Painted myself into a corner?

[Harlequin]

Turntable fiddle yard with no point ladder:

 

[Chimer]

Why would you want to turn entire trains in this situation?  That way you'll tend to always get the same loco pulling the same stock.  OK for an exhibition layout, I suppose, where ease of operation is paramount, but a bit boring at home.  Run it in, uncouple, lift loco off, stick another loco on back end, ready to go.  Simples.  No electrical connectivity issues, or need for highly accurate woodworking .....

 

Chris

[Harlequin]

Why would you want to turn entire trains in this situation?  That way you'll tend to always get the same loco pulling the same stock.  OK for an exhibition layout, I suppose, where ease of operation is paramount, but a bit boring at home.  Run it in, uncouple, lift loco off, stick another loco on back end, ready to go.  Simples.  No electrical connectivity issues, or need for highly accurate woodworking .....

 

Chris

Just saying it's a possible solution that this layout could make use of more easily than most. It has some advantages, one of the biggest being to completely eliminate the point ladders and thus shorten the peninsula or lengthen the fiddle yard roads. Obviously it has some disadvantages too.

 

To change locos: Drive train onto fiddle yard road, turn fiddle yard 180 so the same road is now connected to the layout, uncouple and drive loco off turntable, rotate to new position and reverse loco onto different stock.

 

In fact you could have an array of loco spurs on the main baseboard to store locos ready to back onto whatever stock you liked.

 

Advantage: No loco handling so no fingerprints, no broken details. Disadvantage: Would need precise engineering.

 

P.S. Don't forget brake vans have to swap ends as well.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Harlequin

[scottystitch]

I would be inclined to go down the loco lift route as well, but the turntable solution obviously has merit. The constant turning of the whole fiddle yard might be a bit of a faff (technical word) but it all comes down what the OP is happy to operate.

 

I'm sure Philip appreciates all the different ideas and thoughts everyone is providing.

[scottystitch]

Turntable fiddle yard with no point ladder:

turntable fiddle.png

How about a variation of this, but instead of a turntable, a traverser. Have a number of stub lines parallel to the entry road to store locos. Drive a train into a vacant siding, remove the loco, move traverser and couple up another loco at the other end. Train ready to depart when required. As Phil says, manually swap any brake vans as well.

 

If you use a loco lift or similar, no handling of the loco. Admittedly you'd still be handling the brake van, but that would be the same regardless..

 

Just another approach.

[Philou]

My gaster is absolutely fabbered!

 

Some of you must have been up half the night thinking this through - so thanks for that. I agree with the fundamental idea that stock shouldn't be handled too much regarding fine (and fragile) detail and paintwork - despite good intentions - I note that weathering can be prone to 'finger attack' regardless of any varnish overcoat. I reckon it must be the natural acidity of the sweat pores that does it.

 

Engineering-wise I have no issue in constructing a yuuuuge turntable to turn whole trains around - one point raised and would be answered by that - I had completely overlooked any guards van attached to the rear - or even any fitted vans (perishable goods) that I have seen at the end of passenger stock. For those that haven't seen it (and I think it was in another thread) there is an excellent early 1950s colour film showing a variety of passenger steam hauled stock (and a couple of early diesels) wherein there is a shot of the 'Golden Arrow' at the foot of the White Cliffs of Dover (drifts off into song) arriving at Dover with a couple of freight vans attached - which surprised me as I thought it was a particularity of branch line workings (newspaper trains notwithstanding).

 

I will fiddle with the storage area - I may come back again to an earlier plan that I had with its MPD and turntable as that had a headshunt and yard pilot to allow the release of stock and its loco - but it means that one of the branches would have to go - which would be a pity. Some stock movement won't require loco release as moving into a more modern period being diesel hauled and no guards van would mean simply attaching a different diesel to haul the stock out - which could apply to the steam era but with manual handling (loco lifts) IF there is no turntable.

 

Regarding the one station/two stations debate, I do have the opportunity to lay plain track and no ballasting through one of the stations on the prepared alignment, lightly pinned in place and when ready, lift and replace as necessary with the turnouts and crossings for the station. So that to me is certainly a way forward as it will maintain an interest with roundy-roundy for say bulk freight and longer distance passenger traffic and one station in place with its branch for shunting movements.

 

Again, thanks for your thoughts - a lot to consider.

 

Philip

[Philou]

On a further point regarding handling of locos - I just use the proprietary RTR couplings on my stock - should I be looking at a Kadee type coupling on the loco and at each end of the stock so as to have an automated or semi-automated system to uncouple the locos? The downside it seems there are umpteen models to choose from whereas the UK coupler (usually) is a one-size fits all but a b***er to undo without faffing around. I know nothing of Spratt and Winkle, though it seems popular on exhibition layouts.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

Edit: Tidying up

Edited January 23, 2018 by Philou

[Chimer]

On a further point regarding handling of locos - I just use the proprietary RTR couplings on my stock - should I be looking at a Kadee type coupling on the loco and at each end of the stock so as to have an automated or semi-automated system to uncouple the locos? The downside it seems there are umpteen models to choose from whereas the UK coupler (usually) is a one-size fits all but a b***er to undo without faffing around. I know nothing of Spratt and Winkle, though it seems popular on exhibition layouts.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

Edit: Tidying up

 

Ahhhh - stand by for 4 pages of contradictory advice .......  ..... fwiw, I have no trouble using tension locks with sprung uncoupling ramps in my (tiny) fiddle yard, but am dissatisfied with their performance when shunting "in the open".

 

Reverting slightly, a point in favour of a traverser is that you can set it up with two separate approach tracks (from "north" and "south") which don't have to be brought together so don't effectively create a reversing loop and the associated DC polarity problems.

 

​Chris

[The Stationmaster]

@ Anglian, @roythebus, @scottystitch

 

Well! What can I say? You guys have come up trumps regarding the NLS site.

 

I had seen a copy of the plan before but not blown up as much and definitely not as clear. However I am still stumped as to what is going on with pointwork outside of the goods shed. The OS sheets tend to show the tie bars of the points - in this case some are visible others not. For example: on the main line there is a trailing single slip leading to the goods yard as 'normal' practice - visible on photos, but in this instance no tie bars shown. Anyway, moving along the track out of the goods shed towards the station there is a diamond crossing followed by? Are they two short radiused points back to back? Double slip? There has to be something to enable freight and goods vans to be released from the shed road without encumbering the main line. Then what is all of that just to the east of the diamond - plain crossing? Slip? And what after that? Another plain crossing or a slip? Questions questions questions (or as Manuel would say Que?). This has left me a little perplexed.

 

@Anglian

 

I'm coming round to your, and The Stationmaster's, way of thinking and doing the stations in two bites. I can also see the reasoning in having just one station and leaving the south (or just as easily the north) side as landscape. I feel though that it would be too much landscape - though in another iteration of the plan as a figure of 8 I did have a quarry so as to generate traffic - could have that instead of a station.

 

Again in another version, instead of having one of the branch stations (Newent) I did have a fully fledged MPD with high level triple coaling stage (borrowed from the TVR yard in Cathays Cardiff) and a turntable - now that would have kept me busy just operating it alone!! It was a bit OTT or so I thought at the time .......... hmmmmm

 

I'm jigging the plan at the moment so I can see how a turntable fits on the end of the fiddle yard. I'll have to remember to keep one track free as a release road .

 

Thanks again for your help, all of you.

 

Philip

 

OS maps can be rather unreliable on the detail of pointwork - try adding what it show for the sidings to what the SRS diagram shows for the running line pointwork and connections to it.  And why wondering about release from the shed road without encumbering the main line - the real railway didn't worry about that in all sorts of places (although it did at larger goods depots).

[Philou]

@ Harlequin @Chimer @The Stationmaster

 

I can see the advantage of turning a whole train around as to the eye it would look as if it was different stock being run - even just to vary what is available.

 

I hadn't thought of a variation of the traverser mentioned by scottystitch earlier, in having TWO of them - it would indeed get rid of any reverse polarity. I had intended to have that covered by an auto-detect system via DCC that is currently available - in the end though why complicate matters electrically - there will be enough going on already! Regarding the auto uncouplers, are they homemade?

 

I already have two diagrams both of which are from different dates but neither of the ones I have show any of the pointwork inside the yard. However, I do take the point (sorry!) and one not previously thought by me - yes, why not shunt onto the mainline if it's not that busy. Perversely, it seems that Pontrilas, though a less busy branch, was better laid out to avoid over-much use of the mainline. Perhaps Ledbury was more confined being hemmed in by the Malvern Hills one side and a road bridge and falling ground immediately to the other.

 

I'll try and revise the fiddle/storage area and put it on-line probably tomorrow.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

PS: Just a bit of advance warning - if the thread continues over the weekend - I have to be away for a few days from Saturday and I don't think I shall have access to the wifi - so all being well I shall be back on Wednesday/Thursday.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Philou

[Harlequin]

Hi Philou,

 

I think scottystitch was suggesting running two lines into the traverser (or turntable) separately. I.e. the anti-clockwise take-off from your main circuit and the clockwise take-off would arrive at the traverser/turntable separately without joining together. That would mean you wouldn't form a triangle of track and so wouldn't get "polarity" conflicts on the baseboard tracks.

 

However you would still have to switch the "polarity" of the rails on the traverser/turntable depending on which line it connected to on the baseboard (I think) so I'm not sure it gains much.

 

A DCC AutoReverser is easy to wire up and once fitted you should be able to forget about it. It will then allow you to drive any route you like without stopping to manually change polarity. Furthermore, you don't have to think about which direction on the knob is "forwards" on the part of the track controlled by the Auto-Reverser - forwards is always FWD on the controller.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Harlequin

[Philou]

Hello chums,

 

I haven't had an opportunity to fiddle with the fiddle yard to incorporate your ideas, it's been a 'things must be done' day today. But just to show that our thoughts haven't been too far apart - here's one I prepared a few months ago. I recognise that the MPD is not prototypical in layout but I was playing around with ideas at the time. In this variation, access to the storage areas/MPD would have been via the branch-lines and release stock movements, by means of a yard pilot, would have been along either of the branches.

 

Having arrived now with two branch-lines (plan at post #1), it would be a shame, in my view, to replace them with the additional storage and/or the MPD. I will have a go and see what can be done in incorporating a standard turntable somewhere to serve the storage area and yet retain the branch-lines. I will also need to remember to provide head shunts for the yard pilot and stock - probably in parallel to both incoming single tracks - it could look quite good (in my minds eye).

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Brassey]

There is a fairly famous 7mm layout based on Pontrilas called Bucks Hill.  It's been in MRJ a couple of times and has its own website.  Well worth a look.

 

https://www.buckshillmodelrailwayin7mm.com

Edited January 25, 2018 by Brassey

[Philou]

@Brassey

 

Thanks for the information - I had seen the layout (not in the flesh) after I had already started the plans for mine - it might have changed the direction of my thoughts . Impressive especially as it's in 7mm! I'm aiming to have a little more landscaping around the station area and to incorporate the chemical works that were rail-served off the goods loop opposite the signal box (approximately located where the layout's console is in the club photographs). I seem to recall that the chemicals were based on wood products - there is one particular photo where there is a yuuuuge pile of logs and wood waiting to be processed. I suspect it may have been tar, creosote and other similar by-products. This could allow for some interesting freight movements.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[roythebus]

How about a 3 way point on the entry/exit to the yard and a loco turntable in the triangle?

 

Kadees on locos, ends of coach sets and goods wagons. They work and for auto-uncopulng in the turntable/yard you only need the narrow magnet for instant uncoupling.

[Philou]

@ roythebus

 

Well, that's a good idea - thanks for that. I had started toying around with the suggestion made by scottystich of using two traversers to avoid polarity problems. When I got to thinking about the lengths needed - enough to accommodate a minimum 10 coach train + loco and to have storage tracks of a similar length, it would have meant that both branch lines would have disappeared - unless he had another idea of how to place the traversers.

 

I was going to have a look this weekend to see how to tackle the building of the mega-turntable as proposed by Harlequin - or how to incorporate a 'standard' turntable somewhere on one side or other of the storage yard without blocking up too much area. There would have to have been at least one release road.

 

I can see your idea playing something like this - train arrives into any of the free yard tracks, yard pilot engine (why not if there are multiple operators) draws the stock into one or other of two headshunts (to be drawn) parallel to the lines coming off the main circuit and releases loco. Loco reverses back and onto the turntable does a 180° and then EITHER reverses back onto its stock which has been returned by the yard pilot or other stock as determined OR gets parked onto a free length of track fanning from the turntable. Not very prototypical probably - but if it gets the job done this could be a good solution. Furthermore, there's added interest for shunting movements, particularly as unfitted freight would require the guards van to be shunted around so that too ended up at the correct end of the train. AND I get to keep the two branches.

 

As I shall probably be cut off from t'interwebs this weekend and until Thursday ('more jobs that must be done' ), I can concentrate on your idea and dabble around with those previously mentioned in the evening.

 

Now, tell me about these Kadee couplings of which you speak ..................... I've only seen pictures of them and never in the flesh. As Chimer says above, I may get 4 pages of contradictory advice on the matter - but I'm willing to listen to the experience of others (if we can have a little bit of froth - so much the better ).

 

Anyway, thanks to all so far who have up with ideas - I certainly feel very much more optimistic now, than when I started off this thread.

 

I suppose I ought to say thanks to those that drop by to have a read too.

