be a very few occasions when
more than three were in the station/goods yard at the same time.

--
Moto Morini 2C/375
Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
Honda CB250RS (Not Waynetta!)
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

On 16/11/2023 07:12, GeoffC wrote:
> wessie wrote:
>
>> Pete Fisher <peter@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:krkfk9F3st1U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>
>>> Modelling the platforms will be fun. It seems half of each one was
>>> timber not brickwork construction. Might have to build that part
>>> from matchsticks!
>>>
>>
>> can't you repurpose the Contiplas? [1]
>>
>>
>> [1] had to look up that, we always refer to it as melamine
>
> You mean "Formica" ?
>
<Googles>
Apparently a question of the laminate fusing 'pressure'.

Generically, MDF with a plastic laminate surface.

--
Moto Morini 2C/375
Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
Honda CB250RS (Not Waynetta!)
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

On 16/11/2023 07:12, GeoffC wrote:
> wessie wrote:
>
>> Pete Fisher <peter@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:krkfk9F3st1U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>
>>> Modelling the platforms will be fun. It seems half of each one was
>>> timber not brickwork construction. Might have to build that part
>>> from matchsticks!
>>>
>>
>> can't you repurpose the Contiplas? [1]
>>
>>
>> [1] had to look up that, we always refer to it as melamine
>
> You mean "Formica" ?
>
Formica - always the superior product!
I still have a folding coffee table my mother made around 1960 with a
Formica top when the stuff was new in the market.
The whole thing is still like new!

Chris

"GeoffC" <me@invalid.nl> wrote in news:uj4fca$25pj3$1@dont-email.me:

> wessie wrote:
>
>> Pete Fisher <peter@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:krkfk9F3st1U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>
>> > Modelling the platforms will be fun. It seems half of each one was
>> > timber not brickwork construction. Might have to build that part
>> > from matchsticks!
>> >
>>
>> can't you repurpose the Contiplas? [1]
>>
>>
>> [1] had to look up that, we always refer to it as melamine
>
> You mean "Formica" ?
>

No, that term was reserved for thin sheets of laminate with a plastic
surface that were stuck to existing surfaces to make them look new.

Melamine was either completed furniture maybe white outside and a fake wood
inside as used in wardrobes etc, or it was sheets of the same used to make
kitchen worktops in fake marble or beige if it was my mother using it.

wessie wrote:

> "GeoffC" <me@invalid.nl> wrote in news:uj4fca$25pj3$1@dont-email.me:
>
> > wessie wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> can't you repurpose the Contiplas? [1]
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] had to look up that, we always refer to it as melamine
> >
> > You mean "Formica" ?
> >
>
> No, that term was reserved for thin sheets of laminate with a plastic
> surface that were stuck to existing surfaces to make them look new.
>
> Melamine was either completed furniture maybe white outside and a
> fake wood inside as used in wardrobes etc, or it was sheets of the
> same used to make kitchen worktops in fake marble or beige if it was
> my mother using it.

Local terminology aside, I was under the impression that melamine was a
chemical compound used to make table ware and also as a thermosetting
plastic in the manufacture of various laminates such as Formica (trade
name).
Ho-Hum, thinking of buying a Dyson hoover next week :-)

--

Geoff
NTV650

GeoffC wrote:

> I was under the impression that melamine was a
> chemical compound used to make table ware and also as a thermosetting
> plastic in the manufacture of various laminates

Also (as a foam) to make magic erasers

On Friday, 17 November 2023 at 11:23:42 UTC, GeoffC wrote:

> Ho-Hum, thinking of buying a Dyson hoover next week :-)

Don't bother, they're shite; over priced bits of bling built by a company owned
by a tax-dodging wanker.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> GeoffC wrote:
>
>> I was under the impression that melamine was a
>> chemical compound used to make table ware and also as a thermosetting
>> plastic in the manufacture of various laminates
>
> Also (as a foam) to make magic erasers

One wonders if they erase magic or magically erase?

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, DR200SE, Vespa Ciao

Stephen Packer wrote:

> On Friday, 17 November 2023 at 11:23:42 UTC, GeoffC wrote:
>
> > Ho-Hum, thinking of buying a Dyson hoover next week :-)
>
> Don't bother, they're shite; over priced bits of bling built by a
> company owned by a tax-dodging wanker.

It was a figure of speech, we bought one actually about 5 years ago.
It's OK, does the job, bit noisy, radically different design.Expensive
too.
With you on the owner though.

--

Geoff
NTV650

On 17/11/2023 11:23, GeoffC wrote:
> wessie wrote:
>
>> "GeoffC" <me@invalid.nl> wrote in news:uj4fca$25pj3$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> wessie wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> can't you repurpose the Contiplas? [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] had to look up that, we always refer to it as melamine
>>>
>>> You mean "Formica" ?
>>>
>>
>> No, that term was reserved for thin sheets of laminate with a plastic
>> surface that were stuck to existing surfaces to make them look new.
>>
>> Melamine was either completed furniture maybe white outside and a
>> fake wood inside as used in wardrobes etc, or it was sheets of the
>> same used to make kitchen worktops in fake marble or beige if it was
>> my mother using it.
>
>
>
> Local terminology aside, I was under the impression that melamine was a
> chemical compound used to make table ware and also as a thermosetting
> plastic in the manufacture of various laminates such as Formica (trade
> name).

At least you weren't under the impression that it was a protein supplement.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_pet_food_recalls>

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS