Having realised that I'd bought 7mm embossed stone sheet because "it looked right" I also decided to check that the setts I was making were of a sensible size. Using a set of callipers I measured the inside of the sett stamp at 2.81mm by 1.24mm which at 4mm to the foot represents a stone of 213.56mm by 94.24mm. This seemed reasonable but I thought I'd see if I could find out what size setts usually are which is when I discovered BS EN 1342.
It turns out that setts are covered by a standard published by the British Standards Institute, specifically BS EN 1342 which was last updated in 2012. Unfortunately I haven't actually been able to read the standard because to buy a copy would cost me £162! This is a 34 page document and according to one site 16 of those pages are made up of the title and standard text, leaving just 18 pages of useful information. Now if that isn't a rip off I don't know what is. Fortunately I found a description that references the standard and includes the pertinent information. This states that "a sett is a dressed block of stone having plan dimensions that are 50-300mm in length, and a thickness of at least 50mm". Now I don't care about the depth but we can see that the setts I was producing with my stamp fall within the description, so they are of a reasonable size.
Left rules for me.
ReplyDeleteYes, the left side does look better, much more convincing. Who would have thought there was actually a British Standard for setts...amazing!
ReplyDeleteIt's nice to see a consensus arising and the left hand setts coming out on top, means it isn't just me that thinks they work well!
ReplyDeleteDefinitely left. The £162 presumably is supposed to cover the cost of establishing the standard and not just the printing. It can't exactly be a best seller either.
ReplyDeleteGosh. I'm up to date.
ReplyDeleteUntil tomorrow when hopefully there should be another post :)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMark, I did setts and cobbles like this on my O14 layout. I used some pictures of NG track at Tatton Park Farm. That was cobbled but with sets around the rails. Note that cobbles may not be uniform in size but from a distance they look it. Here's some examples:
ReplyDeletehttps://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/hoDmGaXr7gT47wSOzHIfEdMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/CqXMXbZEqvRk4hW5mPNgUdMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
And at Swanage:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/74EM71av6YIIzaPnqtJx9NMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
I used DAS and embossed with moulds made from scraps of plastic, tube, etc. Remember to leave the rails proud! Here's more on how I did it: http://michaelsrailways.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/load-of-old-cobbles.html
Thanks Michael, those photos are really useful, especially the one of the tools you used. I'm currently using a piece of 3mm cardboard with 1mm slots cut into the edge where the rails slot allowing me to check the surface isn't too high. I hadn't thought of generating a tool I could use to do the accurate depth smoothing though (the cardboard tends to tear the clay rather than smooth), so I might "borrow" that idea!
ReplyDeleteBorrow away, but note that plasticard is smoother and more slippery than card, and can be wetted to slip over the DAS.
DeleteMark, Definitely those on the left if my Crich shots can be trusted https://www.flickr.com/photos/jimbofin/sets/72157644210762443/ but I I would avoid them dipping in the middle of the track, I think they would have a flator convex profile.
ReplyDeleteAs a contributing author of a BSI / ISO standard I can confirm that they are priced on a per page basis. This makes short standards stupidly expensive compared to the proportion of useful content, and makes the longer standards simply expensive.