The Charnwood Forest Light Railway

[Peter Butler]

I do agree, after putting in so much time and effort this the worst possible scenario. I know you will overcome the problem and have a superior final result. We will be watching and learning as you go.

[Soar Valley Light]

Thanks for the commiserations chaps. You know what they say, 'a trouble shared is a trouble halved'. I think my problem is a combination of things, including those you have mentioned. I don't think I fully understood the properties of the materials I was using either and they weren't widely tested in the way I used them. There is definitely a lesson to be learnt there.

Philips point about accepting imperfections is perfectly correct. My aim for precision in the first place was to allow these to creep in and I can see that they would be manageable on a firm road bed. To put some perspective on this, in 'real numbers' terms we would stop the road at work for a 1 in 90 twist fault and that's with rolling stock that has well maintained suspension. Far less severe twist faults can fetch you off the road though, as any number of RAIB reports will clearly demonstrate, although there is usually a secondary cause - often poor loading, faulty suspension, or both. For this reason we get quite excited at work about anything over 1 in 200 when it comes to twist. At the size of infrastructure we are dealing with in 16mm scale 1mm in 200mm must be very common but even 1 in 90 is so small it would be hard to measure - and almost all our stock is completely lacking suspension of any sort. It's quite amazing what we manage to get over with our little trains.

I'm doing nothing in a rush - if for no better reason that the weather is rubbish! I'm going to do a lot more studying of the problem and read up on possible solutions, I've already re-read Rik's description of road bed construction. One possibility I am considering is leaving the Filcris in place but excavating around is as neatly as I can to a depth of - say - 4" and then pouring concrete around it to a width of 4 - 6" to form a solid 'ground beam'. Thinking about it that might even be possible with the track in place, it would certainly be less disruptive to the plants which are really establishing themselves now. It may be worth at least a test section. I'd be interested in peoples thoughts on that one.

On the positive side it is giving me the opportunity to consider whether any improvements could be made to the track layout or the alignment. I haven't got much room to play with but there might be one or two possibilities. I certainly might be able to include some sort of stream that I've longed for ever since Rik and Philip planted the seeds of temptation in my mind! It might also give me the opportunity to replace one or two of the older turnouts, they've hardly been used but my latest developments in construction technique give a better result at the most critical of locations in the track (the crossing nose) .

Right, I'm off to put my thinking cap on. A little 'thought lubrication' may be in order. Now, where did I put that rhubarb vodka!

SVLR ANdrew

[philipy]

At the size of infrastructure we are dealing with in 16mm scale 1mm in 200mm must be very common but even 1 in 90 is so small it would be hard to measure - and almost all our stock is completely lacking suspension of any sort. It's quite amazing what we manage to get over with our little trains.

The thing to factor in is this regard is our waaay overscale flanges, which mop up a multitude of sins. There is one section of Rik's line which shows up occasionally in his video's and every time I see it it amazes me how stuff seems quite happy to dip and twist and rock 'n roll through it. ( Sorry Rik!)

One possibility I am considering is leaving the Filcris in place but excavating around is as neatly as I can to a depth of - say - 4" and then pouring concrete around it to a width of 4 - 6" to form a solid 'ground beam'. Thinking about it that might even be possible with the track in place, it would certainly be less disruptive to the plants which are really establishing themselves now. It may be worth at least a test section. I'd be interested in peoples thoughts on that one.

All I can say from my own bitter experience is to put some rebar in if you adopt this approach, particularly if you have to pour it in discrete sections. My clay has cracked a similar construction in at least three places, two of which were at joints with no cross-joint reinforcement. Filcris being flexible would probably not be rigid enough I suspect

[ge_rik]

The thing to factor in is this regard is our waaay overscale flanges, which mop up a multitude of sins. There is one section of Rik's line which shows up occasionally in his video's and every time I see it it amazes me how stuff seems quite happy to dip and twist and rock 'n roll through it. ( Sorry Rik!)

It amazes me as well ...... though the six-wheel Southwold Cleminson coach really tests the trackwork - and sometimes fails.

Rik

[Andrew]

I'm very sorry to hear of your troubles Andrew - I hope the rhubarb vodka helped! We tried to make some once, but it tasted like floor cleaner...

I'm a fan of the solid trackbed, but that's kind of "how I was brought up", garden railway-wise - my friend Colin got me started, and his line was a major feat of civil engineering! I use scale ballast to get the track level, but like to start with something solid! Here in Brizzle we don't get too much ground heave though, so maybe that makes it easier? There's one section where a cracks emerged and the trackbed on either side has differing opinions on what level is, but any movement is slow enough that I can complensate by occasional reballasting.

Good luck with it all - it'll all look brighter in the spring...

Andrew.

