Ed Winterbury Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 Ok, thank you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold imt Posted October 20, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 20, 2017 ........ It's a very long time since I learnt to do the calculation but I'm pretty sure that a frame of 75x12mm PSE timber will give at least as much support as one made of 50x25mm timber but with far less weight. Look at any simple girder railway bridge and you'll see this principle being applied on a large scale. Firstly that is a very good point, and secondly if you intend to use Tortoise or Cobalt point motors (or similar) you need a depth of side rail to protect them. My baseboards (made for me) are 9mm MDF (I hear the groans but mine is indoors in a warm house!) with 90mm deep 12mm MDF rails supporting them at 300 mm (roughly) centres. You need to PLAN your cross members to avoid where you intend to place your point motors - else disappointment ensues (sorry its the silly old fart that keeps banging on about planning things!). 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 Firstly that is a very good point, and secondly if you intend to use Tortoise or Cobalt point motors (or similar) you need a depth of side rail to protect them. My baseboards (made for me) are 9mm MDF (I hear the groans but mine is indoors in a warm house!) with 90mm deep 12mm MDF rails supporting them at 300 mm (roughly) centres. You need to PLAN your cross members to avoid where you intend to place your point motors - else disappointment ensues (sorry its the silly old fart that keeps banging on about planning things!). It's also worth knowing that when you need to make holes in the cross members for wiring etc, making them about half way up will have very little effect on their bending resistance whereas making them at the top or bottom will weaken them. It's all to do with bending moments but there's no need to understand that to use it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted October 26, 2017 Author Share Posted October 26, 2017 Ok, thanks for all your help! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 You need to PLAN your cross members to avoid where you intend to place your point motors - else disappointment ensues (sorry its the silly old fart that keeps banging on about planning things!). It is easily overlooked though. My previous layout needed a point motor where I had never intended because someone mentioned that I needed some sort of catch/trap point. By the time I fitted it, all the wiring etc was in the way. I ended up getting creative by putting the tortoise on its side under the platform, next to the point. It actually worked rather well. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejstubbs Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 I ended up getting creative by putting the tortoise on its side under the platform, next to the point. It actually worked rather well. Indeed: above-the-baseboard mounting can work well for certain specific situations, be they mistakes, afterthoughts, or simply unavoidable. The odd platelayers' hut, lamp hut or other small (or even large) building or other scenic detail that can plausibly be located sufficiently adjacent to the point mechanism to hide the motor is OK, but a hut next to every turnout just looks daft! If you haven't built the baseboards yet it's definitely worth aiming to put the bracing where it won't interfere with point motors (and any other bits of mechanism that you might want to fit underneath, such as turntable motors). That requires a reasonably accurate track plan to work from. If, like me you don't have any leeway about where the bracing can goes (in my case because I am recycling baseboards from a previous layout and the bracing is where it is) then track planning and/or laying needs be done with an eye to keeping tie bars away from sub-baseboard timbers in as much as it is practically possible to do so. This is even more important with complex, dense formations of pointwork which - even using rtr track - can turn out not to leave much room for point motors to be sited above the baseboard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted October 26, 2017 Author Share Posted October 26, 2017 The boards I would like are these ones: http://www.modelscenerysupplies.co.uk/model-railway-baseboards/basic-base-boards. I am looking at installing working point rodding, so the point motors where the points are in awkward locations would be placed there. Also, houses by the line or a bush might be a place in which to hide one of those new 'Micro Point Motors' from DCC Concepts https://www.dccconcepts.com/product-category/the-cobalt-collection/cobalt-point-motors/cobalt-ss/. So, therefore, all my 'signalman' will have a mix of mechanical working and electronic working- just like the real thing in the 50s and 60s! By the way, does anyone remember bundles of wiring coming down from electric pylons to ground level in order to cross the railway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Siberian Snooper Posted October 26, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 26, 2017 The boards I would like are these ones: http://www.modelscenerysupplies.co.uk/model-railway-baseboards/basic-base-boards. I am looking at installing working point rodding, so the point motors where the points are in awkward locations would be placed there. Also, houses by the line or a bush might be a place in which to hide one of those new 'Micro Point Motors' from DCC Concepts https://www.dccconcepts.com/product-category/the-cobalt-collection/cobalt-point-motors/cobalt-ss/. So, therefore, all my 'signalman' will have a mix of mechanical working and electronic working- just like the real thing in the 50s and 60s! By the way, does anyone remember bundles of wiring coming down from electric pylons to ground level in order to cross the railway? Electricity that was on poles, stayed on poles at around 18 ft above rail level, with suitable signage, especially with regard to cranes. High voltage juice on pylons is well out of the way, but would still have signage. Telegraph wires were cabled to pass through bridges and tunnels if it was not possible for a pole route over the structure. Where wires or cables were in the way of a crane job, then a temporary cable would be used during the occupation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted October 28, 2017 Author Share Posted October 28, 2017 Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted October 30, 2017 Author Share Posted October 30, 2017 Just out of interest, how long should the platforms be? For a typical branch platform Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejstubbs Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Simple answer: Long enough to accommodate a typical branch line train. If it's a terminus then that needs to include room for the loco (if services are loco-hauled) otherwise the passengers in the rear coach may not be able to disembark. That's the absolute minimum. You can get away with having to back the train out slightly to allow the loco to run round, if that's how the station was operated (ie not necessarily required if the usual service is a push-pull loco hauled train, or a multiple unit or dare I say it an HST). Generally, though, it looks better if regular passenger traffic at the station doesn't look as if it has had to be crammed in. A bit of space in the platform helps to reduce the "train set" look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted October 30, 2017 Author Share Posted October 30, 2017 A typical branch line train is how long??? My plan is looking at a possible 10' to 11'. Is that long enough? Also, how big to goods facilities at a through station need to be? Would I have an 'Up Yard' and a 'Down Yard' or would it typically be one yard and a crossover? Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 It depends on what was intended to run on the branch. If it as only ever served by a 2 coach train, then the terminus platform would have been long enough to fit this plus space for the loco to run around. Intermediate stations would have been shorter. General goods yards would have been 1 side only. If they were private sidings, then there could have been different companies operating each side. Think of it from a financial point of view. Laying track & building platforms are expensive & always have been. A company would not lay 6 sidings if it believed it could cope with 2. An operator would not spend lots extra building a long platform when a cheaper, short one would do the job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted October 30, 2017 Author Share Posted October 30, 2017 Then what is a typical branch train? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Holliday Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 It depends on what was intended to run on the branch. If it as only ever served by a 2 coach train, then the terminus platform would have been long enough to fit this plus space for the loco to run around. Intermediate stations would have been shorter. General goods yards would have been 1 side only. If they were private sidings, then there could have been different companies operating each side. Think of it from a financial point of view. Laying track & building platforms are expensive & always have been. A company would not lay 6 sidings if it believed it could cope with 2. An operator would not spend lots extra building a long platform when a cheaper, short one would do the job. I would tend to disagree. Most branch lines were constructed with optimistic views of potential passenger traffic, at least to get the original finance, and constructing the platforms themselves was one of the cheapest elements of the costs. This wasn't true in the very early days, 1830s, when passengers were almost ignored in the planning, but once the amount of traffic that was generated was seen, promoters tended to feel the sky was the limit. It was only really around the turn of the century when Light Railways became fashionable, that minimalist provision was made - by that time there was a more realistic, usually, view of how much traffic would be generated, although there were still some grandiose schemes.Looking at a selection of archetypal southern branchlines, they commonly were provided with platforms between 250 and 400 feet long, and so could accommodate 7-10 coach trains of six wheeled stock, or, later 5-8 bogie coaches. In 4mm this would equate to platforms around 3' 6" to 5' long, but the trains would generally not be that long, just two or three coaches in length. However, you have to consider special occasions, such as market days or excursions, when it wasn't unknown for the trains to exceed the length of the platforms, in some locations. When this occurred regularly, it was, often, fairly easy to extend the platforms to suit - this happened at Hayling Island and, I believe, Swanage. As for goods yards, these can be as big or small as you like. In some instances the yard might be remote from the passenger station, as at Belmont on the Epsom Downs branch, or, occasionally, the next station's yard was sufficiently close to make a separate one uneconomic, such as Bramber on the line between Shoreham and Horsham. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 A good example of how to disagree without being argumentative Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Siberian Snooper Posted October 30, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 30, 2017 I think that the real answer is, how long is a bit of string! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted October 30, 2017 Author Share Posted October 30, 2017 My guess is that 5-coach trains would be acceptable then? For this, I'm using the ballpark estimation of one coach or loco=1'. Or would the 10'-11' be fairly necessary? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted October 30, 2017 Author Share Posted October 30, 2017 So far, I've eyed up Horsley and Effingham Junction, which would only need 8' of run between them to be scale-length. (About one mile in real life). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted October 30, 2017 Author Share Posted October 30, 2017 No, I think I got it wrong... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted October 30, 2017 Author Share Posted October 30, 2017 It's wrong... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 My guess is that 5-coach trains would be acceptable then? For this, I'm using the ballpark estimation of one coach or loco=1'. Or would the 10'-11' be fairly necessary? Many modellers also employ 'selective compression' i.e. running trains that are somewhat shorter than prototype. For example, with Aberystwyth Mark 1, I ran trains of five bogie coaches to represent the 8-coach Aberystwyth portion of the Cambrian Coast Express (Subsequent Marks have had to go down to 4 coach trains), as that was all I could fit in the available space. I remember Cyril Freezer in one of his plan books advising how a plan designed for three coach trains could be expanded for four coach trains were space available but added that 'when you are setting out to represent 8 to 12 coach trains, the difference between three and four coaches is somewhat academic'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 No, I think I got it wrong... Yes, you were a long way out. That is less than a furlong. I usually work in metric because I feel imperial is awkward & really quite bizarre. I found it quite shocking at how many people don't know how far a mile is & many of these were arguing with me that it made more sense than metric! A mile is 1760 yards. I was taught this when I was a child but never knew where it came from, so I did some research to find out: 1 foot = 12 inches (we all knew that) 1 yard = 3 feet (yep, we all knew that too) 1 chain = 22 yards (the length of a cricket pitch. I doubt this is a coincidence) 1 furlong = 10 chains 1 mile = 8 furlongs 22x10x8 = 1760 So there you have it: a mile is 22*10*8 yards. What a bizarre measurement..but we use it every day. Anyway, when talking about layout sizes we work in feet, so we need to convert this to feet then scale it down: 1 mile in feet is 1760*3=5280 Scale this down to 4mm: 5280/76=69.47', so 1 mile is just under 69'6". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted October 31, 2017 Author Share Posted October 31, 2017 My understanding of metric to imperial is very approximate. 1 foot=30cm 1 inch=2.5cm 1 yard=1 metre 1 mile=1.6km (sometimes 1.5km if I'm trying to calculate something mentally) 1 pound=500g etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Winterbury Posted October 31, 2017 Author Share Posted October 31, 2017 There we go! I got it wrong. The correct measurement is closer to 15000mm, not 2000 mm as I thought (the converter, WordsworthScales, had written out the 12000mm for H0 underneath, and I neglected to see the '1' before it. By the way, do you have some details of Aberystwyth? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts