Jump to content
 

Christleton Junction - 1986 - Gateway to North Wales


61656
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
25 minutes ago, mallaig1983 said:

I think I have used #20 on my mk1s on the outer ends as I found that propelling through point work (large radius) incurred buffer lock. I’m 200 miles from the layout currently but will double check when I get home in a couple of days and correct if I’m wrong.

No rush - I still have track to lay and test, then a backscene to put on before I even think about couplings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 61656 said:

No rush - I still have track to lay and test, then a backscene to put on before I even think about couplings. 

Hi,

 

speaking from personal experience, I found it best to decide which couplings to use before tracklaying.  Doing so makes it lot easier to  work out the best location for the magnets (if using) discover unforeseen fouling points and then installing then testing before doing any other work.  Easier to correct any changes required then crack on with other projects once happy with the setup!

 

Roja

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, 37Oban said:

Hi,

 

speaking from personal experience, I found it best to decide which couplings to use before tracklaying.  Doing so makes it lot easier to  work out the best location for the magnets (if using) discover unforeseen fouling points and then installing then testing before doing any other work.  Easier to correct any changes required then crack on with other projects once happy with the setup!

 

Roja

Yes… unfortunately the track where I’ll need magnets is firmly in place and ballasted. The track being laid and tested is all fiddle yard and a bit of open line. 
 

Still, get yourself a beer and enjoy me trying to fit magnets retrospectively! I do at least know where they need to go. 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 61656 said:

Yes… unfortunately the track where I’ll need magnets is firmly in place and ballasted. The track being laid and tested is all fiddle yard and a bit of open line. 
 

Still, get yourself a beer and enjoy me trying to fit magnets retrospectively! I do at least know where they need to go. 

You considered some small Neodymium magnets between the sleepers? Would save too much butchery and you could hide the magnets with some well placed weathering.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 minutes ago, Wummyock said:

You considered some small Neodymium magnets between the sleepers? Would save too much butchery and you could hide the magnets with some well placed weathering.

I haven’t really started looking at them yet, although I definitely have an eye out for cunning solutions!

 

How accurately do you have to park over neodymium magnets? Some of my stopping points would probably benefit from around 50mm of uncoupling zone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, 61656 said:

cunning solutions

Milling/routing from below? (Using safety specs of course to protect the eyes and ensure you can’t see what you’re doing!)

Does that help?

!

Paul.

 

Oh, and Happy New Year for later.

  • Thanks 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 61656 said:

Still, get yourself a beer and enjoy me trying to fit magnets retrospectively! I do at least know where they need to go. 

Andy,

 

Okay, got the beer:good:. So get on with it then:nea:. I'd be interested to hear how you overcome this 'little issue', as any 'solution' could come in very handy on my own layout.:D

 

Ian

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Almost there… time for some trial running, particularly of some of the timetabled freight moves to check the layout has the flexibility that I want. Once I’m happy with it, I have some more backboard to put up behind the Warrington lines to hide the Holyhead sidings, then I can finally get the backscene up. Which is where I started about 3 months ago!

 

The carriage sidings still need extending and I’d like another RH point in the rat run between carriage sidings and the double slip; I should be able to get enough length for a 3 car DMU. C4B66755-8B8E-4F1D-860B-B6D095159915.jpeg.357ef8bc629ae5fa6e41ae37a3d6465a.jpeg

 

At the other end of the Holyhead yard, there’s a new connection to either Warrington or Crewe. The crossover has moved on to the lifting section to allow a longer scenic run on the Warrington’s. 
 

The second point on the right needs upgrading to code 75, which will allow an additional road in between the tankers and the peak. There’s also a connection gone in to allow a through road where the 08 is currently ‘stabled’.

 

8D017CAE-A46E-40EF-A21B-81DF0A7647A0.jpeg.ff83c1f291450b2dca61115e52f9c2cd.jpeg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 31/12/2021 at 16:20, 5BarVT said:

Milling/routing from below? (Using safety specs of course to protect the eyes and ensure you can’t see what you’re doing!)

Does that help?

!

Paul.

 

Oh, and Happy New Year for later.

Personally I would use the cylindrical Neodymium magnets. They require no milling or routing. Simply drill a hole in the baseboard to the same diameter (between the rails) and push the magnet in. If your hole goes right through the baseboard then you also have the ability to move the magnet if you wish by pushing the magnet right through and out to reposition elsewhere (as a tight fit means no glue is required to hold the magnet in position ).

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 61656 said:

C4B66755-8B8E-4F1D-860B-B6D095159915.jpeg.357ef8bc629ae5fa6e41ae37a3d6465a.jpeg

 

Andy,

 

When you reinstalled the above captions tracks, what radius did you achieve on the third one from the left (RHS of the 2 bauxite coloured wagons)? From the cameras' viewpoint it looks awfully tight.

 

Ian

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
38 minutes ago, ISW said:

Andy,

 

When you reinstalled the above captions tracks, what radius did you achieve on the third one from the left (RHS of the 2 bauxite coloured wagons)? From the cameras' viewpoint it looks awfully tight.

 

Ian

Minimum visible radius is 900mm - the mainlines on the far right. Minimum hidden radius is 600mm - the track you highlight. I suspect the camera is making is look tighter than it actually is. 
 

The two vans are test vehicles, being long wheel-based twin axle trucks with both long buffer shanks and 3 link couplings. Experience shows that less than 600mm results in buffer lock. Set track points with a 450mm radius proved to be too tight. 
 

I cut a long piece of hardboard into a curve with 600 on one side and 650 on the other. You can use this to mark up the baseboard and also to form flexitrack against to get a smooth curve. 
 

I think the prototype minimum radius is 5 chains, or 1320mm, which shows how much stress we put on our models!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

With a very successful running session underway I couldn’t resist mocking up the West end bridge and backscene. 
 

First an overall view. The carriage sidings and Chester lines disappear under a road bridge, with the road carrying on alongside the curving Warrington lines. 
 

8212E950-E938-4B07-A47A-7CDA2C86014A.jpeg.36f7a2fe3c05a70fe42eddb04e3f7d37.jpeg

 

I’ve inclined the Warrington lines, and I suspect my cant (steady) is too high. There’s a hint of rollercoaster to the track here (C.187s if you know what they are). It’s currently a 3mm cant, which was a figure I got from somewhere, but maximum cant is usually 6”, so 2mm may be better. A visitor or two are probably required to help judgement. 
 

AF230AFA-4DA5-4D83-91EF-C50EE3797378.jpeg.c0975304e520940f725776de2f032cf7.jpeg

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 61656 said:

Minimum visible radius is 900mm - the mainlines on the far right. Minimum hidden radius is 600mm - the track you highlight. I suspect the camera is making is look tighter than it actually is.

That's actually quite good. I only managed to achieve a minimum of 500mm on my hidden tracks, although I did permit some 2nd radius curves to creep in at my MPD as space was 'tight'.

 

4 minutes ago, 61656 said:

The two vans are test vehicles, being long wheel-based twin axle trucks with both long buffer shanks and 3 link couplings. Experience shows that less than 600mm results in buffer lock. Set track points with a 450mm radius proved to be too tight. 

I recently experienced buffer lock with some old Lima PGA wagons. Turns out I had an 'orrible alignment through a hidden curve (on a vertical curve) with a baseboard joint thrown in for 'fun'. The P-way team is currently relaying the whole curve ...

 

4 minutes ago, 61656 said:

I cut a long piece of hardboard into a curve with 600 on one side and 650 on the other. You can use this to mark up the baseboard and also to form flexitrack against to get a smooth curve.

I'm in the fortunate position of having a complete boxed set of 'railway curves', which are lengths of curved clear plastic (perspex?) with a set radii on both sides. The 'curves' are in ~50mm increments, so I just take out the curve I need.

 

Ian

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

My opinion (for what it’s worth,) is that you have too much.

I thought that St.Enodoc had quoted his values and a quick search indicates 1mm transitioning to 2mm.  Didn’t read enough to see over what width those adjustments were.

Paul.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

My opinion (for what it’s worth,) is that you have too much.

I thought that St.Enodoc had quoted his values and a quick search indicates 1mm transitioning to 2mm.  Didn’t read enough to see over what width those adjustments were.

Paul.

I agree, Paul. I use a maximum of 2mm across a width of 50mm, so in fact less than 1mm across the rails. I don't calculate different cants for different radii because it's only for visual effect but it does mean that I don't have too much cant gradient (twist) which could pose a derailment risk (i.e. a greater risk than from my normal standard of tracklaying...).

 

My cant gradient is generally about 1mm over a length of 250-300mm, depending on where the trackbed supports are. Where practicable, this coincides with the horizontal transition curves.

Edited by St Enodoc
More words
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Premium

I’ve made a limited amount of progress with the layout, the super super elevation has been reduced to 1mm. The tracks are currently in the process of being glued into place. 
 

With the fiddle yard configurations improved I’ve been spending some time reworking the timetable. Previously I’d got from midnight to around 08.00 before the complexity of the timetable and inflexibility of the storage yards became too big a problem. 
 

There are a number of things I’ve done that I think have made it more workable, as well as having the various fiddle yard links:

 

1. I have allocated specific fiddle yard roads for each movement. This prevents 7 trains being allocated to a 6 siding fiddle yard. 
2. The linked yards have massively reduced the volume of stock required. So far I can pretty much cover all the required moves with existing stock (so just one freightliner set, not 4!). The unit requirement is down from 13 to 5 (current fleet is just 2). One of the units could be an EMU. The real timetable has 5 units in the station together, so I can’t go below that realistically. With the Bachmann 117 and Heljan 104 that should make a nice fleet. 
3. I hadn’t previously allocated storage space to unused stock. For example the relief rake of mk1s isn’t utilised before 8am, but it still needs to live somewhere. When I ran the previous timetable trains ended up not having space to run to, the new approach looks to have solved this, at least on paper. 
4. I’ve had to do some minor alterations to sequence and timings to ensure that fiddle yard roads are freed up for incoming movements. I’ve also had to add an extra parcels service to balance the stock. 
 

Hopefully I have enough now to do a running test of the first 8 hours and confirm it works so far. After 8am it doesn’t look to get any more complex and the Up/Down balance looks ok. 
 

Watch this space for some photos and maybe even videos as I put the timetable to the test!

  • Like 4
  • Round of applause 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
40 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

I’m sure you’ve got one of these:

Class 101, near Colwyn Bay, Ocober 1983

And something like this:

45128, Llandudno Jct, 13-08-1984

 

But now you’ve found a load more space in the fiddle yards you can push the boat out... 

Class 151, Llandudno Jct, 21.05.1992

 

50033 + D400, Abergele, 5.12.1992

 

47378, Rhyl, 01.07.1988

 

3 out of 5 ain’t bad. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, 5BarVT said:

Not exactly stablemates, but will look nice.

Paul.

I think both could be seen at Chester in 86. The 104s were regulars, but the 117s probably only on excursions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chester had many 104s. I’m trying to find a photo of one on the Conwy Valley line though. That would probably be enough to send me off on a splinter project. 
 

Are you basing your timetable on a weekday or a summer Saturday? Summer Saturday will probably cost you twice as much (eek) especially if you are going to populate your coaches. Great news that you’re working through all your train and storage issues and it’s all falling in to place. I guess we all have the same problem with wanting a bigger fiddle yard but not at the risk of it becoming larger than the layout. Enjoying your progress reports and thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, mallaig1983 said:

Chester had many 104s. I’m trying to find a photo of one on the Conwy Valley line though. That would probably be enough to send me off on a splinter project. 
 

Are you basing your timetable on a weekday or a summer Saturday? Summer Saturday will probably cost you twice as much (eek) especially if you are going to populate your coaches. Great news that you’re working through all your train and storage issues and it’s all falling in to place. I guess we all have the same problem with wanting a bigger fiddle yard but not at the risk of it becoming larger than the layout. Enjoying your progress reports and thoughts.

I’m doing midweek - possibly a Friday to justify one or two additional trains, but I think you’re right about Saturdays. Not only do they need more trains and passengers, I won’t ever be able to store them all. Plus, I do really like the mundane every day world, not the one offs. 
 

Going through the working timetable really does open your eyes to what actually happened, rather than what you think happened. It’s much better than the photographic record, because a lot of stuff simply wasn’t recorded - people had preferences such as locos over units, but also day over night. I doubt I’ll ever find a photo of the 3am DPU!

 

The timetable also adds trains you didn’t know about. Just last night I realised there was a Holyhead to Euston sleeper (but no return, the sleeper coach came up on the 17.05 from Euston). This gives me a potential issue as I’d really like to include it, but I’m not sure if a mk3 will fit through the platforms. As I’m not really happy with the platforms (they need some adjustments for clearance- one or two places are too tight, plus the tops aren’t thick enough), a cheap Lima mk3 could be an interesting decision maker!

 

Meanwhile I’m also considering units. Some further research shows 117s are basically hen’s teeth, so can be ignored. A 104 is a definite, plus probably another 108. I don’t really like the look of the Bachmann 101 so the jury is currently out on that one. A 120 seems like a remote possibility - probably in the same category of my long wanted 304!

 

I really wanted a model railway with 45s on PV mk2s, but modelling a “realish” location makes it so much more than that. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, 61656 said:

I think both could be seen at Chester in 86. The 104s were regulars, but the 117s probably only on excursions. 

 

Tyseley units regularly got along North Wales in the summer months, would they have been 116s or did they have some 117s too?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

AFAIK Tyseley was only 116.  Except in my world, as it’s 117s I have and I’m not yet up to converting them (and they’re double DMBS sets too!).

So if Tyseley had 117s in my world they could have got to Christleton!

Paul.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

AFAIK Tyseley was only 116.  Except in my world, as it’s 117s I have and I’m not yet up to converting them (and they’re double DMBS sets too!).

So if Tyseley had 117s in my world they could have got to Christleton!

Paul.

Given the price of 117s, and the fact that I can really only accommodate 2 car units, I’ll probably be happy with 108s. 
 

At some point in the future when I’m further on with the layout, I do fancy bashing some units, so a 116 and 127 from old Lima 117s are possible targets. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...