Beginner, Terminus plan

[Stubby47]

One consideration about left v right orientation.

 

I use Gaugemaster walkabout controllers, in my right hand. This leaves the left hand to operate the points/uncouplers/etc.

 

Tinners is just wrong for me -awkward to operate and frustrating that my hands are constantly crossing.

 

The next layouts will all be the opposite way round, FY & controls on the left, station on the right.

 

Just a thought before you commit.

Edited July 11, 2019 by Stubby47

[Argos]

On 10/07/2019 at 18:15, Harlequin said:

Well, for what it's worth, here's the idea that I didn't think you'd like before:

 

 

The idea was to deliberately make it small, simple and a bit quirky: Only handling small trains of two coaches and a small van at the most (the traverser only really allows small trains anyway) and not pushing the tracks out to the very edges, to leave a bit of room to breathe.

 

As I explained above, assuming that the incoming lines are double track then the trailing crossover required to get outgoing traffic onto the correct track can be imaginary and actually implemented by the traverser. This saves space.

 

(Interestingly, the lack of the trailing crossover on scene also allows you to treat the incoming lines as single up/down and headshunt instead if you want.)

 

The splayed run round loop is part of the quirkiness but also helps with run round clearance. Only one platform but you do have a departure bay.

 

You could possibly add a kickback siding to the bottom goods line heading towards the signal box, just to make shunting more difficult and thus operation more "interesting"... ;-)

 

 

I was under the impression that it was a Board of Trade requirement that termini at the end of double track lines had to have two platform faces?

 

No doubt this will prompt a stream of posts showing single platforms at the end of double track lines!

Edited July 11, 2019 by Argos

[Titanius Anglesmith]

1 minute ago, Argos said:

 

I was under the impression that it was a board of trade requirement that termini at the end of double track lines had to have two platform faces?

 

No doubt this will prompt a stream of posts showing single platforms at the end of double track lines!

 

Bring it on, it could be interesting!

 

On a similar note, i believe at one point (1850s?), termini were required to have a turntable too. When the Thames Haven branch opened, the BoT insisted on a turntable, despite the line only using tank engines. The table only lasted a few years before it was removed. 

[Harlequin]

43 minutes ago, Argos said:

 

I was under the impression that it was a Board of Trade requirement that termini at the end of double track lines had to have two platform faces?

 

No doubt this will prompt a stream of posts showing single platforms at the end of double track lines!

You might be right - in the effort to keep it simple I fell in the familiar pattern of the single track BLT.

 

But that does raise a good point: that a double track terminus in such a small space is asking a lot, especially if it's intended to be country-fied.

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by Harlequin

[Izzy]

Okay... Colchester Town (formally St Boltophs). Single platform served by double track from a double track triangular junction with the Clacton/Walton branch.

 

Going back to the first post made, Sheffield Exchange Mk1 is a very good design because is allows access to all platforms from both lines with no reverse curves involved.  This helps to offset the issue of the tight radius of the peco slips as well as being economical with length. 

 

As as an aside, having any goods sidings located off the exit side is helpful when shunting.  Trains are not prevented from arriving, while shunting is easier signalling wise. 

 

Izzy

[tractionman]

On 10/07/2019 at 18:15, Harlequin said:

Well, for what it's worth, here's the idea that I didn't think you'd like before:

 

 

 

 

 

I like it!

 

It has a Midland feel about it. 

 

This month's RM (Aug '19) has a similar track-plan, albeit for 7mm, a layout called "Sherton Abbas", set in the West Country (GWR, c.1905).

 

It's a bit more complex in plan than the above but is a BLT (scenic area is c.13' x 4') with a double track entering the station and has tracks along either side of a platform.

 

The plan above probably could be tweaked to lengthen the bay a bit more, thus giving two platform faces, and then place the station building further along the platform towards the buffer stops?

 

all the best,

 

Keith

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

Here's another idea. I tried to get both crossovers on stage, in as compact a form as possible and with smooth routes for the main incoming and outgoing tracks.

 

So I tried a scissors crossing, using angles to spread the tracks apart and bring them back together at the normal Peco Streamline spacing either side.

 

I added a kick back siding to make shunting more challenging. It could be serving some private industry or maybe a big livestock shed.

 

(Technically, there should be a catch point between the goods yard and the double-slip but there's no room.)

Edited July 11, 2019 by Harlequin

[Flying Pig]

25 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Here's another idea. I tried to get both crossovers on stage, in as compact a form as possible and with smooth routes for the main incoming and outgoing tracks

 

But surely the best way to do that is the Sheffield Exchange throat with 2 points and a single slip?  Not only does that avoid reverse curves completely and include both crossovers on scene, but it's at least one point shorter than any equivalent arrangement short of a handbuilt scissors.

 

[Harlequin]

25 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

But surely the best way to do that is the Sheffield Exchange throat with 2 points and a single slip?  Not only does that avoid reverse curves completely and include both crossovers on scene, but it's at least one point shorter than any equivalent arrangement short of a handbuilt scissors.

 

I really wanted to avoid the major inbound route having to turn in a Peco slip, which looks too abrupt to my eye. I would say that this idea is more flowing and actually slightly more compact (in length) than SEMk1.

The reverse curve routes flow quite nicely and the diamond crossing puts some distance between the direction changes - not a full coach length admittedly, but it helps.

 

[Zomboid]

Wouldn't the spacing created by the scissors crossing lend itself more to an island platform? That would complicate the run-round of course, but is that insurmountable?

[Flying Pig]

On 10/07/2019 at 17:35, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

 

The grid squares represent 6".  As drawn, there's about 6" between the goods sidings at the widest point.  I did try spurring the sidings off "the point opposite the slip", but I can't get it very tidy once I've included a trap.  I think this one's my front unless anyone convinces me otherwise.

 

I've had a fiddle with this and by leaving out the bay platform I think you can probably get a third siding in for a bit more shunting fun.  The front siding is brought near to the edge of the board as a mileage road, with vehicular access imagined to be offscene in front  of it.  Coal would be handled on this road in the absence of a dedicated facility.

 

The rear siding runs alongside a loading bank to a goods shed that is modelled in part relief.  The additional siding also runs next to the loading bank, up to an end dock - somewhere to put CCT tail loads.  The point between the two is supposed to be a medium Y, by the way.

 

It's arguable that the trap should be extended to form a headshunt.  However, shunting from the up main may be simpler and gives you the option of using the departure side platform as a spare road if things get tight.

 

Apologies for the small sketch.

[Guest Jack Benson]

On 11/07/2019 at 16:01, Stubby47 said:

One consideration about left v right orientation.

 

I use Gaugemaster walkabout controllers, in my right hand. This leaves the left hand to operate the points/uncouplers/etc.

 

Tinners is just wrong for me -awkward to operate and frustrating that my hands are constantly crossing.

 

The next layouts will all be the opposite way round, FY & controls on the left, station on the right.

 

Just a thought before you commit.

 

Hi,

 

Apart from the orientation, with the benefit of hindsight, would you have changed anything else?

We are considering getting back to exhibiting but with a micro and the practical experiences of others is essential. 

 

Btw, we are right handed.

 

Thank you

 

Jack

 

 

[Harlequin]

Some revisions to the scissors idea:

 

• Got rid of the slips entirely and moved goods yard connection up.
• Slightly longer straight sections through crossing reduce effect of reverse curves a bit more.
• Crossover to trap goods yard properly.
• Short goods headshunt or stub siding.
• Third siding somewhat like Flying Pig's sketch (may or may not be for not end loading),
• One less traverser road but now there's finger room between trains.

Edited July 13, 2019 by Harlequin

[Stubby47]

5 minutes ago, Jack Benson said:

 

Hi,

 

Apart from the orientation, with the benefit of hindsight, would you have changed anything else?

We are considering getting back to exhibiting but with a micro and the practical experiences of others is essential. 

 

Btw, we are right handed.

 

Thank you

 

Jack

 

 

Tinners was orientated scene-left as the main building 'forced' the track layout.

 

DM4MS was orientated scene-left as the points I had dictated the track layout, but by using in-line rods to operate said points, is much easier to operate. 

 

Would I change anything else?

 

No, it's all perfect

 

I was just hoping to prompt a bit of thought about how the OP would operate, as the track plan was fairly fluid and the question of left v right was raised. The fact you've asked means you are also considering this, so my work is done.

 

(Sorry for the thread hijack).

[The Johnster]

Cwmdimbath is 'handed' according to the room lighting, with the fiddle yard in the shady part of the room.  I like to use an element of natural lighting when it is available.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

On 12/07/2019 at 15:20, Flying Pig said:

 

I've had a fiddle with this and by leaving out the bay platform I think you can probably get a third siding in for a bit more shunting fun. 

 

More shunting fun is always welcome 

 

On 12/07/2019 at 15:20, Flying Pig said:

 

The front siding is brought near to the edge of the board as a mileage road, with vehicular access imagined to be offscene in front  of it.  Coal would be handled on this road in the absence of a dedicated facility.

 

The rear siding runs alongside a loading bank to a goods shed that is modelled in part relief.  The additional siding also runs next to the loading bank, up to an end dock - somewhere to put CCT tail loads.  

 

Thank you for the sketch. When it comes to more sidings I am of course open to suggestions. Please excuse my ignorance, but what are CCT loads? 

 

8 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Some revisions to the scissors idea:

 

• Got rid of the slips entirely and moved goods yard connection up.
• Slightly longer straight sections through crossing reduce effect of reverse curves a bit more.
• Crossover to trap goods yard properly.
• Short goods headshunt or stub siding.
• Third siding somewhat like Flying Pig's sketch (may or may not be for not end loading),
• One less traverser road but now there's finger room between trains.

 

Interesting, thank you for this (and also the earlier iteration). If I may ask, what is the colour-coding of the points? I presume red=short, brown=medium, green=long? How would one access the rear siding for (un)loading; via the shed only, or might the rear face of the passenger platform be used in certain circumstances? Bonus points for the trap, it would niggle at me if I had to leave it out. 

 

7 hours ago, Stubby47 said:

 

I was just hoping to prompt a bit of thought about how the OP would operate, as the track plan was fairly fluid and the question of left v right was raised. The fact you've asked means you are also considering this, so my work is done.

 

(Sorry for the thread hijack).

 

No apology necessary, it’s absolutely relevant and probably not given enough consideration. 

[Flying Pig]

6 minutes ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

Please excuse my ignorance, but what are CCT loads? 

 

A CCT is a Covered Carriage Truck: a van built with end doors to allow loading of road vehicles, usually on a long wheelbase and rated to run in passenger trains.  

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

Interesting, thank you for this (and also the earlier iteration). If I may ask, what is the colour-coding of the points? I presume red=short, brown=medium, green=long? How would one access the rear siding for (un)loading; via the shed only, or might the rear face of the passenger platform be used in certain circumstances? Bonus points for the trap, it would niggle at me if I had to leave it out. 

 

I have a rough colour coding but I haven't quite tied it down and applied it consistently across my drawings yet. You've deduced it correctly except that the green points are all of the curved variety. The blue is Peco's short crossing.

 

I imagine that the rear of the platform would be fenced where the goods shed siding runs alongside it for passenger safety but maybe there could be gates if regulations allow.

 

I haven't drawn any goods platforms (loading banks) at all but one could wrap around the end of the shed siding to give end loading and side loading on the yard side. Or you could arrange a bank alongside the shorter siding, possibly splaying it out into the yard for end loading access.

 

Edited July 13, 2019 by Harlequin

[retiredoperator]

Hi Modellers. As a new boy it looks good to me? But, a wise man once told me 

that “ Less is Best “ whether everyone agrees with that I don’t know, but it is a good excuse and onlookers can see the details better. Happy Modelling Kev 

[Titanius Anglesmith]

While the jury decides between my plan and Harlequin’s interpretation, my thoughts have turned to the power / control arrangements. 

 

As Harlequin’s plan and mine are essentially the same basic layout but built from different components, by my reckoning the power feeds should be similar. Control will be by DC.

 

At the very least I expect to put an isolator at the end of the two platform roads, in order to “trap” an incoming loco while a pilot / layover loco is in motion. 

 

Experience with Dad’s layout has proven that, over time, one cannot rely on the switch rails to transmit power. In fairness, with the size and age of Dad’s layout a few failures are to be expected. I’ve seen it suggested on here to isolate after the points and re-feed the next section via a switch dependant on the point position. This actually makes a lot of sense to me, and would be easily incorporated into my intended signalling system. Any thoughts, please?

 

Meanwhile, the baseboards are under construction. And the cricket is ruining my nerves........

[Titanius Anglesmith]

23 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

A CCT is a Covered Carriage Truck: a van built with end doors to allow loading of road vehicles, usually on a long wheelbase and rated to run in passenger trains.  

 

21 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I have a rough colour coding.......

 

 

Thanks for the info

[retiredoperator]

Hi Titanius Anglesmith    I am interested in working signals , as much as I am a newbie to model Railways, I am familiar with “ Prototype Signals “, and have been criticised for my expectations of some manufacturers interpretations of how Model signals operate in relation to semaphore signals , which can be seen on many YouTube Layouts . Have you got any plans for your system?  Happy Modelling Kev 

[The Johnster]

On 14/07/2019 at 17:09, Titanius Anglesmith said:

While the jury decides between my plan and Harlequin’s interpretation, my thoughts have turned to the power / control arrangements. 

 

As Harlequin’s plan and mine are essentially the same basic layout but built from different components, by my reckoning the power feeds should be similar. Control will be by DC.

 

At the very least I expect to put an isolator at the end of the two platform roads, in order to “trap” an incoming loco while a pilot / layover loco is in motion. 

 

Experience with Dad’s layout has proven that, over time, one cannot rely on the switch rails to transmit power. In fairness, with the size and age of Dad’s layout a few failures are to be expected. I’ve seen it suggested on here to isolate after the points and re-feed the next section via a switch dependant on the point position. This actually makes a lot of sense to me, and would be easily incorporated into my intended signalling system. Any thoughts, please?

 

Meanwhile, the baseboards are under construction. And the cricket is ruining my nerves........

Cwmdimbath is a very simple and basic BLT trackplan and relies on switch rails to route current on insulfrog turnouts.  Running is reliable but reliability relies on regular cleaning and getting rid of carbon buildup where the switch rails butt to the stock rails, and regular removal of debris in these areas to ensure that the switch rails can close properly against them.  I would recommend your system for any larger or more complex layout than mine!  It's roundabouts and swings of course, and switches with connections introduce a further level of things to go wrong, and faults to find...

 

CCTs originated in the very early days of railways when the gentry preferred not to travel even in first class with the hoi polloi and sat in their own horse drawn carriages, loaded on to 'carriage trucks', open flat wagons.  The next obvious development of this was to enclose the vehicle, protecting the carriage and Lord Snooty from the elements.  The requirement for speed increased the wheelbase over time and the vehicles were very useful for general parcels work and end loading; BR were still building them in the early 60s and they were still in service until the 80s.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

On 31/08/2019 at 10:41, retiredoperator said:

Hi Titanius Anglesmith    I am interested in working signals , as much as I am a newbie to model Railways, I am familiar with “ Prototype Signals “, and have been criticised for my expectations of some manufacturers interpretations of how Model signals operate in relation to semaphore signals , which can be seen on many YouTube Layouts . Have you got any plans for your system?  Happy Modelling Kev 

 

 

On 31/08/2019 at 11:28, The Johnster said:

Cwmdimbath is a very simple and basic BLT trackplan and relies on switch rails to route current on insulfrog turnouts.  Running is reliable but reliability relies on regular cleaning and getting rid of carbon buildup where the switch rails butt to the stock rails, and regular removal of debris in these areas to ensure that the switch rails can close properly against them.  I would recommend your system for any larger or more complex layout than mine!  It's roundabouts and swings of course, and switches with connections introduce a further level of things to go wrong, and faults to find...

