Jump to content

Chimer

Members
  • Content Count

    899
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

295 Good

Profile Information

  • Location
    Portsmouth (Southsea actually!)
  • Interests
    Hockey, Ski-ing, Accrington Stanley

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hmmm …. "40 intercity carriages" implies long trains implies long platforms (6 feet or so for 6 carriages). This doesn't fit well with "a few stations". A "big terminus at one end on the 8 x 4" is tricky too - you need about 10 feet in a straight line for the platforms and the throat pointwork. Possibly diagonally across the 8 x 4 with most of the pointwork round the bend at the start of the 20' run which would otherwise be open country …… and return loops (maybe on two levels if you're feeling brave) at the other end. Goods yard or a loco shed in the triangle in front of the terminus platforms …... Or, if you just want to watch the trains go by, without too much "operating" (i.e. shunting freight, reversing passenger trains etc), storage loops on both 8 x 4s and a fairly simple through station on the 20' section (and you could widen out from 13" between the rafters for non-railway scenic stuff, like the main station building). Or you could have a meandering single track branch line with a small terminus and maybe two other stations …. which wouldn't suit any of the stock you've got ….. But, if you want anyone to even attempt an actual track plan for such a comparatively huge space, you need to give us a much clearer idea of what you really want to achieve, given that it would take hours to produce even rough design ideas, which might not be anywhere near something you would like. Impressed by your ambition, though
  2. So pleased it all seems to be working and you're happy with it ….
  3. Life is always simpler (and space-eating crossovers unnecessary) if the yard is only shunted by trains in one direction ….. but crossovers do increase possibilities for operations in the station area. However, I tend to agree that a single-track main would open things up more (and simplify the fiddle yard as you won't need crossovers at both ends there). It's gonna be tight, whatever.
  4. That looks eminently believable, the canal tunnel idea is very clever I think. Thinking horse-torically , are you going to have a towpath through the tunnel, or is the roof going to be low enough for the bargees to "leg it"? Or was the canal covered over at some later date, after all barges were powered? Like the point levers too. If you put a railwayworker figure next to one of them, does it look as though he's big and strong enough to shift it? Keep on cracking on! Chris
  5. You're really cracking on at pace! Great news your point wiring is up and running, though for the life of me I can't equate the two smaller diagrams on the control box with the layout plan - I think I've worked out the top one OK, if the 3 switches top left are for the run of points leading to platform 4 and the carriage sidings? Happy New modelling Year!
  6. As I understand it after some very quick research, if you have fitted droppers to every siding the point clips would only be belt and braces, as all they do is bypass the automatic isolation of the sidings which you (probably) don't want for DCC operation. So you'd just be insuring against one of your soldered joints failing …..
  7. "Not totally sold" is a tad worrying - I reckon you'd need a minimum of 14 sections to run this to maximum effect with DC cab control. Which would require retro-fitting a lot more of those IRJs that you dislike so much …... and the associated wiring and switchery. Going through this exercise with you has made me seriously consider DCC for my last great project, though I've always said I wouldn't …… and I am quite sure I would contract out the conversion of my loco stable if I did go that way.
  8. Blimey - I didn't know you had that other thread running until just now, and having gone and skim-read some of it I'm so glad about that! You got so much contradictory "advice" in the first few pages I'm surprised you didn't ditch the lot and take up golf …….. I won't be making inputs with regard to DCC issues as I've no experience with DCC operation, but will keep half an eye open as some of the comments about wiring, etc., look pretty dubious, or possibly irrelevant given the way you're going. Happy New Year!! Cheers, Chris
  9. I'm guessing, but if the space below the raised floor was for point rodding and signal wires, it presumably wouldn't be required with the box sitting on an already raised platform …….
  10. Realising the operational possibilities without much swearing and cursing is very reliant on reliable uncoupling, in the goods yard and the platform roads! Fingers are firmly crossed on Julian's behalf …. I would have liked to crowbar in one loop on each main line, outside the scenic area, to disguise the tailchasing aspect a bit, but couldn't see how.
  11. You're flying here - I do so hope this works for you when it's finished, nobody (including me!) has ever built a significant layout to one of my plans before ….. By the way, you seem to have incorporated your last post in your signature block somehow …..
  12. Yes, I spotted the second diagram after I posted ….
  13. My initial thought and query was the same as David's - is the longer side actually around 11 feet (11 squares as drawn) or 9 (107 inches as stated)? It makes one hell of a difference …..
  14. If it were mine, it would be important to me that when viewing from track level or just above, from the operating well, you can't see trains on the tracks shown dotted on the plan. So the bits of main line you can see only turn though around 135 degrees from one scenic break to the other, and mostly on a 5' radius curve (there's a bit of 3' to the left of the left-hand throat). A double track main line visibly turning 90 degrees in 2'6" just has to look wrong. The view blocker behind the loco shed could just be a high wall, or perhaps a low-relief warehouse back as you suggested on one pic earlier, so you can see (standing up close) what's going on behind it when you need to, but otherwise preserve the illusion that the track to the left of the station carries on at the angle you last see it. If you're cute enough, the view over the top of the view blocker from the normal viewing height might just be the tops of the trees on the hill on the printed backscene. But different things are important to different people
  15. Ah right. When I have to use a 90 degree bend in a corner, I always try to have at least half of it tight and hidden (using settrack to avoid kinks), and the rest comparatively gentle and visible, rather than have the whole thing at a constant in-between radius. I just think it makes the visible bit less train-setty.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.