Jump to content

davegardnerisme

Layout signalling requirements

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Using double slips was actually a recommended solution for restricted areas in the Permanent Way Institute's handbook on British Railway Track.

 

Interesting. Is that just in the context of traps, or in general use?

 

9 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Not Yorkshire Dales but not far off were the cotton mills in Longdendale served by the GC. There were rail connections from the Waterside Branch to Hollingworth Print Works, Waterside Mill at Hadfield, Bridge Mill at Tintwistle and Hadfiled Mill served from the Woodhead line at Hadfield.

 

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=15&lat=53.4664&lon=-1.9717&layers=168&b=1

 

I love how it’s almost mandatory that industrial sidings must have a diamond crossing somewhere :lol:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
2 hours ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

Interesting. Is that just in the context of traps, or in general use?

I can't remember the actual wording but it was in the context of trap points in sidings.

 

Having had a play with Anyrail on the OP layout, using Peco track the 3-way with three traps may be the most compact option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you to everyone for the comments and suggestions.

 

I must admit I lost track of this thread a bit until today; I have been busy switching to Peco 75 track, recutting everything, fitting point motors, and starting to stick things down.

 

So far I've stuck down the first board only -- this is the most terminal bit of the BLT! Now for the next board, I ended up switching to an asymmetric 3 way turnout, with a single trap between the head of the 3 way point (if I've got the terminology correct?) and the turnout that joins back onto the mainline -- eg the end of the loop. This hasn't been stuck down yet, and so could be changed. It sounds like there are some alternative suggestions - including using 3 traps. Is the single trap a bad idea?

 

I will be trying to digest the rest of the signalling plans and may come back with some other questions. Still quite a bit for me to learn! I'm interested in putting down some cosmetic point rodding, so it seems like the numbered plans will be super helpful here -- eg they will guide me as to how many rods I need to exit the signal box!

 

I will try to post a photo showing the layout later.

 

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...with a single trap between the head of the 3 way point (if I've got the terminology correct?) and the turnout that joins back onto the mainline -- eg the end of the loop...

 

If you mean that you have managed to insert a trap where you previously had a SL-84 (?) on your plan then that on its own would be adequate provided that it was far enough away from the main line that anything derailed at it would not foul the main. IIRC that was the issue originally which made others suggest multiple traps further back. Of course, builf your own 3-way tandem and you could insert the traps at a suitable location :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Of course, builf your own 3-way tandem and you could insert the traps at a suitable location :-)

 

Ha! I've already butchered a lot of the points (removing springs etc.) but I'm not sure I'm up to track work fabrication yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The important thing about a trap point regardless of type is that it prevents an unauthorised movement in the sidings from fouling the main line. It can be anything from a single switch or a pair of switches causing a derailment which will stop clear of the line to a full set of points leading to a short section of track at at least the normal interval from the passenger line and ending in a sand drag or stop block.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kink after the catch point looks a bit sharp to me and it might upset some locos.

 

I notice that you've removed the sleepers either side of the "tie bars" on some of the points. I don't think I've ever seen that done before. What's the reason for that? Does the over-centre spring still work OK?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a bit of a kink. I’m not sure about it. I thought maybe it would smooth when I stick it down, but maybe it needs revisiting. Two options, I think:

 

1. stretch it all out, which pushes the throat (correct name!? I’m still learning terminology) out over the area I was planning on having the river. The downside is the river gets smaller, since I can’t really join the board over the river. Also it might not work given the angles of the three way. 
 

2. go back to double slip. 
 

re: points - I’m getting carried away following this point motor installation guide. Clearly I haven’t installed the extra sleepers yet. We shall see if this was a good idea soon when I finish it off and wire it all up. 
 

http://www.gaugemaster.com/instructions/dcc_concepts/cobalt_manual.pdf

Edited by davegardnerisme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, davegardnerisme said:

It is a bit of a kink. I’m not sure about it. I thought maybe it would smooth when I stick it down, but maybe it needs revisiting. Two options, I think:

 

1. stretch it all out, which pushes the throat (correct name!? I’m still learning terminology) out over the area I was planning on having the river. The downside is the river gets smaller, since I can’t really join the board over the river. Also it might not work given the angles of the three way. 
 

2. go back to double slip. 
 

Maybe go back to the software where you can make everything line up (or see where it doesn't line up) more clearly.

The double slip seems like a good option, TBH. Clearly there are prototypical arguments either way but it would save space and avoid the spacing/kink problem.

 

Quote

re: points - I’m getting carried away following this point motor installation guide. Clearly I haven’t installed the extra sleepers yet. We shall see if this

was a good idea soon when I finish it off and wire it all up. 
 

http://www.gaugemaster.com/instructions/dcc_concepts/cobalt_manual.pdf

 

 

Well! I've learned something new. I knew people trimmed the end of the big timbers but I didn't know about that rather more drastic mod. Thanks.

 

Edited by Harlequin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, clachnaharry said:

Why have you shortened the run-round loop so much? It looks like it is now only a couple of coaches long.


I think it ended up being shortened because of the baseboard joins tweaking where the points .. the join is actually through the end of the long crossing. 
 

I think I could solve both problems (short runaround loop, cramped and kinked track) by extending the run around loop right across the bridge and having the first turnout the other side of the river, with double track over the bridge. This might be easiest and best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shortening of the loop is mainly due to your moving the loco release crossovera long way back along the platform. What is your intention there?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, clachnaharry said:

The shortening of the loop is mainly due to your moving the loco release crossovera long way back along the platform. What is your intention there?

 

It just sort of ended up like this!

 

However it's not clear to me it buys that much space. With buffers in place, perhaps I could get an extra 7 or 8 cm by moving the turnout? It's glued down now so I think that ship has sailed.

 

IMG_7871.JPG.3d4e8a62fa594c3803d7c82542a9b611.JPG

 

I must admit I lost track of how large a loop I want. I guess I need to work out how many coach trains would have been run on this BLT in the steam era. On the other thread everyone noted how in early 60s it would almost certainly be DMUs running the service, but obviously on infrastructure designed for steam (hence long platforms, loop etc.)

 

If I can run around two passenger coaches today, say (I haven't measured -- probably should but I don't own any coaches), then I think the only way of upping this to three would be to move the loop to finish the other side of the river. I was keen on that plan this morning ... slightly going off it as the day wears on! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can use buffers embedded in, or attached to, the end platform wall to gain a bit more space. I'd say the longer the run round loop, the better. It makes things look more spacious and gives you flexibility. For example a two coach run round could be lengthened to two coaches and a van, which then makes for some more interesting operations.

 

The idea of pushing the end of the run round loop over to the other side of the river is potentially very good but it might adversely affect the private siding so worth exploring in software before you do any more expensive cutting and gluing. ;) (And maybe transfer back to the Layout and Design forum while you're doing that?)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that everyone loves to use software for track-planning these days, but can I put in an appeal, or perhaps simply a reminder, about more traditional, but sometimes dare I say it, better methods:

 

- pencil and paper, once you "get your hand in", is a perfectly fine method; and,

 

- good-quality masking tape is the perfect way to lay virtual track in a case where you already have baseboards made and are at the "fiddling about to get it perfect" stage. It works very well as flex-track in conjunction with full-size paper templates of points (stick the point in a scanner, if you have points and scanner to hand), but you can manage without the templates if you know the leading dimensions of the points (e.g. from Peco catalogue or website). you can then "play trains" with your actual rolling stock, before committing to fixing the track down.

 

Personally, I find that learning the quirks of sotware takes so long that pencil, paper and masking tape are quicker, but then I'm possibly an old fogey.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I know that everyone loves to use software for track-planning these days, but can I put in an appeal, or perhaps simply a reminder, about more traditional, but sometimes dare I say it, better methods:

 

- pencil and paper, once you "get your hand in", is a perfectly fine method; and,

 

- good-quality masking tape is the perfect way to lay virtual track in a case where you already have baseboards made and are at the "fiddling about to get it perfect" stage. It works very well as flex-track in conjunction with full-size paper templates of points (stick the point in a scanner, if you have points and scanner to hand), but you can manage without the templates if you know the leading dimensions of the points (e.g. from Peco catalogue or website). you can then "play trains" with your actual rolling stock, before committing to fixing the track down.

 

Personally, I find that learning the quirks of sotware takes so long that pencil, paper and masking tape are quicker, but then I'm possibly an old fogey.

 

Agree -- I think I'm done with software. It was useful to get going, but now I'm at the making it feel right stage, and perhaps due to inexperience the only way I can really do that is by putting actual track down where it needs to be and then sliding coaches up and down and generally looking at it.

 

I will jump back to the other thread this evening (in Layout section) to request more advice about the key challenge of the runaround loop!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, davegardnerisme said:

I don't think the geometry of that arrangement will work. 

The trap still looks too close to the branch. At the drop-off point the distance between the track centres needs to be 45 mm minimum.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I know that everyone loves to use software for track-planning these days, but can I put in an appeal, or perhaps simply a reminder, about more traditional, but sometimes dare I say it, better methods:

 

- pencil and paper, once you "get your hand in", is a perfectly fine method; and,

 

- good-quality masking tape is the perfect way to lay virtual track in a case where you already have baseboards made and are at the "fiddling about to get it perfect" stage. It works very well as flex-track in conjunction with full-size paper templates of points (stick the point in a scanner, if you have points and scanner to hand), but you can manage without the templates if you know the leading dimensions of the points (e.g. from Peco catalogue or website). you can then "play trains" with your actual rolling stock, before committing to fixing the track down.

 

Personally, I find that learning the quirks of sotware takes so long that pencil, paper and masking tape are quicker, but then I'm possibly an old fogey.

I'm not agreeing that you're an old fogey ;)    But I am agreeing strongly with the rest of what you say - creating and developing a track layout with pencil, paper (and a good quality rubber = eraser for certain foreign language folk) is a good way to learn how things fit together and to get the feel of how a track layout can be developed and will work.  Out on the real railway there are some track layouts and arrangements in everyday use which started that way from my drawings.  Often on a piece of scrap A4 paper where I drew and developed the original ideas and finalised the layout before the civil engineers used my drawings to prepare their scale plans (which invariably fitted the site - that was the really clever bit, drawing a layout plan which would fit the site). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One question - why is the runround release crossover so far from the stopblock end of the platform line?   Have I missed something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

One question - why is the runround release crossover so far from the stopblock end of the platform line?   Have I missed something?


It is probably too far - although I think probably only 8cm or so from where it should ideally be. 
 

There is no reason for this. The excuse is lack of attention when laying and glueing the track!

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I know that everyone loves to use software for track-planning these days, but can I put in an appeal, or perhaps simply a reminder, about more traditional, but sometimes dare I say it, better methods:

 

- pencil and paper, once you "get your hand in", is a perfectly fine method; and,

 

- good-quality masking tape is the perfect way to lay virtual track in a case where you already have baseboards made and are at the "fiddling about to get it perfect" stage. It works very well as flex-track in conjunction with full-size paper templates of points (stick the point in a scanner, if you have points and scanner to hand), but you can manage without the templates if you know the leading dimensions of the points (e.g. from Peco catalogue or website). you can then "play trains" with your actual rolling stock, before committing to fixing the track down.

 

Personally, I find that learning the quirks of sotware takes so long that pencil, paper and masking tape are quicker, but then I'm possibly an old fogey.

You can download templates from the Peco website and print them: https://peco-uk.com/collections/turn-out-crossing-plans

 

Even after designing my layout in software I printed out all the pointwork and tried it in place - and halfway through track laying I'm still tweaking things...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My planning starts with a pencil and paper. When the sketch looks right operationally I put sections on the computer juggling it to fit the chosen type if track.

For my current layout I cut some lining paper to the proposed baseboard sizes and printed templates 1:1  for all of the track. These were stuck down to see if the proposal looked right before drawing the layout on the baseboards.

 

7 hours ago, davegardnerisme said:

 

There is no reason for this. The excuse is lack of attention when laying and glueing the track!

When laying my track I held it down with drawing pins at the sleeper ends to check it still looked right. I pushed a couple of coaches and some wagons around to check lengths and spacings, doing the necessary tweaks to iron out curves. I find these work better adjusted by eye and test running rather than slavishly following the computer. Then when happy I marked the final track outline before fixing down properly with droppers already soldered on. Lesson learned from getting it wrong in the past.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.