 

Would any of you reading this thread like to see just where this layout is intended to live and the building works that will need to be done to get there? I haven't any photos yet as no works have commenced but that can be easily arranged. The timberwork has arrived though and is currently drying out in the barn. It's likely to be a long process - but I'm happy to give you all a blow by blow account. So the next question is: Do I do that here or have I to start a new thread elsewhere? I've never done a blog and I'm not sure I should wish too .

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

Gah! Edited for my granma and removing a camel or three.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Philou

[Chimer]

I had started toying around with the suggestion made by scottystich of using two traversers to avoid polarity problems. When I got to thinking about the lengths needed - enough to accommodate a minimum 10 coach train + loco and to have storage tracks of a similar length, it would have meant that both branch lines would have disappeared - unless he had another idea of how to place the traversers.

 

Well ........... this was my original post (Scottystitch just agreed with me, I think) about avoiding traverser polarity problems: 

 

 

Reverting slightly, a point in favour of a traverser is that you can set it up with two separate approach tracks (from "north" and "south") which don't have to be brought together so don't effectively create a reversing loop and the associated DC polarity problems.

 

Not two traversers - just one traverser with two approach roads like this (clipped from one of my plans so not exactly as you would have it): 

 

 

The traverser roads take their power from the approach road they are lined up with (various ways of arranging this).  So no polarity problems.  Say the inside rail of the main circuit (or circuits) is black and the outside rail red, then the traverser road currently lined up with the lower approach track is black on the lower rail and red on the upper rail - the one lined up with the upper approach track is the other way round.  So the left hand wheels of a train departing on the lower road and arriving on the upper are always on black rails.

 

Hope this helps .....

 

Chris

[Philou]

Aaaah .................... now I see. Sorry Chimer, I got it all a**e backwards . Of course, it makes more sense. I've started to remodel the storage area and I have a funny feeling that I may try to incorporate your proposal and that of roythebus. It's a bit tight at the moment trying to get the curves in and not going below the 1.0m min radius that I had in mind, but with the traverser it may well work out as the 3-way point is tending to throw things out.

 

I'll see how it goes and all being well, I'll let you all know on Thursday.

 

Have a good weekend.

 

Philip

[Brassey]

Would any of you reading this thread like to see just where this layout is intended to live and the building works that will need to be done to get there? I haven't any photos yet as no works have commenced but that can be easily arranged. The timberwork has arrived though and is currently drying out in the barn. It's likely to be a long process - but I'm happy to give you all a blow by blow account. So the next question is: Do I do that here or have I to start a new thread elsewhere? I've never done a blog and I'm not sure I should wish too .

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

Philip

 

Please put it on this thread as far as I am concerned it's all part of the same plan.

 

From my viewpoint I would find the idea of a large turntable quite frightening particularly the prospect of the whole thing falling on the floor stock and all.

 

FWIW, I know I am biased but, my suggestion is to go ahead with Pontrilas with a conventional roundy fiddle yard and see how far you get.  That is a main line station with around 100 train movements a day excluding the Golden Valley branch; that would give you enough to do.  I have been building stock and building my layout for 6 years now which is much more modest (and on the same line) and so far a complete train has not run.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Brassey

[Anglian]

Would any of you reading this thread like to see just where this layout is intended to live and the building works that will need to be done to get there? 

 

 

 

Yes please! 

 

I think a complete turntable with a ten coach train might be rather too big and would I suspect need some significant light engineering to ensure it's strong enough to contain the trains safely yet light enough to be turned easily. A similar arrangement used on Buckingham was only able to take five or six trains of about half this length.

 

My own view is to keep the fiddle yard as simple as possible in design and operation and currently think the traverser is the best option and you'll save a lot of space by not using so many point ladders.

 

Why not loose one of the branch line terminus stations and have this as a single running into the fiddle yard /traverser. This would then give you space for a loco turntable within the fiddle yard and some loco spurs. Any train entering the fiddle yard comes onto the traverser. Uncouples and moves forward on say an 18" piece of track that lies beyond the traverser. Once you have a few locos stored in this part of the yard, they can be moved along a free road on the traverser and run down to the turntable and loco spurs at the entrance end of the traverser, next to where the branch line enters the fiddle yard. Alternatively with the space you save by using a traverser over a point ladder is that you could have the loco turntable beyond the traverser. This would make for the simplest operation. I imagine if there are several of you operating the role of the fiddle yard operator is going to be onerous. 

 

One advantage of having one of the two branch lines coming into the fiddle yard and not a branch terminus is that you can then invent industries that this branch serves and have the appropriate trains without needing to model the infrastructure that handles such interesting and unusual loads. This also gives you another aspect to the operation rather than both sides of the scenic layout duplicating each other.

 

Really to be prototypical you don't want to turn whole trains, only the locomotive, hence why I favour a traverser. This ensures the train appears to undertake a return journey. Depending on the real railway line/company will depend on where for example, the first class coaches are placed within the formation. I imagine it would be quite satisfying to see them modelled to retain the correct positions within the set for both up and down legs of their trips. 

 

Typically at exhibitions you see the same formations running on the up line on several occasions if you watch long enough but they don't run up into the fiddle yard to reappear later in the sequence on the down line,a s they should. To me operating stock on both lines visually addresses the simple fact that historical train formations run to somewhere for a purpose and return for another.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Anglian

[Philou]

I have returned!

 

@ Anglian

 

Thanks for the idea regarding the variation on the traverser - something else to consider and to have a dabble. I did draw up a plan based on Chimer's proposal of two access points into the traverser. I did keep the two branches but it meant a long pair of lines leading to it - though they could be used as release roads. By slightly altering the radii leading to the traverser, I was able to create an MPD of sorts with a turntable - which meant additional interest in loco movements.

 

As mentioned above, having arrived at the two-branch terminii, I'm trying to find a way of retaining them - if possible. Nothing has been written in stone! My reasoning is simply that whilst Rule No1 can always apply and there has to be the art of compromise (as ever) when trying to recreate something in the railway modelling scene, I was able to avoid non-prototypical movements off the mainline away from the stations themselves - keeping these 'around the corner'.

 

However, to follow through your proposal, photographs of stock movements at Pontrilas tend to show mixed freight/passenger trains hauled by tank locos (0-4-2Ts and 0-6-0Ts open and closed cabs) sometimes bunker first sometimes smokebox first and sometimes passenger stock leading, sometimes freight. During WWII, traffic was quite dense as an ammunition dump was created which continued to be rail served after passenger and freight traffic along the rest of the line had ceased - so there is merit in retaining this branch in favour of that serving the Newent branch at Ledbury.

 

At Ledbury, the only photographs I have showing stock movements along the branch, are passenger. These being 0-6-0PTs, Prairies and the GWR railcar - no freight, though photos of Newent show quite a number of freight vans - so there must have been some - I just haven't seen photos at Ledbury with freight stock on the branch.

 

There is one drawback in having just one 'branch' serving the traverser, you cannot avoid having to reverse stock movements when you arrive back onto the mainline - otherwise the roundy-roundy becomes a one-way street. You do need two ways out of the storage area in order to avoid such movements.

 

I need to think all these ideas through.

 

I'll post the plan I drew up over the last couple of days following Chimer's proposal - I just need to extract the part rather than showing the whole of the plan .

 

I'll also go take some photos of the barn - as is - so you can have some idea of what lies ahead. I may not do it today as it's sleeting outside and it's a tad cold .

 

Thanks again to you all for taking the time to respond.

 

Philip

[Chimer]

I think Anglian's idea was probably to have the branch line as a third approach road to the traverser ........

 

Chris

[Anglian]

Yes that's what I was thinking. Keep both mainline approaches as they are to feed the main circuit. Remove Clifford station to make room for a fiddle yard MPD and turntable.

This gives two mainline through stations, one branch line terminus and one branch (that which served Clifford) with no station but that runs into the main fiddle yard.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Anglian

[Philou]

@Chris

 

Aah .. I hadn't read it that way - I understood it as an alternative to your two road approach - which conveniently brings me to the plan that I did since the weekend (amongst other things) showing my take on your two-road approach to the traverser AND keeping the two branches plus a rudimentary MPD.

 

It needs working on but has these elements:

 

• Two roads - no polarity issues (though can be overcome with DCC)
• MPD plus turntable - again no polarity issues
• A headshunt independent of the two roads
• I get to keep the two branches (neither of which are connected to the traverser).

 

The downside, as drawn, it looks a little ungainly - but is a fiddle yard after all.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Philou]

@Anglian @Chimer

 

Right - this looks as if it's going to be an amalgam of my post #38 and #50. The MPD being placed on the north side instead of Clifford. Get rid of the ladders and replace with the traverser. Two single track approach from the mainline (as is - but without any direct connection to each other). Have a single line through 'Clifford' connecting the traverser and Pontrilas - this would permit prototypical stock movement to continue along the GVR.

 

It could work out quite well thinking upon it. Clifford was only ever going to be a single platform and a loop plus the two sidings - whereas Newent could be a far grander affair - double track country terminus with perhaps a small train shed that only needs to be two coaches long. There is another thread showing a similar set up - ex broad gauge country terminus - very small, very stark - but very simple to model. I like where this is going.

 

Thank you both.

 

My next post will have a few photos showing the site where this layout is to be homed.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip