Hampton Malstead

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

And I would regard it also as a maximum solution (unless double-heading is envisaged, or multiple engines are to work the yard, but I would guess these are not what is intended for this application).

 

 

Especially if 'live frog' points are used

[Harlequin]

41 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Especially if 'live frog' points are used

@Balders45 is proposing to use live frog turnouts  and he wants to have multiple locos on scene so you're right that if the power feeds shown were all switched then I think that would be quite close to doing what he wants.

 

But I think the switched sections could be adjusted slightly to make operations easier and when more power feeds are added, so that locos don't rely on track joiners so much, then more insulating joiners will be needed.

 

I'll draw something up when I get time.

 

P.S. I've got a new version of Hampton Malstead on the drawing board. I think of it as, "Hampton Malstead Unbound". Watch this space!

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Harlequin

[Schooner]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Watch this space!

 

[Harlequin]

@Balders45 Here's a more real-world electrical design for DC power and electrofrog points:

 

The feeds with the same number are connected to the same switch on the control panel:

1.Loco release headshunt
2.Platform and run round loop
3.Bay
4.Engine shed
5.Middle goods siding
6.Goods shed and back siding
7.Gas works siding
8.Main line and traverser

 

Imortant: You should also solder power feed wires to the outside rails of all the points but I haven't shown them for clarity. They would have the same switch numbers as the track connected to their "toes" (the thin end).

 

You could argue that the middle goods siding and gas works siding don't need to separately switched but that's up to you. If not middle goods would go to 2 and gas works would go to 6 instead.

 

There are two power feeds to pieces of track that are longer than a flexitrack length, one either side of the join. If you used more pieces of track ideally you solder a feed to each one.

 

Each "power feed" is a pair of short thin wires, soldered to the outside or the underside of the tracks and are fed through small holes to the underside of the baseboards. These are the "dropper wires" and they are then connected to thicker wires which snake around under the baseboard. The thicker wires are sometimes called the "bus" wires meaning there's a single run of the thick wire and all the droppers connect to it but you don't have to wire it up like that. (Bus wires are more common in DCC layout where there are fewer switch sections.) You can have muitiple branches if that makes it easier or uses less wire - so long as red always connects to red and black to black! Speaker cable is good for the bus wiring. The bus wires connect to the control panel switches and then to the cotroller, obviously.

 

BTW: I was always in two minds about the middle goods siding. I think now I would omit it to open up the goods yard.

[The Stationmaster]

Er why Phil?   If you are using 'live frog' points they are self isolating (when wired correctly).  What you do need to do is make sure that the self-switching is backed up (or even replaced) by a more reliable switching process using a separate switch but you don't need all those double rail gaps and multiplicity of feeds.  

 

Yes you do need to bond each track section separately to back up uninsulated rail joiners and perhaps you might need some switched single rail breaks in you intend more than one loco to be in any particular dead end siding at a time but really that is all.  For example the siding fed by Feed No. 5 would have its rail joints bonded at the turnout from the runround - one rail to the crossing ('live frog ') and the other to the opposite rail coming out of the point - you then have a secure electrical supply when the point is set towards the siding and an electrically dead siding (because both rails would be at the same polarity) when the point is set towards the runround loop - no need at all for a separate feed or any insulated rail joiners.

 

Your earlier drawing showed what is necessary - feeds at the toe end of points or groups of points - that's all you need except where you need to electrically separate possible conflicts and the only one of those might be the runround loop depending on how the layout is worked.

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Er why Phil?   If you are using 'live frog' points they are self isolating (when wired correctly).  What you do need to do is make sure that the self-switching is backed up (or even replaced) by a more reliable switching process using a separate switch but you don't need all those double rail gaps and multiplicity of feeds.  

 

Yes you do need to bond each track section separately to back up uninsulated rail joiners and perhaps you might need some switched single rail breaks in you intend more than one loco to be in any particular dead end siding at a time but really that is all.  For example the siding fed by Feed No. 5 would have its rail joints bonded at the turnout from the runround - one rail to the crossing ('live frog ') and the other to the opposite rail coming out of the point - you then have a secure electrical supply when the point is set towards the siding and an electrically dead siding (because both rails would be at the same polarity) when the point is set towards the runround loop - no need at all for a separate feed or any insulated rail joiners.

 

Your earlier drawing showed what is necessary - feeds at the toe end of points or groups of points - that's all you need except where you need to electrically separate possible conflicts and the only one of those might be the runround loop depending on how the layout is worked.

 

First, I'm adding extra power feeds for reliability - so that power transmission doesn't rely on fishplates.

 

When you add an extra power feed beyond an electrofrog point you must have a insulating joint in the frog rail at least because the point will change the polarity of the frog and in one of the two positions that will the conflict with the new power feed.

 

That's why the extra insulating joints are added. They could be just single insulators in the frog rails but it was simpler to just show doubles everywhere and not try to explain that nuance to Balders.

 

I agree that 5 and 7 are possibly overkill (and maybe 8 doesn't need to be switched at all) but the rest of the sections allow multiple locos on scene in a playful way to suit Balders.
 

Does that make sense?

 

(Edit: P.S. Balders wanted to use the points out-of-the-packet, no cutting links or wiring up external swicthes. Maybe that conflicts somewhat with the idea of providing extra power feeds.)

 

Edit2: I'm trying to use the term "turnout" as much as possible but I've said "points" throughout this message. Sorry to be inconsistent.

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

Still rather complicated I think.   But then when using 'live frog' points I have always used them (in Electrofrog points), or a switch of some sort working in concert with them, to switch the polarity in the crossing and any extra connection to that can deal with any rails coming out of the crossing.  No need then as far as dead end sidings are concerned to worry about any sort of insulating fishplate unless you want to split them to hold locos etc well beyond the point - which would be just a single rail break of course (in either rail).  that then takes advantage of the other benefit offered by 'live frog' points because you are using their self-isolating ability as well as the continuity of pick up they offer.  all a matter of preferred approach I suppose.   But for reliability I would always go for backing up the inbuilt switch in Peco Electrofrog points with some sort of separate switching and if you do that other wiring connected to the 'live frog' follows naturally. 

 

But one thing I would do is always consider very carefully what will feed where in relation to how a layout would have to be worked.  For example in this case it would be much more logical to have the section of runround loop currently  fed by Switch 2 instead fed by Switch 1 (or even Switch 5) especially when you consider the way the points might be interlocked in the real world. 

[Harlequin]

OK, thanks. I can see now that the best practice of not relying on fishplates to transmit power doesn't sit well with using the in-built switching in the points (as Balders wants to do).

 

So I'll try again - with less feeds and switched sections only where the points don't already do the job.

 

[Miss Prism]

32 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

using the in-built switching in the points

 

???

 

[Harlequin]

@Balders45Here's a simpler version:

 

1.Loco release headshunt
2.Platform
3.Run round loop and middle siding
4.Bay and engine shed
5.Goods shed, back siding and gasworks siding
6.Main line and fiddle yard
 

Since you intend to use off-the-shelf electrofrog turnouts, and since The Stationmaster and the gnomic Miss Prism suggest using the turnouts to control power to the tracks beyond them to simplify the electrics there are fewer power feeds in this version. That's because (Miss P) if you're relying on the point blades to switch the polarity of the frog and the tracks beyond you may as well also rely on the fishplates in that track - they will be more reliable electrically than the point blade contact. You could do other clever things by connecting to the frog but I don't think you need that complication, Balders, for your first layout back in the hobby.

 

I don't know how you're going to run your layout so I'm just suggesting a setup that's reasonably flexible. It could be simplified further (e.,g. The Stationmaster's suggestion above) if you decided that certain movements would never happen.

 

 

P.S. It's not difficult to change the electrical setup after the layout has been built so nothing is set in stone here.

 

[Miss Prism]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

if you're relying on the point blades to switch the polarity of the frog and the tracks beyond you may as well also rely on the fishplates in that track

 

I would never to do either of those.

 

Here's my axiom, but I should add some DCC fans really don't like it and are against feeding rails beyond the vee.

 

 

[Harlequin]

12 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

I would never to do either of those.

 

Here's my axiom, but I should add some DCC fans really don't like it and are against feeding rails beyond the vee.

 

 

Yep, I agree that separate switching is the best way to proceed but Balders is just (re)starting in the hobby and he told me he doesn’t want to do that yet. Just using the point blades and fishplates should work well enough for a first layout.

[Miss Prism]

6 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

and he told me he doesn’t want to do that yet

 

Ah yes. The irresponsible and delusional Peco propaganda.

 

 

[Balders45]

7 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Yep, I agree that separate switching is the best way to proceed but Balders is just (re)starting in the hobby and he told me he doesn’t want to do that yet. Just using the point blades and fishplates should work well enough for a first layout.

At this stage all I am looking for is a layout for running a single train out of a yet to design fiddle yard, a bit of shunting and generally just enjoy it. 

At present I have 1 no 3f jinty 4 no Bachmann box vans and 3 non corridor coaches!!!

Obviously a lot of infrastructure  to get, so the thought of point motors, switches et al all seems over whelming!!!

That said I don't want to dive in and not do something that detracts from the running, performance and the enjoyment of what looks a great layout design.

 

[Balders45]

7 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Yep, I agree that separate switching is the best way to proceed but Balders is just (re)starting in the hobby and he told me he doesn’t want to do that yet. Just using the point blades and fishplates should work well enough for a first layout.

I think I can manage to adapt the points by bridging the blade to the outer rail, the frog looks a different prospect though, I was thinking of wiring the points, drilling the base boards with fitting  point motors in the future.

I really don't want to be frightened off  with complicated wiring  and costly accessories 

[Harlequin]

Hi @Balders45,

 

My opinion is that doing it the simple way will work perfectly well for you. Lots of people have layouts that work that way. If conduction of power through the point blades or fishplates becomes a problem they're both easy to fix in situ.

 

But you should really get some other opinions and make your decision from what others with different experiences tell you.

 

So I suggest you start a thread of your own in the Electrics (non-DCC) area. Feel free to link to the images above if you want to.

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Harlequin

[Balders45]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi @Balders45,

 

My opinion is that doing it the simple way will work perfectly well for you. Lots of people have layouts that work that way. If conduction of power through the point blades or fishplates becomes a problem they're both easy to fix in situ.

 

But you should really get some other opinions and make your decision from what others with different experiences tell you.

 

So I suggest you start a thread of your own in the Electrics (non-DCC) area. Feel free to link to the images above if you want to.

 

Thanks for all your help, I might just"have a go" and see how I get on, I may surprise my self and get something to run!!

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Balders45 said:

Thanks for all your help, I might just"have a go" and see how I get on, I may surprise my self and get something to run!!

 

Check out this thread about two doors down for some approaches to point control and switching, some of them very simple and inexpensive.  

[Harlequin]

I'm still searching for that layout design that says, "I'm special - I am worth the effort!"

 

The original Hampton Malstead was designed to fit semi-permanently against a wall in my house where the length would be limited to 3.9m including fiddle yard. It has lots of good features but it never reached that magic threshold for me. Looking back, I think that it was overworked. The density of the trackwork meant that I had lost the feel of the place I was trying to represent.

 

I then designed Upton Hanbury and Hannet Purney to improve the railway/scenery balance and to run mainline traffic. They are both large roundy-round designs and they would take up a lot of space. I will do a mainline roundy layout eventually (I need to see Castles and Kings running) but I'm worried that the challenge might be too big right now and the layout would be too intrusive on normal life.

 

So, what about building a freestanding version of Hampton Malstead that would be the same length as Hannet Purney (~20ft) but, being much thinner, easier to live with when erected?

 

 

 

Hampton Malstead Unbound

Here's what I've got so far:

 

You can see that it is much more relaxed than the original Hampton Malstead and it feels more realistic (hopefully!).

 

It's on four baseboards, all 1525*720mm (5ft by 2ft4in), three scenic boards and one fiddle yard. As before it would use Peco Bullhead track thoughout with large radius turnouts.

 

All the basic elements of the original HM are retained (including the obligatory bay platform ) but the third goods siding has been abandoned, the bridge had been abandoned and the engine shed and gas works swapped over.

 

The engine shed is now hundreds of yards away from the end of the line, as per some prototype BLTs, where it makes a neat visual full stop and blocks the view of the track leaving the scene.

 

I'm still working on the levels and the details but here's the current thinking:

 

 

 

Any thoughts or constructive criticisms are welcome!

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

Interesting development of the original  Phil but I wouldn't like to be the Lampman as that's an awful long way from the Lamp Hut to most of the signals!  Oh and the end loading dock is going to be awkward with that immediate right angled bend in it.     Apart from the position of the engine shed - which I rather like as it is a bit different - it is generally a very classic model railway idea of a branch terminus complete with the oft added bay platform.   I think the bay would be a much better place for the end loading dock - if the station building  is moved towards the main platform stop blocks as there would be no need for a ramped road approach to the dock,  at least that helps creates a reason for the bay.

 

The problem with adding a bay platform to a small branch terminus is that it tends to result in the passenger facilities (assuming it is a passenger bay of course) visually overwhelming the goods facilities whereas in the real world things were usually the other way round.  A bay really needs some justification and even the busy (in summer) West Country branches either had more full length platforms (e.g Newquay) or just the one platform, with the sole exception on the GWR being Kingsbridge.  It had a bay added in the 1930s although it was also the access to the engine shed plus having a real need to have room to stand some coaches aside from the main platform although it also served as the end dock and provided a loading/unloading area for vans (presumably mainly NPCCS for parcels and luggage traffic) but it was signalled to passenger standards.   Bays at small branch termini do, in my view, need some very careful thought about what they are for and hence the facilities provided in relation to them.

[chuffinghell]

Layout design a side your drawings are a work of art

[Harlequin]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Interesting development of the original  Phil but I wouldn't like to be the Lampman as that's an awful long way from the Lamp Hut to most of the signals!  Oh and the end loading dock is going to be awkward with that immediate right angled bend in it.     Apart from the position of the engine shed - which I rather like as it is a bit different - it is generally a very classic model railway idea of a branch terminus complete with the oft added bay platform.   I think the bay would be a much better place for the end loading dock - if the station building  is moved towards the main platform stop blocks as there would be no need for a ramped road approach to the dock,  at least that helps creates a reason for the bay.

 

The problem with adding a bay platform to a small branch terminus is that it tends to result in the passenger facilities (assuming it is a passenger bay of course) visually overwhelming the goods facilities whereas in the real world things were usually the other way round.  A bay really needs some justification and even the busy (in summer) West Country branches either had more full length platforms (e.g Newquay) or just the one platform, with the sole exception on the GWR being Kingsbridge.  It had a bay added in the 1930s although it was also the access to the engine shed plus having a real need to have room to stand some coaches aside from the main platform although it also served as the end dock and provided a loading/unloading area for vans (presumably mainly NPCCS for parcels and luggage traffic) but it was signalled to passenger standards.   Bays at small branch termini do, in my view, need some very careful thought about what they are for and hence the facilities provided in relation to them.

Thanks Mike,

 

I was channeling Moretonhampstead when I put the lamp hut there. I'll check the positions at some other BLTs.

 

I had a lot of trouble finding a decent end loading position in the plan and I haven't fully thought out how the position shown would work except that the general ground level might be raised at that end of the yard. Using the bay for end loading is something I hadn't thought of - good idea.

 

I had tried to create a small spur off one of the goods sidings just long enough for one van for end loading. That would be a nice difference from the standard BLT pattern if I could do it so I'm still thinking about it.

 

I have a broad back story to justify the bay but not the detailed traffic. More work needed! Kingsbridge sounds like it might be a useful example.

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

I've done some more delving into Kingsbridge and it seems the bay was actually added in 1915.  But it is a devil of a job finding a picture of a passenger train in the bay - I've so far managed to find only one, which was taken when the bay was fairly new.  All the later pictures show it occupied by one or two, and on one occasion three, wagons - mostly vans but there are a couple of Mins in one view and what looks like a departmental well wagon of some sort in another.

[mdvle]

So, I like the new expanded version, the ability to stretch it out definitely helps it.

 

But the looking into Kingsbridge to justify the bay brought up 2 thoughts.

 

First, Kingsbridge if straightened out would take about 16' if I have measured correctly, so perhaps a shift to using an actual BLT might be something to consider.

 

And if the first is a possibility, then maybe consider Kingswear.  It may not be the rural countryside you seem to be after but it would appear it could be done in about 20', so maybe a slightly compressed version at your 15' available would be possible.  If so, then you could legitimately have your Kings and Castles now albeit not running through the countryside.

[Harlequin]

13 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I've done some more delving into Kingsbridge and it seems the bay was actually added in 1915.  But it is a devil of a job finding a picture of a passenger train in the bay - I've so far managed to find only one, which was taken when the bay was fairly new.  All the later pictures show it occupied by one or two, and on one occasion three, wagons - mostly vans but there are a couple of Mins in one view and what looks like a departmental well wagon of some sort in another.

Did you find this photo?

https://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW023737

 

It is dated 1928 and it looks like there’s a (small?) prairie standing in the bay with a bogie clerestory, a 6-wheeler brake compo and maybe a 4-wheel all third??? (Sorry, I'm not  a seasoned coach-spotter.)

 

The station looks incredibly busy. Why was Kingsbridge more developed that the average GWR BLT?

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Harlequin