 

I regret to announce that events have rather overtaken this thread! The track has mostly been laid, and the majority of the wiring is complete... In the event, I did incorporate the traction feeds into the signalling. 

 

Retiredoperator - I am also new to model railways so take anything I say with a pinch of salt. Can you expand on what your expectations refer to please? EG the operation of the signal arm itself or the system as a whole?

 

My intention was to create a system whereby the signals (modelled or imaginary) were correctly interlocked, more or less. The original intention was to build a Scalefour lever frame, with electric lever locks that would apply the interlocking, mimicking a mechanical frame (similar in principle to a Westinghouse “L” type frame). There is already a precedent on the forum for locking a Scalefour frame both mechanically and electrically, I will find the thread and post a link. In the interim I am using common toggle switches in lieu of the levers. However I suspect my plan for a Scalefour frame will be a “round tuit” that never comes to fruition. 

 

I considered various methods of building the logical side of the interlocking, including relays, IC logic gates, diode logic gates, and solid state via an Arduino (in the real world I cut my teeth on relay interlocking and Westrace solid state interlocking). In the end I settled on the Arduino option; it’s complete overkill but is cheap enough and easily adaptable. 

 

The toggle switches (levers) all input into the Arduino. I have allocated outputs to drive electric lever locks, but presently there’s nothing for them to drive. In the current absence of any physical locking, the lever outputs have also been interlocked within the programming, so moving a lever will only have an effect if it was free to move in the first place. Eg if a point lever is moved while a signal is set over them, nothing will happen. 

 

Using the Arduino has offered another advantage in that I don’t need momentary-action switches to drive the Peco point motors. When a point lever is thrown, the Arduino energises an interface relay for only a short period of time (I’ve currently set it at 300ms, which is plenty of time for a CDU to discharge). The CDU will then of course recharge when the relay de-energises. 

 

The signal arms arms themselves I haven’t tackled yet. I want to investigate ready-to-plant options as I don’t fancy building my own at this stage. I understand that servos can be used to mimic the slow action and “Bob” of a signal arm, but I haven’t looked into it. 

 

As alluded to earlier, I have also incorporated traction control into the signalling. The track has been divided into several sections, namely the Up line, Down line, P&C, Platform 1, Platform 2, Sidings, and a berth at the end of each platform. The P&C section is permanently connected as it is used for every route (bar one) and no loco should ever be stopped over it. The other sections are all fed over a Normally-Closed (NC) relay contact. By default, the Arduino is programmed to energise all the traction control relays, cutting the track feed. When a signal lever is pulled (with the associated points pulled first, of course), the appropriate traction relays are de-energised, livening up the track. For example, setting the shunt out of the sidings will liven up the sidings track and the Up line (the P&C section inbetween will be live anyway). The platform berth sections normally just repeat their respective platform sections, and are only used to “trap” a loco at the far end when a second “turnover” loco is taking the train back out. By using the NC relay contacts, all sections will be made live if the Arduino is turned off. That way the railway can still be operated as one-engine-in-steam (and finger-operated points) with the control system turned off. 

 

Hope this makes sense and is of some interest?

 

edit: also sorry for the overly long post

 

Quote

 

CCTs originated in the very early days of railways when the gentry preferred not to travel even in first class with the hoi polloi and sat in their own horse drawn carriages, loaded on to 'carriage trucks', open flat wagons.  The next obvious development of this was to enclose the vehicle, protecting the carriage and Lord Snooty from the elements.  The requirement for speed increased the wheelbase over time and the vehicles were very useful for general parcels work and end loading; BR were still building them in the early 60s and they were still in service until the 80s.

 

Thanks for the info

Edited September 1, 2019 by Titanius Anglesmith

[Titanius Anglesmith]

On 01/09/2019 at 11:34, Titanius Anglesmith said:

There is already a precedent on the forum for locking a Scalefour frame both mechanically and electrically, I will find the thread and post a link. 

 

 

As promised, here’s a link to the hugely impressive, fully interlocked Scalefour frame built for Leeds City: