Main line through station in N

[Satan's Goldfish]

Back from wife imposed shopping, I've had a bit more of a think on the fiddle yard, I can't get over the fact It's too complicated.

 

A point to bear in mind is that in the real world, the standard* orientation of a train is for 1st class portion to be at the London end. Your original end to end plan would have kept all your coach sets the same way round, you just needed the big hand from the sky to swap which end the loco was on. With return loops as designed now, your coaching sets will reverse orientation each time they appear, plus there's some complex electrickery needed to cope with reversed polarities etc.

 

With simple plans being better (yes, really), may I suggest a revision to the fiddle yard. Scrap the return loops, have 3 long fiddle tracks in each direction for continuous run (e.g a HST in for each direction, loaded stone train in one direction, empty stone in the other direction, etc). Between the 2 directional fiddle loops have a fan of sidings from each direction for your loco hauled trains that feed on to both the up and down main lines, and use the big hand from the sky to change loco ends. All your train sets will remain in the same orientation, you have a continuous run function for running in stock, point work and electrics are simpler, but it's still mostly end to end as per your original wish.

 

Can draw it later if you need.

 

*as with all things there are exceptions to the rule! E.g The NSE loco hauled sets to Kings Lynn had 1st in the middle of the formation.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think that a fully timetabled service would certainly be something that I should want to try, especially for computer controlled operation.

 

As to the width, a dogbone shaped layout would create more curvature on the main line and would also leave less room for scenery behind the station building, would it not?

 

Less, certainly, but quite enough in N.

 

You should need, at most, 9" depth for the fiddleyard and 15" for the station area. But that takes us to 2'3" anyway so perhaps easier just to have similar width boards throughout. Maybe worth keeping in mind that 2'8" depth is handy in making best use of 8' x 4' sheets of ply. Snag is that at 5' height from the floor, you are unlikely to be able to reach across a 2'8" baseboard unless you are very tall - 6'4" at least. Hence the advice that boards should be narrower in the middle than at the ends where the loops are.

 

Although it would impact on the shed windows, the whole thing would be much easier on a narrower board around three walls of the shed. That would also impact less when working on the 00 layout below.

[jamespetts]

Thank you both for your thoughts. A reason that I am keen on reversing loops is the lack of any need to change locomotives manually in the fiddle yards so that I can automate, so the revised suggestion above is probably not suitable for me. Also, I cannot see that the same HSTs continually passing in the same direction would be any better than the first class sections being at the wrong end sometimes, especially as occasionally in reality the first class ended up being at the wrong end (and still does). (I accept that this might be a matter where tastes vary).

 

As to the depth, looking at this on SCARM again, the rearmost tracks are 100mm from the rear of the board, so, in principle, I could simply truncate 100mm from the baseboard without modifying the design, making boards 800m wide rather than 900mm wide. However, this would not improve access to the rear tracks, as these would be just as far away from the front of the board as they were before. If there is to be a layout underneath of at least 900mm width, might it be better for this layout to be of a similar width to enable easier access, or would an 800mm wide baseboard be no more difficult in reality?

[Harlequin]

In post #47 both reversing loops connect the outer to the inner circuit. I.e. the facing point leading to the reversing line is on the outer circuit at both ends.

 

A small improvement would be to have one of them work the other way so that both the reversing loops have the same effect. I.e. trains heading out of any of the storage sidings in either direction have the choice of running through the station or over a reversing loop. (Better to have the choice on exit from the storage sidings rather than entry so that you don't have to think about reversing a train before you "park" it.)

 

You could also save some width in the fiddle yard by staggering the storage sidings and that has the advantage that each siding holds one train rather than queuing them up. Trains will never block each other - there's always an exit route. And occupancy detection is much simpler, if you want to do that.

 

This is 800mm wide at 2mm scale. It just shows the topology - I haven't tried to make smooth curves or smooth turnouts so this would need a bit of finessing to create a real track plan.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Harlequin

[Satan's Goldfish]

The issue I haven't worked out the solution to with that Phil, is if you look at the reversing loop on the left, depending on train length you could hit yourself on the diamond crossing. There's probably an easy solution but it's too early on a Monday right now.

[jamespetts]

The issue I haven't worked out the solution to with that Phil, is if you look at the reversing loop on the left, depending on train length you could hit yourself on the diamond crossing. There's probably an easy solution but it's too early on a Monday right now.

 

An interesting point. How would one calculate the maximum length of train, I wonder? I imagine that the longest trains would be the MGR coal trains.

[Harlequin]

The issue I haven't worked out the solution to with that Phil, is if you look at the reversing loop on the left, depending on train length you could hit yourself on the diamond crossing. There's probably an easy solution but it's too early on a Monday right now.

Oh, ah, I didn't think of that but...

 

I've just measured it and the distance around the loop is ~2250mm at 2mm scale - long enough for 14-15 150mm long vehicles.

 

Phew!