[pippindoo]

Andrew, not sure whether you need to be a member of ngrm but if you can access the site somehow, just have a nosey at this garden line, it may just give you some inspiration before you decide to start taking on a load of extensive and expensive remodelling. Cheers!

https://ngrm-online.com/index.php?/foru ... t-railway/

[Soar Valley Light]

Gents,

Thanks for the further sympathy and advice. They are most welcome!

Pippindoo,

Thanks for the link, it is restricted to registered users - but registering is 'free and easy' (as they say), so I have! The link looks very interesting and is well deserving of much closer study. I'm think there are going to be some good pointers in there. Clearly the expansion problems are very similar to mine. I've seen no reference to any cross level errors yet but I'm getting some inspiration from all the information I'm being offered now. There is definitely hope of the horizon.

Thanks all,

SVLR Andrew

[pippindoo]

Glad you got to it Andrew, it's very much my/our methodology and I was sure you'd be interested in reading through it at least. I've followed his pages for a long time, and as it says he's a professional Civil Engineer too so I reckon he has more than half a clue what he's up to!. Onwards and upwards eh?!

[Lonsdaler]

Thanks for the commiserations chaps. You know what they say, 'a trouble shared is a trouble halved'. I think my problem is a combination of things, including those you have mentioned. I don't think I fully understood the properties of the materials I was using either and they weren't widely tested in the way I used them. There is definitely a lesson to be learnt there.

Philips point about accepting imperfections is perfectly correct. My aim for precision in the first place was to allow these to creep in and I can see that they would be manageable on a firm road bed. To put some perspective on this, in 'real numbers' terms we would stop the road at work for a 1 in 90 twist fault and that's with rolling stock that has well maintained suspension. Far less severe twist faults can fetch you off the road though, as any number of RAIB reports will clearly demonstrate, although there is usually a secondary cause - often poor loading, faulty suspension, or both. For this reason we get quite excited at work about anything over 1 in 200 when it comes to twist. At the size of infrastructure we are dealing with in 16mm scale 1mm in 200mm must be very common but even 1 in 90 is so small it would be hard to measure - and almost all our stock is completely lacking suspension of any sort. It's quite amazing what we manage to get over with our little trains.

SVLR ANdrew

So, at work you wouldn't be happy with this?

[Lonsdaler]

As a Filcris advocate, Ive learned its a very easy to use product, quick to erect, easy to cut, screw together and one big advantage is its flexibility. Ive noticed this numerous times on my railway when on a hot day, the whole frame can move outwards slightly as it expands, though ive never had anything even remotely like Andrew is experiencing. However, my system is approximately 15" high off the ground and so the legs supporting it have a bit of leeway to allow this flexibility, and the resultant resettling as temperatures change. The whole raised frame can, and does , adjust as one, and the flexibility of the supporting legs have the ability to bend slightly to allow it without any problems. I remember Andrew, when you posted photos as you started to bury your railways framework into the earth and thinking then that, being buried like that, if it was still prone to the expansion and contraction phenomanon, it could get 'messy'. As youve posted above too, your trackwork is very securely fastened to the framework, almost every other sleeper at some points, I cant help thinking that with any movement, however slight, wether expansion, contraction or frost heave, there just isnt much 'give'. Obviously, a concrete or block foundation isnt as prone to expanding and contracting. Just a suggestion based on my experience. It must be gutting to have such a distaster and i sincerely hope it isnt too much graft to put it right and crack on. It would be interesting to hear anyone elses experience of a 'buried' Filcris framework. I guess lots have used Filcris to edge lawns and flowerbeds but in that application its not really critical if it warps slightly now and then. Hmmm, I'm intrigued!

I have trackwork laid on Filcris, in place since 2016 for the most part. Some is buried in the ground and some stands on short posts approximately 4-6" above ground level. I have heard others complain about problems with expansion and contraction of Filcris, but can honestly say it has never caused issues for my trackwork. In particular, the track where Filcris is in the ground does not appear to move at all - I think the increased thermal mass from surrounding soil/ground actually prevents the Filcris from heating and expanding as much as that which runs above ground. The only difference I can see in the way Andrew has laid his track is the amount of fixing he has used. At most, I have pinned yard lengths of Peco track at each end and on curves in the middle as well. I then ballast with granodust and SBR to hold the track in place. Like Pippindoo, I wonder if your problem has been exacerbated by the frequency of track fixing? Even so, I'm baffled by the inground movement that has occurred.

[Phil.P]

Hello Andrew,

I think you probably have three problems affecting your track...

1. You have made the joints too tight. - If you got the hacksaw out, and went for 30' panels, you would add more 'wiggle room' just from the blade-width cuts.

2. Pull out a lot of your track fixings.. - Let it breath! You don't see 12" to the foot track 'ground-anchored' to the ground.

3. I am guessing you are getting a lot more movement in your built-up ground than you realise? - Wet ground expands. Add in frost, and it gets worse.

I am (admittedly on clay) and easily get 3 inches of heave, summer to winter.

I think (just as on the real railway) you will have to live with some movement, but the settlement will get less over time.

Sorry to be so pessimistic. This thread has been an excellent way to while-away a not particularly nice Sunday.

[Soar Valley Light]

Hello All,

Well, it's been a whole summer since my last update! I'd like to say a lot has been happening - but it hasn't, not on the CFLR at least. Despite good intentions I've not run a single train all summer. I was full of good intentions but you know how it is. On two occasions I've hacked back the vegetation to make sure the track is still there underneath it! On the second occasion last week it was so bad that it actually disturbed the track getting it all clear.

A trip down the garden a couple of weeks ago, to escape from the 'home office' on a particularly bad day and to drink a cup of tea in the peace of the 'well' at the bottom of the path (looking back through the early photos on this thread will illustrate the location) put me at eye level with that really bad spot I've mentioned before. For the first time I noticed that both rails 'sank' into the joint over about four inches either side. Closer inspection (well, it was better than getting back to work!) revealed that the Filcriss itself was causing the dip, I presume as a result of it settling previously. What I have noticed this year is that the ground I built up during construction has shrunk away dramatically over the last two or three years, not just round the Filcriss supports but generally. This, I imagine (and hope) is some of the final settlement from construction. I know ground will shrink and swell but what I've experience so far has been far greater that that normally experience in our soil (and I've done a lot of other building up work around the garden and in the near by allotment). Others, here and elsewhere, have previously suggested that I may have the track too tightly pinned, or that there may be 'too much iron in the road'. Bearing in mind my profession, I thought I'd got the expansion gaps right. Full sized track is held in position by the ballast (in most cases) however in our scale the track is too stiff and the ballast too light to do this. Some degree of fixity is essential. After a lot of further consideration I've come to the conclusion that my joints might be a bit on the tight side. I still don't think the track is too tightly pinned but it's made me wonder.

So, having found this significant dip I considered how best to cure it. Re-setting the Filcriss would mean massive upheaval of an established part of the garden. I had my little cross-level out to check the track around the whole curve where the fault lay (only about 3 feet long) and found it was all over the show. I considered ringing Alton Towers again to see if they would be interested in acquiring it as a new ride, then decided it was probably too extreme! Bearing in mind the considerations in the previous paragraph I eased out a lot of the pins holding the track down. This was one of the sections I ballasted in ash last year so when I eased the track up to correct the dip and faults a fair bit of the ballast came with it. I decided that working more ballast in between and under the sleepers and then flooding it with SBR again, would be worth a try. This form of ballasting seems to give the track some stiffness but also allows it to move slightly, hopefully enough to take up any sideways movement due to heat without it settling vertically. Well that's my hope anyway. It's what I've done so we'll see what happens over the next twelve months.

Before I started this work I realised I was out of ash ballast. I took the chance whilst on duty at Loughborough to visit the loco ash pile with the intention of picking up a bag of ash to grind down for this experiment. When I got to the ash pile I discovered a heap of smokebox char dumped in one corner. This is much, much finer and is absolutely ideal for 16mm ash ballast! I made the repairs as described above and was so impressed with the appearance that I then embarked on a 'ballasting frenzy' which has seen half the lower section of the railway looking much, much more like a proper railway and less like something buried in boulders from the beach! I've taken a few photos so you can judge for yourself whether you agree with me about it being a success.

Ballast 21 1 (1).JPG (3.25 MiB) Viewed 30334 times

Ballast 21 1 (2).JPG (3.39 MiB) Viewed 30334 times

Ballast 21 1 (3).JPG (3.13 MiB) Viewed 30334 times

Ballast 21 1 (4).JPG (3.89 MiB) Viewed 30334 times

All the best,

SVLR Andrew

[Peter Butler]

I do agree Andrew, it is much more in scale than fine gravel and looks just right. I fell into the same trap by neglecting my railway for the whole season so far and had so much clearing up to do. It is now presentable again and I hope to share some running time soon.

[Andrew]

That's looking great - crying out to be tested, in fact!

All the best,

Andrew.

[philipy]

Yep, I agree with Peter and Andrew, although to my eye it looks a bit too 'black' but I guess time and weather will ease that. Certainly the texture looks much better.

[ge_rik]

Good to hear from you Andrew.

The texture of that ballast is spot on. As Philip says, it will tone down in time but to my mind it looks perfect as is for station areas.

Rik

[Soar Valley Light]

Hello all,

Having recently hung up my track gauge and joined the ranks of the pensioners I have more time to contemplate the future of the CFLR. I'm shocked to find that the last update was just over three years ago! Nothing has been done since mind you so there's been nothing to share. I still have locos in need of repair and maintenance, there are two part finished 'Slo-mo brake vans buried somewhere on the workbench and no more track has been laid. The vegetation has, however, had three splendid seasons of vigorous growth!

IMG_3182.jpg (133.76 KiB) Viewed 26033 times

IMG_3183.jpg (78.68 KiB) Viewed 26033 times

IMG_3184.jpg (72.73 KiB) Viewed 26033 times

I can't see a great deal of further settlement in the Filcris foundation but the track is badly out of line in places (far worse than the photos show). I used half inch brass pins to fix it to the plastic runners and this was done with a 1/16th inch layer of geotextile between the track and the base. These pins don't seem to have done the job. I now have to decide how to move forward as I don't want to abandon the whole idea of a garden railway. I was considering lifting most of the track structure and replacing it with a concrete block foundation. I've been slowly building a stock of concrete blocks and had about a dozen and a half on hand, not enough to to the job with though, but then, one of my allotment neighbours decided to give up half his plot this year. The half coming vacant has hardly been touched since he took it over about ten years ago so the vegetation is worse than that in my garden! He does have a greenhouse on it though and wants to move that up to the bit he's keeping. I offered to help with that and whilst sizing the job up noticed some blocks had been used to edge part of the overgrown plot. He had no use for them so I began to lift them. What I thought was a single edge turnout out to go almost right round that end of the plot. I have about thirty blocks stacked ready for transport! That IS enough to rebuild with so one option is to do what I was considering. All that said, having looked at the existing line and levels again recently I am also wondering if the track could be returned to useable condition by replacing the pins with small screws. Using screws would also make it much easier to correct any minor cross level errors by allowing a bit of shimming to be slipped under the sleeper bases. This would require any ballast to be removed to allow access but one of the disappointments of the track has been the inability to stick the ballast down, despite copious use of SBR. Between the frost and the jackdaws it seems to flake off the geotextile completely. I might get away with leaving it loose if the track was in a cutting but most of it is on embankment so it would wash off down the slope if I tried that one. All that said, simply refixing the track could be an option to creating a useable railway

There's always a but though, isn't there? A review of the back garden this year led me to a decision to drastically reduce the lavender forest that is fast developing but more importantly (for railway plans) to abandon the short row of raspberries that I left in during the original 'terraforming' for the railway. This would allow me to extend the track layout footprint by maybe an extra five feet. I'd need to weave through the gooseberry bushes a bit but it would extend operations. The other benefit of tweaking the alignment would be the chance to move one side of the line further away from the fenceposts that hold up the four foot high fence that stands above the wall between the garden and the street to give a bit more privacy. I'd only gain a couple of feet but it would be enough to allow post replacement without railway devastation. That was always a concern but what I thought was enough clearance at the planning stage doesn't look adequate in reality. Another thing this that this would allow is the reduction in height of the bottom end of the line. When I built it all sources of info I consulted contained dire warnings about gradients steeper than 1 in 100. I couldn't stick to that and ended up with a long stretch of 1 in 50 on the branch up to the house. Experience showed that that this was no obstacle to operation though, so I am much less worried about putting some gradient into the main running loop that I kept almost level. That might help with ballast retention too.

So, it's decision time. I need to devote some more time to the thought process before I decide a final plan of action and I need to think how any extension might fit. but I'd like to have started work by Spring if possible ( and yes, I do mean Spring 2025!). Expressions like 'The best laid plans of mice and men' spring to mind but watch this space and I hope some sort of renovated and useable railway may rise from the remains of the current roller coaster in the not too distant future - although I have no doubt I shall be using you all as a sounding board to develop my plans along the way!

SVLR Andrew

[philipy]

Good to see you around again Andrew. I for one have missed you.

I know by nature you like to plan things to the n th degree, but sometimes it's better to stick a spade in somewhere and get the ball rolling, even if the result is only 98% perfect, not 102% !!

[Peter Butler]

Wonderful news to hear you have returned Andrew. Your railway has certainly suffered during your absence and the only way forward is to start all over again.
Now you have so little time available (retirees always say that!) you need to get started as soon as possible to keep the enthusiasm alive.
When you reach the ballasting part of construction, instead of using geotextile I chose heavy quality roofing felt, which has a better surface for the SBR to attach to. Much of mine is still in place after many years of Welsh weather.

[LNR]

Andrew I can only reiterate what has been said, good to have you back talking about YOUR railway.
Over the years my railway has suffered subsidence in a few places (very hard to keep sandy soil on built up banks) and so have just lifted that section of track and laid concrete pavers to support the track better.
So as you don't have enough blocks to do the whole railway, why not just start with any bad bits and gradually progress from there.
I know you demand a very high level of track standard and I'm sure you can achieve this again.
Good Luck.
Grant.
PS "Having recently hung up my track gauge" surely just exchanged it for a 45mm gauge one! congrats.