Jump to content

Ian J.

Members
  • Posts

    3,440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ian J.

  1. Would I be right in assuming that many Mk1s, 2s, 2As were vacuum braked, and that 2Bs, 2Cs, and all aircon Mark 2s were air braked?
  2. I've reworked the plan using different connector board ideas for getting to and from the standardized fiddleyard: To my eye this improves the smoothness of the run through. I've also added the starter signal on platform 1 south end; added subsidiary signals on the north side home and platform 2 starter; an advanced starter south side; an outer home north side.
  3. Hi Capt, I've forgotten to describe the yard's purpose for this station, so that will have left some confusion. It's meant to be the northern 'terminus' for the demonstration freights rather than a through working for them. To that end, such trains will stop in platform one, the loco will then run round and detach the brake van to put it in the short siding to the left of that platform. The loco then reattaches to the train and pulls it back into the headshunt. From there is reforms the train ready for the next run south. Once done, it propels the train to pick up the goods van, runs it back into the headshunt, then propels it to platform one. Then it runs south (to the left). In reviewing this, I've realised that platform one is therefore bi-directional and will require a starter for southbound trains. I'm not happy about the layout of the track in a couple of places so I've other modifications to do, so I'll add the starter then.
  4. Those footsteps with those cut outs do look ugly so close up. I imagine with weathering and a normal viewing distance they won't look so bad, but in this case a moulded footstep would look to have been a perfectly acceptable way of representing the prototype's footstep so it does seem odd to have gone down the separate part route in this instance.
  5. A quick knock up of Bere Dene's track plan: Again, signals are educated guesses, rather than final arrangements. This time the passing loop lines aren't bi-directional. It is my intention to model a section of line between Bere Dene and Arnford as a simple, single straight line through a forest, on a set of 1 foot wide boards I already have. Although I don't think I'd ever have space to put it with this vignette, I like the idea of it being possible to directly connect it to the left end of this plan.
  6. There's plenty of time before any of these get built, except Penmouth Waterside which is already part built, so adjustments are easy to do. I'll shift those stabling point ground signals along a bit to give a bit more clearance. The speeds on this line are pretty low as it is a heritage operation so having running signals for goods or port exits isn't necessary for that. However, I'm not sure what the signalling in and out of the port line should really be so there might need to be something added there. Much up the line is of course off stage, but it's useful to know what it should be so that, if I really want to, I can model the levers and other equipment in the signal boxes correctly.
  7. I've knocked this up today. Took a while to get that subtle curve in, AnyRail doesn't provide any tools for quickly doing curved shapes so shape control points have to be added and aligned by hand: Note that, in the fiction, the 'goods yard' is a late addition to allow reworking the demonstration freights away from the main station of Tynworth. In the fiction's original idea there would have been no freight sidings for the railway as the station was for boat trains only, and the port handled all the freight. However, with the 'rebuild' of the port to use its western entrance for bigger ships, and all but close the eastern entrance (where this station is), this land was used for general storage of port equipment. The land was returned to railway use when the heritage line was able to afford the re-opening, and there was seen to be a significant tourist revenue to be had for people visiting The Pen (the large island of rock at the harbour's mouth). Note that I've attempted to add appropriate signalling, but I'm in no way sure it's right.
  8. I'm not sure, but I think Farcebook might have changed their system so that even public posts now require a log in. I don't have an account with them, and with several recent announcement links I've gone to them and found that a log in is required.
  9. A little more time for my wallet to beef itself up
  10. Maybe not so much unicorn as rocking horse manure... As far as S&P goes, it's fiction was set up to allow it these possibilities. It's a little bit of Rule One in amongst the striving for authenticity.
  11. Mature heritage lines which are well organised and have sufficient space and money (that probably doesn't mean many, possibly not any) could have facilities for storage already set up such that the old goods yards aren't full of stock. In my S&P fiction, this is one such line. They have access to an expansive old quarry site where they've put their stock sidings, so the various goods yards are relatively uncluttered. The fictional history wouldn't have had the running of demonstration freights happening overnight though, it would be something they were able to do after getting the rest of the line opened and the passenger/customer side of things comfortably settled in.
  12. I thank you all once again, but with particular thanks to Mike ( @The Stationmaster ) due to the wealth of information in there. Of particular note is the practice of putting outbound wagons at the back immediately in front f the guard's van, which I didn't know about. Many other things confirm my logic. As regards running a pick up freight on a heritage railway, it will of course not be entirely accurate to historical reality, but then how much of any heritage railway is accurate to historical practice these days anyway? The stations where the pick up goods would be worked on the S&P system will have had their yards arranged deliberately to accomodate it, and I think I will have it that they will have been configured so no movements use the main running line. As for not replicating such things as loose shunting, that's fine, bearing in mind they can't effectively be modelled anyway, so it would be shunted as per a model railway...
  13. As this knowledge is to be used for my S&P idea during its heritage era, it's less critical than if it were during its fictional national railway period. The need for me is to understand how to run a demonstration pick up freight in a heritage context with actual pick ups and set downs rather than just running through. It would terminate at either end of the line, with one (or maybe two) through stops on the way (one up, one down maybe). I wanted to know enough to be able to set up the through stations goods sidings 'correctly', as well as set up the termination stations to allow the wagons to be varied before each demonstration run. I may have enough to do that already, thanks to the replies given. However the more information I can get, the better I can judge what would feel 'authentic'.
  14. Very useful all replies so far, thanks, some confirming my thoughts. My logic has been suggesting to me that if a goods yard is on a quiet branch line at a mid point through station, it can comfortably use the running line (and any passing loop at the station) for holding parts of the train not involved in the movements as the rest of the line's traffic is infrequent enough to allow it to do so. If the branch line is otherwise busier, or we're on a busy multi track line, my thoughts are that there would have to be separate sidings and headshunt for the movements away from the running line. The minimum would be two sidings and a headshunt. One of the sidings would be needed to put the guard's van and any rear wagons not involved in the movements out of the way, while other shunting moves to get out the outbound wagons then put in the inbound wagons from/to the 'customer' siding(s) are undertaken. I'm not sure of the length of said holding siding or headshunt, bearing in mind that the length of track required would change (longer holding, shorter headshunt for early stations; shorter holding, longer headshunt for later stations). This presumes that the train would be marshalled in station order, first station at front, last station at back, with guard's van tailing, along the line to whatever terminus awaits. Terminii would have differences due to the need to do running round more (to get the guard's van to the other end, for instance). Of course, each location could differ considerably, but I'm wanting to confirm that need to put to one side the uninvolved portion of the train out of the way of marshalling movements meaning a certain minimum number of sidings are required (if to keep the running line clear), and perhaps minimum length of holding siding and headshunt?
  15. Hi all, I'd like to try and get a better understanding of how pick up goods (trip working?) services and station goods yard layouts & configurations affected each other. Initially I need a better understanding of how a pick up goods working shunted any given station yard in order to drop off inbound wagons, and pick up outbound wagons, within the limits of the main line, any/all sidings and any headshunt. I've tried to work things out how they might have been purely logically, but I know logic is likely not to be representative of reality. I think that single line branches and multi track lines would probably have been worked differently, mainly because the branch line was likely far less busy and therefore could likely use the 'main' for headshunt, etc, whereas the multi track lines would likely to have been busy enough that the headshunt etc would have to have been self-contained. But my knowledge simply isn't enough to know for sure. TIA
  16. A couple of diagrams. First Cold Holt and then Penmouth Waterside. Both featured in a thread on RMweb for signalling advice. Apologies for image quality, the files get compressed by RMweb's upload process and there's nothing I can do about it (it seems to be something to do with their pixel width, not their actual file size). Cold Holt is an interchange station between the S&P and the National Network. None of it exists in model form at present so it would be entirely new. However, for Penmouth Waterside some of it exists already. In the fiction it's a station that didn't exist originally when it was the site of a two loco engine shed and turntable with no loop, and just a single line through. In heritage era a sizable expansion was undertaken onto empty adjacent port land. The turntable was moved and a decent sized engine shed put in, plus a locomotive works. The area immediately offstage below the bottom of the layout is supposed to be a service road and sea front so nothing practical can go there, which is why the signals are all 'inside' the layout. The two lines to the left are both bi-directional, and all three roads through are also bi-directional. From a model and running perspective, the two central boards already exist from a previous layout build attempt, and as I only have 8 feet of operational scenic space where I currently live they have to be viable on their own without the two outer boards. Some of the track layout of that previous build is in situ and can't be moved (mainly the turnouts across the central board join) but the tracks below the shed (station and extra road) will be newly arranged (although it's going to be fun trying to lift and relay the C&L turnouts). Note that some of the track (notably the shed access Y) is not joined up - this is because the available track objects in AnyRail don't fit with what's actually in place, which is hand-built C&L points with some subtle curves in them. There was no suitable Y so that's just a placeholder Peco Y.
  17. I had some Code 83 points come through during the week from RoS, so it looks like track is starting to come through again.
  18. OK, here's another diagram, this time for Penmouth Waterside. In the fiction it's a station that didn't exist originally when it was the site of a two loco engine shed and turntable with no loop, and just a single line through. In heritage era a sizable expansion was undertaken onto empty adjacent port land. The turntable was moved and a decent sized engine shed put in, plus a locomotive works. The area immediately offstage below the bottom of the layout is supposed to be a service road and sea front so nothing practical can go there, which is why the signals are all 'inside' the layout. The two lines to the left are both bi-directional, and all three roads through are also bi-directional. From a model and running perspective, the two central boards already exist from a previous layout build attempt, and as I only have 8 feet of operational scenic space where I currently live they have to be viable on their own without the two outer boards. Some of the track layout of that previous build is in situ and can't be moved (mainly the turnouts across the central board join) but the tracks below the shed (station and extra road) will be newly arranged (although it's going to be fun trying to lift and relay the C&L turnouts). Once again, apologies for image quality, the files get compressed by RMweb's upload process and there's nothing I can do about it (it seems to be something to do with their width, not their actual file size). Edit: note that some of the track (notabley the shed access Y) is not joined up - this is because the available track objects in AnyRail don't fit with what's actually in place, which was hand-built C&L points with some subtle curves in them. There was no suitable Y so that's just a placeholder Peco Y.
  19. This talk of signal box rebuilds reminds me that for my S&P idea, all the signal boxes will have been demolished, so replacements have either to be imported from elsewhere or built new (that allows me more freedom in choice of models from what's available). I've a feeling my fictional 'owners' will have decided by mid the 2000s to have had them all upgraded to suitable signalling and not need any further work...
  20. I have no desire to over-signal any of my layouts, but making sure they can be operated in an authentic way, according to legislation, regulation and safety standards of the era (in this case probably mid 2000s or later) is important to me. So I wouldn't be trying to operate to 1950s standards as it's obvious from replies here that doing that would not be tolerated by modern safety inspectors. There is an argument that I should create a set of viable Rules and Regs for S&P so there is a settled basis for the operation of the models that could be referenced, but while I'm not conversant with the effort required for such, I'm fairly sure it would take quite a bit of time and more that a bit of knowledge and experience and therefore cost, as Mike ( @The Stationmaster ) would likely confirm. So in the absence of that, I think I pretty much have to try and do the best I can to understand things simply enough in my head (which is no mean feat with the mess it feels like it's in). Each station is of course unique and will require individual assessment, but when it comes to loops I think most will probably work on the 'occupy rear/advance section' principle, even though that's more work for the 'fictional' signalpersons in communicating between boxes and is less operationally flexible. Occasionally, like with Cold Holt, there will be points to either sidings or a redundant spur that 'removes' (?) that need. I think employing the GWR/WR trap point method looks like it's not favoured so won't be done. Other times there may be advance starters and outer homes, but I'm not going to use them as a rule.
  21. I suppose then the question becomes are any given set of Rules and Regulations compliant with Legislation? One thing I'm not going to do with S&P is write a set of Rules and Regs, it's just not worth the effort for such a fiction, however making sure if feels authentic is important to me, so complying with Legislation, albeit fictionally on a model, remains relevant.
  22. [wishlist] Did the 'interesting stuff' include an SR U class at all...? [/wishlist] Nice to hear the fan sound. I think, though, that when latched is sounds like there's a 'running over rail joins' sound in the recording, making using it latched sound a little odd...?
  23. Is right hand running into the platforms on a single track line a no-no then...? I have no idea as I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable about such things. When I was laying out the plan, I was thinking about left hand when terminating trains depart, not when they arrive. Again, I'm not the expert so I have no idea what the arrangements between a heritage line and the national network are and would need guidance on that.
  24. Which, presuming Accurascale get that right, will show up the blue/grey error on the earlier releases Bachmann Mark 2s as wasn't that wrong...?
  25. The Mark 1 is close enough as makes no difference, especially when passenger loading affects ride height anyway. The Mark 2s will need a bit of jacking up on their bogies as mentioned to bring them into line, and not a hard thing to do. These aren't the 'droids you're looking for, move along, move along.
×
×
  • Create New...