[Joseph_Pestell]

An interesting point. How would one calculate the maximum length of train, I wonder? I imagine that the longest trains would be the MGR coal trains.

 

The length of the loop is about the circumference of the circle,, so about 6'. Plenty of space for the HST but a bit short for full length MGR.

 

From what we now know about James' preferences,, I would take a totally different approach to the fiddleyard and loops. Drawing later if work permits.

[njee20]

A 36-wagon MGR train is about 8' or 2430mm, so yes, a little short.

[jamespetts]

Thank you for the useful information.

 

I have noticed that it can be quite hard to get hold of suitable N gauge stock - production runs seem to be short and sell out quickly, and second-hand availability seems to be sporadic. The HST, for example, seems to have been produced by Dapol a few years ago but is now discontinued; there appear to be one or two components on eBay, but probably not enough to make several full rakes. Similarly, the older class 50 is hard to find secondhand (I understand that a newer one is to be produced later this year), and there appear not to be many number variants of, e.g., class 47s. How do people find it best to build a suitable collection of stock for a layout in N gauge (is it just a matter of waiting for things to come up on eBay and elsewhere?), and is renumbering an N gauge locomotive by hand a feasible proposition?

[Harlequin]

Adjusted with 2600mm left hand reversing loop and cleaner routes through fiddle yard so that main lines only traverse one facing and one trailing point each.

 

 

Note: As drawn, only two of the green storage lines are long enough to hold 36-wagon MGR trains.

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Harlequin

[njee20]

That looks good!

 

Thank you for the useful information.

 

I have noticed that it can be quite hard to get hold of suitable N gauge stock - production runs seem to be short and sell out quickly, and second-hand availability seems to be sporadic. The HST, for example, seems to have been produced by Dapol a few years ago but is now discontinued; there appear to be one or two components on eBay, but probably not enough to make several full rakes. Similarly, the older class 50 is hard to find secondhand (I understand that a newer one is to be produced later this year), and there appear not to be many number variants of, e.g., class 47s. How do people find it best to build a suitable collection of stock for a layout in N gauge (is it just a matter of waiting for things to come up on eBay and elsewhere?), and is renumbering an N gauge locomotive by hand a feasible proposition?

Pretty much just a case of waiting! As you say, runs are small and they come and go. The Dapol HSTs are in demand, so second hand prices are high. Mk3 coaches come up often, but frustratingly, as is often the case with Dapol, silly livery errors mean they often don't match (there are at least 3 different shades of grey for the roofs). The Farish 50 is a very old model, and doesn't really look like a 50, better waiting for Dapol's recently resumed model, due late this year (really H2 next say I'd guess at!). 47s are current, and drip fed onto the market by Farish, with reasonable stock second hand. I think there's an IC Executive one which is current, not sure about Swallow. Mk2Ds are on the way at some point from Farish, long overdue.

 

Re-numbering is definitely feasible. That said... running numbers being so much smaller it's also harder to spot duplicates! I know I've got a couple, but have to really check to remind myself which they are.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Finally, after a more difficult weekend than planned, my take on how to do the hidden sidings and loops. It gives possibilities for turning trains on loops but also reversing them in the sidings so that HSTs stay the right way round. No diamonds at all and nice long loops for those MGR trains.

 

Edit: Attachment not showing! Will try again.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell

[Joseph_Pestell]

Finally, after a more difficult weekend than planned, my take on how to do the hidden sidings and loops. It gives possibilities for turning trains on loops but also reversing them in the sidings so that HSTs stay the right way round. No diamonds at all and nice long loops for those MGR trains.

 

Edit: Attachment not showing! Will try again.

Oxcott - Hidden Sidings.pdf

[gordon s]

Here's the PDF for all to see...

 

 

 

[Satan's Goldfish]

Interesting, it kept popping into my head that the scenic part might work/look better rotated 180 degrees. there's also the scope now to scenic the end curves (return loops hidden under hill?)

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your continued thoughts on this. I am becoming a little concerned that it might not be possible to fit this and the other proposed layout in the shed and have a sensible height clearance between all three levels (one level for this one, and two for the other), and, if forced to choose, I should prefer the other layout to this. The issue is that the minimum recommended distance between levels is, from what I have found so far, about 45cm. The lowest sensible level for the lower layer is 80cm, which would mean that the upper layer of the other layout would have to be at 125cm high. Adding a further 45cm to that would make this layout 170mm off the floor, which would be too high for anyone other than a giant: I am 185cm tall, so could see the front of the layout, but would not be able sensibly to reach to the back.

 

Somebody suggested a pulley system, but briefly looking into this suggests that this is frought with problems. Can anyone think of a creative practical way around these issues? I should not want to have to abandon this idea.

[Harlequin]

I think I have the answer!

 

You could have an O gauge layout on the other side of the shed to counter-balance the N gauge. Motorise the pulley system and automate it so that as a OO gauge train approaches, the N gauge layout rises out of the way and then as the OO train rounds the end of the shed the system reciprocates to raise the O gauge layout out of the way.

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I will post the pulley system concept again here. May be a drawing later.

 

To support most of the weight of the layout (which at 24' x 2'8"/7m x 800mm is going to be quite heavy even with lightweight baseboards), I would mount kitchen drawer slide units (or similar) vertically to the wall of the shed. I think one every 600mm would be enough but every 400mm might be better.

 

Because they are not designed to be used in this plane, it also needs some blocks to be screwed into the shed wall, or some sort of peg, to lock the layout into place in both raised and lowered positions. Probably obvious but, to be clear, the part of the slide unit that usually fixes to the kitchen unit would be screwed into the wall and the part that goes onto the drawer would be fixed to the backscene (built as an integral part of the baseboard).

 

Advantage to this method, as opposed to just hanging the layout from ceiling mounted pulleys, is that the cables can be out of the way against the wall.

 

I would add that  this is just a method to allow James to have the layout along one wall of the shed. I still think that it would be better to have the layout thinner but along three walls of the shed: station on the long wall and hidden sidings/loops on the two short walls.

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your thoughts - a drawing would be most interesting. Can I ask - has anyone actually tried or used a layout on a pulley or one with an adjustable height? From what I have read, those who have tried them tend to abandon them very quickly, leaving them in the up or down position because hoisting is too difficult or unreliable, converting them to fixed or dismantling them entirely.

 

It would be splendid to be able to have this in addition to the planned OO gauge layout, but not at the cost of making either inaccessible.

[jamespetts]

I wonder whether reducing the separation between all levels to 400mm would suffice to overcome this without the need for pulleys? That would allow the lower level of the OO gauge layout to be at 800mm, the upper level of that layout at 1,200mm and this layout to be at 1,600mm, which is viewable for me. Reaching to the back might then be facilitated with a simple kick stool. Does this seem sane?

 

I should not want to have to abandon this, as this layout is the only way that I can think of of starting with something smaller (in both senses of the word!) than the large OO layout, but at the same time be a layout that (1) will fit in my proposed shed; and (2) will be one that I will actually want to keep in the long term.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I wonder whether reducing the separation between all levels to 400mm would suffice to overcome this without the need for pulleys? That would allow the lower level of the OO gauge layout to be at 800mm, the upper level of that layout at 1,200mm and this layout to be at 1,600mm, which is viewable for me. Reaching to the back might then be facilitated with a simple kick stool. Does this seem sane?

 

I should not want to have to abandon this, as this layout is the only way that I can think of of starting with something smaller (in both senses of the word!) than the large OO layout, but at the same time be a layout that (1) will fit in my proposed shed; and (2) will be one that I will actually want to keep in the long term.

 

1600mm really is a bit high. And 400mm very marginal on such wide boards.

 

As most of your lower level is hidden trackage anyway, I can't see that you need anything more than 150mm between the lower level and the upper level of 00, so long as your baseboard is designed in such a way as to make access fairly easy.

 

So, on that basis, 800mm + 950mm + 1500mm could work.

 

I rather think that you might be able to get all your "Widened Lines" underground section on the side of the room opposite Paddington, perhaps modelling Kings Cross with just the BR lines having platforms and the Met running past (or if pre 1940 with platforms for both). The advantage of this would be to extend the length along which these trains are visible. Met & Circle Line trains would stay on this part of the system as would LMS/LNER (BR(LMR)/BR(ER)) trains. Only the Hammersmith & City trains and GW freight to Smithfield would need to use the ramp up to the upper level of the layout and Bishop's Rd. As you have pointed out, but others seem to have missed, these shorter trains should not have problems with tight curves and steep gradients.

 

It would all be that much simpler with a wider shed. But I think we might just be able to make this work. Actually simpler than your original, but still all the same operational possibilities.

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your thoughts. I have doubts that a separation of only 150mm between the levels of the OO gauge layout would be workable given the need to access all of the pointwork for wiring/point motors on the upper layer. However, having spoken this evening to somebody at The Model Railway Club, I am assured that a 400mm separation should be sufficient provided that the layout be wired sensibly.

[Dagworth]

Adjusted with 2600mm left hand reversing loop and cleaner routes through fiddle yard so that main lines only traverse one facing and one trailing point each.

 

JP3.png

 

Note: As drawn, only two of the green storage lines are long enough to hold 36-wagon MGR trains.

If you change the pointwork at the right hand end of the green yard like this it keeps all roads equal length, same as the blue yard.

 

Andi

Edited March 2, 2018 by Dagworth

[TonyMay]

At the moment for running you have both return loops running clockwise.  That's OK for the right hand loop but the left hand return loop needs to run the other way round, i.e. anti-clockwise so that you don't end up with long trains running into themselves.  You then need to adjust the fan of points leading to the anti-clockwise storage lines to fit.