Tinories, a gauge 1 terminus

[Pacific231G]

17 hours ago, unravelled said:

OK, here are four diagrams to explain my constraints and questions.

These are in the usual Minories orientation, with platforms to the left, and the world to the right.

 

The top diagram was my old layout, which I recently altered to increase platform lengths. The second is my current arrangement, where  I just moved the crossover to the world end of the layout. After making this change I realised that the first diagram has the advantage of reducing facing movements, as trains to the diverging track don't traverse it.There are a couple of constraints to note. The diverging single pair of points is a fixed factor, it can't move any further right. Also the crossovers are each single units, and at the moment I don't want to chop them up, so the fourth diagram is not achievable at the moment

My question is whether there would be an operational preference for one of the middle two layouts over the other?  Any thoughts?

 

Thanks

 

Dave

 

Hi Dave

Definitely the third arrangement. As Nearholmer says, it avoids one of the immediate reverses so you don't get the double reverse of your original and the second plan. It also puts the trailing crossover at the country end of the throat  which seems to be the most prototypical arrangement.

The number of movements over facing points is probably a red herring as a terminus will always require facing point movements and they're taken at slow speed. It's not like goods yards where trains often backed into sidings to avoid  facing points on running lines.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Pacific231G

[unravelled]

Another remodelling tonight. the pair of crossovers have been swapped end for  end. I haven't tested the electrics yet, but it has all been reconnected, I think...

 

 

Time to think about rebuilding some 9' radius curves to 5'6" for the outdoor section.

 

Thanks for the advice

 

Dave

[Pacific231G]

16 hours ago, unravelled said:

Another remodelling tonight. the pair of crossovers have been swapped end for  end. I haven't tested the electrics yet, but it has all been reconnected, I think...

 

 

Time to think about rebuilding some 9' radius curves to 5'6" for the outdoor section.

 

Thanks for the advice

 

Dave

Hi Dave

It's looking terrific and it's surprising how non-intrusive the stud contact  contacts are. There's also something about the presence of O scale these larger scales that is very appealing (and no I'm not!)

Could I ask you what crossing angle the points are? I'd guess about #5 or #6

Edited November 23, 2020 by Pacific231G
correction of gauge.

[unravelled]

Sorry, I thought I had replied to this last night, but the message has disappeared. Thanks for the comment, the chunkiness and non intrusive studs are helped by this being G1, not 0,

 

The crossing angle is about 9 degrees. The form of the crossovers is heavily influenced by Bassett Lowke. There is a G1 coarse crossover, now unused, which I guess my father copied, it is 4'6" long as are the ones you see here. The radius would be about 9'.

 

The stud contact is to G1MRA standard settings. We have used round head brass woodscrews, long enough to go through the sleeper, it is then an easy job to wrap and solder a joining wire between them. The studs are below rail height on plain track, ramping up to give clearance on pointwork.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, unravelled said:

Sorry, I thought I had replied to this last night, but the message has disappeared. Thanks for the comment, the chunkiness and non intrusive studs are helped by this being G1, not 0,

 

The crossing angle is about 9 degrees. The form of the crossovers is heavily influenced by Bassett Lowke. There is a G1 coarse crossover, now unused, which I guess my father copied, it is 4'6" long as are the ones you see here. The radius would be about 9'.

 

The stud contact is to G1MRA standard settings. We have used round head brass woodscrews, long enough to go through the sleeper, it is then an easy job to wrap and solder a joining wire between them. The studs are below rail height on plain track, ramping up to give clearance on pointwork.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

Thanks Dave

Dohh! That'll teach me to post when I'm tired. It's interesting looking at  pre WW1 volumes of Greenly's "Model Railways" to see that Gauge 0 was the "baby" gauge and the larger scales were far more common even for indoor layouts in fairly modest sized (for those days) spare rooms . Even in earlier volumes of MRN,  O gauge (or no. 0 gauge) was only just startig to edge ahead though the "possibilities of 00 gauge" were starting to be worked on.