Danemouth - a Seaside BLT

[Danemouth]

Looking splendid, Dave. Nice Syphon H. I have a rather nice outside framed Syphon G awaiting the weathering step.

 

 

Rob.

Rob,

 

It's the Hornby Syphon from a few years ago. I live in hope of one of the manufacturers producing a new one, perhaps a G

 

Dave

[NHY 581]

Totally agree. Be very nice to see a new Syphon to modern standards.

 

 

If Hornby can do cattle wagons and horse boxes.......

 

 

Rob.

[The Johnster]

I'd be happy with the old Lima if if had proper bogies; a new G as well as an H would be a wonderful thing though, whoever produced it.

[St Enodoc]

I'd be happy with the old Lima if if had proper bogies; a new G as well as an H would be a wonderful thing though, whoever produced it.

Change the bogies for Bachmann 9 ft plates or pressed steels - makes a huge difference.

[The Johnster]

Mine is old enough to have had the bogies changed for Airfix 9' ones, St Ed; it makes, as you say, all the difference and lifts the model into another class.  Nothing wrong with Lima's approach to plastic mouldings, but a new one might have gaps in the ventilators through which light could show if you were using them in as newspaper sorting vans.  Gap in the market for Ox, perhaps?

[The Ghost of IKB]

Well I've said some extremely rude words today.

 

 

 

You may remember back in Post #133 me saying that one of the two frog juicers had failed and that I rewired the frogs in the fiddleyard to be switched by the Cobalts transferring the juicer to the main board.

 

Well it seems one of the six channels on this juicer has also failed so I thought buqqer it - I've spent the past couple of hours scrapping the juicer and having all points on the layout switched by the auxiliary switches on the Cobalt motors.

 

 

 

Dave

Good decision to dump the juicers imo, just something else to fail in my experience. I use cobalt digital point motors and rely on the in built switches and decoder and it's all been pretty bulletproof.

Nice layout build you've got going on, reminds me of a slightly compressed bodmin. Could you squeeze in a small loco shed off the bay where you got the siphon parked up?

[Danemouth]

Could you squeeze in a small loco shed off the bay where you got the siphon parked up?

 

I did consider that but feel that less is more - I've over-egged the pudding in previous versions of Danemouth and regretted it.

 

There is also the magic headshunt which has a "turntable" just the other side of the scenic break.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

[Danemouth]

Today's playing trains operational testing has brought two minor track changes. The bay platform track has been shortened by four inches to allow better placement of the station building - a Prairie with two autocoaches can still arrive in the bay and clear the point to the kickback siding.

 

The siding adjacent to the run around loop has been shortened by six inches so that the short stub beyond the release crossover can have a short platform/end dock for NPCS stock.

 

Started to apply the sleeper grime.

 

Today some stuff arrived from Track Shack - the Oxford Rail Signal Box to match the station building and a Bachmann Pagoda hut for the goods yard.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

[Ray H]

Have you thought of having a cassette for the headshunt. You could normally leave it in position - but see below - and only have to remove it to "turn" it around when acting as a turntable. This provides the bonus of not having to handle stock unnecessary.

 

The close proximity of the "headshunt" alongside the running line at the scenic break will mean that you have to use a ([potentially] varying and empty) traverser track as the headshunt unless you always plan to push the traverser out of the way so you can use something other than a traverser track e.g. a cassette, for the headshunt.

 

You could only use cassettes which avoids the headshunt problem but, speaking personally, I find they're too much of a faff to have to keep changing them. Mind you, having used traversers, sector plates and cassettes for fiddle yards I prefer to accept the shorter sidings that you get when using points that lead to sidings as they don't require anything to be precisely positioned to be used.

[tomparryharry]

Have you thought of having a cassette for the headshunt. You could normally leave it in position - but see below - and only have to remove it to "turn" it around when acting as a turntable. This provides the bonus of not having to handle stock unnecessary.

 

The close proximity of the "headshunt" alongside the running line at the scenic break will mean that you have to use a ([potentially] varying and empty) traverser track as the headshunt unless you always plan to push the traverser out of the way so you can use something other than a traverser track e.g. a cassette, for the headshunt.

 

You could only use cassettes which avoids the headshunt problem but, speaking personally, I find they're too much of a faff to have to keep changing them. Mind you, having used traversers, sector plates and cassettes for fiddle yards I prefer to accept the shorter sidings that you get when using points that lead to sidings as they don't require anything to be precisely positioned to be used.

 

The late Ian Hollis used cassettes on layouts. I'm quite taken with the idea. Robust, easy to make, and cheap! All of the parts can be bought locally from 'B'odgitt & 'Q'uestionable, and can be made to suit your individual requirements. However, I've only used them on DC, those new-fangled DCC types have got me beat!

 

Ian.

Edited July 22, 2018 by tomparryharry

[Regularity]

You could only use cassettes which avoids the headshunt problem but, speaking personally, I find they're too much of a faff to have to keep changing them.

  

The late Ian Hollis used cassettes on layouts. I'm quite taken with the idea. Robust, easy to make, and cheap! All of the parts can be bought locally from 'B'odgitt & 'Q'uestionable, and can be made to suit your individual requirements.

It depends on how well designed (and made!) the cassettes are, and how they are used.

The original article in MRJ 32 years ago (!) used carefully designed couplings to automatically align the cassettes.

It also had separate cassettes for locos. These were removed from the train, for turning. Trains were not turned, just moved about. I think brake vans were removed by hand, but a short cassette could be created for them to reduce handling further.

 

I have seen (and used) cassettes where the alignment was via the bulldog clips used to transfer power. In my mind, a sub-optimal solution. I have also seen systems where there is no separate cassette for locos, and a whole train 6’ long was very gingerly turned round, despite the space behind the layout being only about 4’ wide! This s a misapplication of a well designed system.

 

Like everything, if you take just a few things from a complete system, the result is a lot less than the original, and criticism of the original concept based on incomplete outcome is as unfair as it is erroneous: the fault lies with the implementation.

However, I've only used them on DC, those new-fangled DCC types have got me beat!

 

They work just as well on DCC as DC: Geoff Stenner was using him on his Scale7 layout “Oakhurst” back in the 2000s - certainly as early as 2004, when I first had the pleasure of operating the layout.

One word of warning: you need to install a switch to cut the feed, or warn operators to physical disconnect the cassettes using one rail before turning locos, etc. Putting your fingers either side of a live cassette exposes you had to enough power to cause a small twinge. Not painful, but slightly disconcerting (Although IIRC, this was a 5 amp system. 10A might have been worse!) To be fair to Geoff, he did provide this warning, and possibly even a switch (fading memory!) and any such experiences were a result of my own stupidity/forgetfulness!

[Danemouth]

Thanks Ray, TPH & Simon,

 

I did consider cassettes momentarily. With my luck the chances of a train ending up on the floor of the garage (concrete albeit carpeted)   is extremely high. The only exception to this will be the Peco Loco lift, the off scene "turntable" on the headshunt.

 

When the traverser is built the two tracks at its front will line up with the headshunt and running line, the other tracks will be further apart to allow for easier stock handling.

 

For me that is the simplest solution - but as a result of the last three posts I did recheck that cassettes were not a better solution for Danemouth.

 

Again thanks for all your suggestions,

 

The baseboard has now been painted with blackboard paint and sleeper grime has been applied - next step is rust to the sides of the rails.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

[gwrrob]

Totally agree. Be very nice to see a new Syphon to modern standards.

 

 

If Hornby can do cattle wagons and horse boxes.......

 

 

Rob.

 

Chris Leigh was saying much the same in the back page of this month's Model Rail.

[tomparryharry]

It depends on how well designed (and made!) the cassettes are, and how they are used.

The original article in MRJ 32 years ago (!) used carefully designed couplings to automatically align the cassettes.

It also had separate cassettes for locos. These were removed from the train, for turning. Trains were not turned, just moved about. I think brake vans were removed by hand, but a short cassette could be created for them to reduce handling further.

 

I have seen (and used) cassettes where the alignment was via the bulldog clips used to transfer power. In my mind, a sub-optimal solution. I have also seen systems where there is no separate cassette for locos, and a whole train 6’ long was very gingerly turned round, despite the space behind the layout being only about 4’ wide! This s a misapplication of a well designed system.

 

Like everything, if you take just a few things from a complete system, the result is a lot less than the original, and criticism of the original concept based on incomplete outcome is as unfair as it is erroneous: the fault lies with the implementation.

They work just as well on DCC as DC: Geoff Stenner was using him on his Scale7 layout “Oakhurst” back in the 2000s - certainly as early as 2004, when I first had the pleasure of operating the layout.

One word of warning: you need to install a switch to cut the feed, or warn operators to physical disconnect the cassettes using one rail before turning locos, etc. Putting your fingers either side of a live cassette exposes you had to enough power to cause a small twinge. Not painful, but slightly disconcerting (Although IIRC, this was a 5 amp system. 10A might have been worse!) To be fair to Geoff, he did provide this warning, and possibly even a switch (fading memory!) and any such experiences were a result of my own stupidity/forgetfulness!

Yes, quite right. A cut to the power feed is mandatory on jobs like these. You don't need to have a loco taking off....Locos were generally separate, the thought process being that the jobs were on the timetable, but it might not be the locomotive on the job. These cassettes were quite sturdy, being a good quality ply base, with a good section 'L' providing the side support. Electrical conductivity, in this case, was a bulldog clip, and it worked very well. The thinking being here that if a connection failed, it was very easy to remedy. Ease of use equals longevity in the heat of action: Proven systems work. However, it's down to the constructor/operator to suit how they like it.

 

As for length of cassette, it's going down to being the operators choice. Ian used to use a maximum cassette length of 3 coaches, and having used them, I concur. The thought of an unwieldy rake of expensive coaches 'going the wrong way' is a scenario I'll forego. Extra coaches/vans were on separate cassettes, being the same operating logic of tail traffic. All of Ians' exhibition stock could be managed by a good quality baseboard, some 3'6"x 18" The safety ends were made by foam pipe insulation, to avoid any mishaps. Once boxed, his stock could travel quite safely, and without damage. I'd guess it worked very well, judging how many photos got taken of the fiddle yard. Simple to use, Simple to keep safe.

 

There are, however, lots of variations on the theme, some will suit other styles. Don't quote me, I'm biased!

 

Ian.

Edited July 22, 2018 by tomparryharry

[Regularity]

Yes, quite right. A cut to the power feed is mandatory on jobs like these.

 

Which forgot to mention as a feature of Chris Pendleton’s design. It was automatic, done by the engine pushing a connector off the end of cassette.

Proven systems work. However, it's down to the constructor/operator to suit how they like it.

 

Up to a point, the point being where they blame the system for their poor implementation.

Chris used a short piece of angle outside the deck, and a piece of bar stock inside, fitted to the left hand “rail” at each end. This ensured positive, locking alignment and electrical connection, but the latter is guaranteed by providing a short spring strip between the bar stock and L rail. An extra few minutes to make, but then the system is completely reliable.

The safety ends were made by foam pipe insulation, to avoid any mishaps. Once boxed, his stock could travel quite safely, and without damage.

How did he arrange pressure along the sides of the loaded cassettes in the stock box, needed to stop things jumping about in transit? I am always intrigued about this part of the idea, as I am considering such a system as part of rebuilding my small layout, but am concerned about things like carriage door handles catching on something.

 

(Sorry for the thread hijack.)

[Danemouth]

(Sorry for the thread hijack.)

 

No problem Simon,

 

Whilst cassettes are not for me I find the discussion interesting and others reading the thread may find information useful to them.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

[Ray H]

Thanks Ray, TPH & Simon,

 

I did consider cassettes momentarily. With my luck the chances of a train ending up on the floor of the garage (concrete albeit carpeted)   is extremely high. The only exception to this will be the Peco Loco lift, the off scene "turntable" on the headshunt.

 

When the traverser is built the two tracks at its front will line up with the headshunt and running line, the other tracks will be further apart to allow for easier stock handling.

 

For me that is the simplest solution - but as a result of the last three posts I did recheck that cassettes were not a better solution for Danemouth.

 

Again thanks for all your suggestions,

 

The baseboard has now been painted with blackboard paint and sleeper grime has been applied - next step is rust to the sides of the rails.

 

Regards,

 

Dave

 

Dave

 

All the traverser tracks need to be the same space apart as each other else you may only be able to align both tracks correctly with the traverser bed in one position. I'm sure that you won't want to have to keep adjusting the traverser to align it to either the headshunt or the main but not both.

 

Have you thought of widening the gap on the end of the scenic board between the main and headshunt so that their track spacing is the same as the widest space that you generally want on the traverser?

 

You will of course need to ensure that your desired spacing doesn't reduce the total number of tracks on the traverser because the traverser bed's travel is restricted by any physical obstruction at the back of the baseboard like a wall.

[tomparryharry]

Which forgot to mention as a feature of Chris Pendleton’s design. It was automatic, done by the engine pushing a connector off the end of cassette.

Up to a point, the point being where they blame the system for their poor implementation.

Chris used a short piece of angle outside the deck, and a piece of bar stock inside, fitted to the left hand “rail” at each end. This ensured positive, locking alignment and electrical connection, but the latter is guaranteed by providing a short spring strip between the bar stock and L rail. An extra few minutes to make, but then the system is completely reliable.

How did he arrange pressure along the sides of the loaded cassettes in the stock box, needed to stop things jumping about in transit? I am always intrigued about this part of the idea, as I am considering such a system as part of rebuilding my small layout, but am concerned about things like carriage door handles catching on something.

 

(Sorry for the thread hijack.)

Which forgot to mention as a feature of Chris Pendleton’s design. It was automatic, done by the engine pushing a connector off the end of cassette.

Up to a point, the point being where they blame the system for their poor implementation.

Chris used a short piece of angle outside the deck, and a piece of bar stock inside, fitted to the left hand “rail” at each end. This ensured positive, locking alignment and electrical connection, but the latter is guaranteed by providing a short spring strip between the bar stock and L rail. An extra few minutes to make, but then the system is completely reliable.

How did he arrange pressure along the sides of the loaded cassettes in the stock box, needed to stop things jumping about in transit? I am always intrigued about this part of the idea, as I am considering such a system as part of rebuilding my small layout, but am concerned about things like carriage door handles catching on something.

 

(Sorry for the thread hijack.)

I remember the stock travelled in its own box, of Ian's design. As an operator on the layout my principal job was that of fiddle yard operator. The safety ends of the cassette were, as we've noted, made off with some 22mm pipe insulation, which was an interference fit within the cassette 'L' sections. As a newcomer, I commented on this to Ian, to the point where I would replace the foam sections if I considered them below par. As a rule, it worked very well. Your observation is interesting, regarding poor implementation. There wasn't any poor implementation. It was a simple, robust system, which worked very well in action. Everybody knew how it worked, and why it worked. The layout benefitted from constant service with a view to faultless operation, with upgrades as & when desired, or necessary. With regard to travelling, The cassettes would travel in a box, being loaded inside one another to optimise the space available.

 

I should add here that Ian was not above using the idea if it was a good one. Other posters have commented on the age of the idea. My angle is only related to the operation, which I can vouch for in my own limited sphere of use.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[Harlequin]

Dave

 

All the traverser tracks need to be the same space apart as each other else you may only be able to align both tracks correctly with the traverser bed in one position. I'm sure that you won't want to have to keep adjusting the traverser to align it to either the headshunt or the main but not both.

 

Have you thought of widening the gap on the end of the scenic board between the main and headshunt so that their track spacing is the same as the widest space that you generally want on the traverser?

 

You will of course need to ensure that your desired spacing doesn't reduce the total number of tracks on the traverser because the traverser bed's travel is restricted by any physical obstruction at the back of the baseboard like a wall.

I imagine that the alignment will always be made between the running line and one of the traverser storage roads. When the front-most storage road is aligned, the headshunt road just in front of it will also then be aligned with the headshunt feed.

 

Spacing between the storage roads would be wide. Spacing between the front-most storage road and the headshunt road will be the normal 2 inches. It's a compromise solution.

 

Something like this:

[Ray H]

Phil
 
The point I was trying to make was that with the arrangement as shown in your diagram it will potentially be necessary for 80% of the traverser's usage to re-align the traverser table if the headshunt is required to be used. This could be avoided a lot of the time if the headshunt was positioned so that the space between it and the main line was the same as the space between any two other sidings. It seems a tad strange to throw in such a restriction which could be avoidable.
 
From Dave's picture in post 140 it already looks as though his main line is nearer the back of the layout than the front and may mean that he can't get (possibly more than) 4 tracks at 75mm spacing.

[Danemouth]

From Dave's picture in post 140 it already looks as though his main line is nearer the back of the layout than the front and may mean that he can't get (possibly more than) 4 tracks at 75mm spacing.

 

Ray,

 

The running line is 30 cm from the back,

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

[Regularity]

Your observation is interesting, regarding poor implementation. There wasn't any poor implementation.

For clarity, I wasn’t suggesting that was the case here.

 

My comment was about those who dismiss cassettes as unworkable, due to the unwieldiness of a train length cassette in a limited space, or of poor alignment, etc, using just push contact for electrical contact between cassettes. Also at those who fail to look at any idea as a complete system, then complain that their half-baked implementation of it doesn’t work. Or quietly brush their I’ll-founded but well-publicised suggestion under the carpet when it fails...

[Harlequin]

Phil

 

The point I was trying to make was that with the arrangement as shown in your diagram it will potentially be necessary for 80% of the traverser's usage to re-align the traverser table if the headshunt is required to be used. This could be avoided a lot of the time if the headshunt was positioned so that the space between it and the main line was the same as the space between any two other sidings. It seems a tad strange to throw in such a restriction which could be avoidable.

 

From Dave's picture in post 140 it already looks as though his main line is nearer the back of the layout than the front and may mean that he can't get (possibly more than) 4 tracks at 75mm spacing.

Hi Ray,

 

Yes, you're right but it is a compromise solution.

 

Dave has only just laid his new track and lifting part of it now; (a.) would be a pain, (b.) might not help much because there's very little room between the double slip and baseboard edge within which to increase the spacing and (c.) probably wouldn't look as good as the current beautiful flowing parallel tracks.

 

It might be possible for the lines to diverge between the scenic area and the traverser but that would consume valuable traverser length.

 

Dave says that his running line is 30cm from the backscene so he won't be able to do the 5 storage roads shown in my drawing, sadly.

 

On the plus side, the headshunt road on the traverser is the easiest to align when you need to use it: Just push the deck in until it hits the stops and activate the alignment lock.

 

 

@Dave: Another option you might consider is to abandon the headshunt...!

 

Terminate the current headshunt line before it leaves the scene, either as a tiny stub siding or longer for some other purpose. (The double-slip and the stub siding then act as a trap point.)

This would work OK because; I think it was common for small stations like this to use the running line for shunting, your large radius points should help and if you're the sole operator, you probably won't be running both the shunting and the main line at the same time, so arguably you never really needed a separate headshunt.

 

Something like this:

• Use existing main line out of scene as only connection to travserser (30cm from backscene)
• Use any traverser road for shunting (on the main line)
• 4 full length storage roads
• 2 shorter storage roads with shared connection through medium point on traverser
• 67mm between roads

Edited July 23, 2018 by Harlequin

[The Johnster]

Abandoning the headshunt for a shorter spur is feasible, but depends on the traffic to a large extent, or at least to the imagined traffic projected by the planners when the branch was built back in the 1880s or 90s.  If the projected timetable cannot be run because the terminus is busy enough to affect it by blocking the running line and preventing tokens being drawn for more traffic in accordance with single line absolute block working, a headshunt will be provided so that yard shunting can take place 'locked in' and away from the running lines.

 

My feeling is that a terminus with only a two road goods yard has only one pickup clearance per day, timed to run at the quieter times regarding passenger traffic, mid morning or mid afternoon.  It would not require shunting of such intensity as to warrant a headshunt and the running line, blocked back to the next section post, would be used.  But a model railway is a compromise, and you may well want to run goods traffic at the same time as the passenger trains, and enjoy the challenge of fitting it in to the timetable.  Or some may be express goods traffic such as milk, or, as this is the seaside, fish.  

 

Removing the headshunt has the advantage of giving you an extra fiddle yard road, which means an extra train.  Retaining it makes operation easier; swings and roundabouts, again appropriate for the seaside...

[tomparryharry]

I'm thinking of Porthcawl, however.... I'd guess that once a passenger job came in, a pilot loco might well draw the passenger off the berth, and stabled off scene. Certainly this was the case in Great Yarmouth, where the berthing sidings stretch on for a fair few miles. That said, I can't ever remember Porthcawl, Ho Hum.

 

Ian.