"Hawkesbury" - the engine shed area is no more.....

[Chimer]

3 hours ago, halsey said:

Better??

 

Much better for vehicle access, but I still think that's the wrong sort of building for that location.  Something like the Metcalf Goods Shed would sit much better there I think.

 

Cheers, Chris

[halsey]

55 minutes ago, Chimer said:

 

Much better for vehicle access, but I still think that's the wrong sort of building for that location.  Something like the Metcalf Goods Shed would sit much better there I think.

 

Cheers, Chris

 

Coincidentally I have one of those awaiting construction next!

J

Edited May 13, 2021 by halsey

[halsey]

Hmmmmmmm,

 

Before I go too far with my most recent (last winter) layout revision thoughts - over the summer my mind has wandered around introducing 009 within Hawkesbury - probably by re-purposing the canal/brewery section.

 

IF the main line turnout was "stopped" with a short spur/siding and the remaining 3 sidings completely removed what could be achieved and what would be right - thoughts on a postcard please........(that shows my age) 

 

J

Edited September 23, 2021 by halsey

[Tallpaul69]

1 hour ago, halsey said:

Hmmmmmmm,

 

Before I go too far with my most recent (last winter) layout revision thoughts - over the summer my mind has wandered around introducing 009 within Hawkesbury - probably by re-purposing the canal/brewery section.

 

IF the main line turnout was "stopped" with a short spur/siding and the remaining 3 sidings completely removed what could be achieved and what would be right - thoughts on a postcard please........(that shows my age) 

 

J

Hi Jules,

Apologies for lack of input since May but I have been rather busy after the delivery my own layout!

 

I think you are in danger of trying to get a quart into a pint pot, and that you will regret minimising your mainline sidings.

While often, less is more, I don't think a minimal 009 will compensate for the loss of 00 capacity and buildings.

 

But at the end of the day, it is your layout.

 

Best regards

Paul

[halsey]

14 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Hi Jules,

Apologies for lack of input since May but I have been rather busy after the delivery my own layout!

 

I think you are in danger of trying to get a quart into a pint pot, and that you will regret minimising your mainline sidings.

While often, less is more, I don't think a minimal 009 will compensate for the loss of 00 capacity and buildings.

 

But at the end of the day, it is your layout.

 

Best regards

Paul

 

I agree but it's a serious "trial" of 009 as this might be the beginning of a complete rethink new project for next winter to finally get away from the dreaded lift out section.

 

My current thinking with nil experience is that 009 might be too much of a fiddle with ageing fingers and all I have see so far is very "toy" like.

 

Also I do want my final layout to provide for continuous running but I also want it smaller so it gives me back some of my log cabin for other projects - 009 allows for re-use of all buildings and backdrops and general 00 "stuff".

 

No rush and plenty of time to experiment.................

 

I assume 009 can run with DCC and my current controllers - which chips are best - everything is Zimo in Bachmann locos at present 

[Chimer]

Quick and dirty, developing our PM discussion .......

 

 

I've used 00 set-track points for the 009 section (in blue) as I didn't want to load more parameter files into XTC.

 

Green is lifted track to make room for the interchange platform (which could also offer end loading for standard gauge vehicles).

 

The idea is to suggest the 009 goes on to something significant (docks, quarry, colliery) beyond the canal basin, which justifies the narrow-gauge railway (which a link from the canal basin to Hawkesbury goods yard certainly wouldn't, on its own).  You might be able to use a cassette to swop stock around there ....

 

Think I should have added an extra crossover between the two canal sidings to form another run-round loop, but will leave that for another day.

 

Hope this generates some debate!

 

Chris

 

P.S.  You might want to ask the Mods to move this back to "Layout and Track Design" or start a new thread there?

 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Chimer
Late thought

[halsey]

On 23/09/2021 at 16:47, Tallpaul69 said:

Hi Jules,

Apologies for lack of input since May but I have been rather busy after the delivery my own layout!

 

I think you are in danger of trying to get a quart into a pint pot, and that you will regret minimising your mainline sidings.

While often, less is more, I don't think a minimal 009 will compensate for the loss of 00 capacity and buildings.

 

But at the end of the day, it is your layout.

 

Best regards

Paul

 

Hi Paul,

Having been thinking/playing with ideas over the last few days (now winter is upon us!) I have arrived at a few conclusions - too much rolling stock is causing me "indigestion" when I want to have a short operating session - hence various items now on RM classifieds - it seemed logical to remove the diesel theme and some wagons - the comment re operational 00 sidings is one I am reflecting further upon as you might be right!

Also I have simplified the bridge so I really can and will move it - it had grown into a bridge with a collection of easily moveable buildings backscene inserts etc and that was stopping me taking it apart - it is now a more simple affair.

Chris' input is still of interest but might fuel a complete re-think next year rather than a trial fix now.

Cheers..........

J

 

[halsey]

On 29/09/2021 at 17:10, Chimer said:

Quick and dirty, developing our PM discussion .......

 

 

I've used 00 set-track points for the 009 section (in blue) as I didn't want to load more parameter files into XTC.

 

Green is lifted track to make room for the interchange platform (which could also offer end loading for standard gauge vehicles).

 

The idea is to suggest the 009 goes on to something significant (docks, quarry, colliery) beyond the canal basin, which justifies the narrow-gauge railway (which a link from the canal basin to Hawkesbury goods yard certainly wouldn't, on its own).  You might be able to use a cassette to swop stock around there ....

 

Think I should have added an extra crossover between the two canal sidings to form another run-round loop, but will leave that for another day.

 

Hope this generates some debate!

 

Chris

 

P.S.  You might want to ask the Mods to move this back to "Layout and Track Design" or start a new thread there?

 

 

Just at the moment rather than pondering the benefits of trialling 009 I'm pondering the loss of quite a lot of 00 sidings and thinking about just having a single track to the canal for some 009 fun coming/going from/to the 45deg baseboard corner?

J

[halsey]

Where I'm at now with my thoughts is best shown in photos/sketches

 

The 2 photos show the current scene with all buildings etc removed

 

The first sketch is of the current track layout as photos

 

The 2nd sketch is my thoughts of a way to logically introduce 009 by relaying and shortening the "top" 00 siding and introducing a transfer platform.

 

Then shortening the two other 00 sidings (to roughly where the wagons are lined up in the 2nd photo) to give some "breathing space".

 

Then to get in a respectable radius'd curve from the bottom r/h 45 deg baseboard edge/corner with a single narrow track notionally coming from a quarry etc with a headshunt/return (using a r/h turnout) at the top to either facilitate load transfers from/to the 00 tracks or to get alongside the wharf and load/unload the waiting canal boats

 

Thoughts??

 

Jumping ahead - I'm going to make the 3 or 4 009 wagons so advice on kits would be good and also I would like to try making a loco/shunter but it must be DCC - again any thoughts please (RTR loco thoughts also of interest)

 

J

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2021 by halsey

[Chimer]

Could work, but not easy to get a track from the side of the canal to the 45 degree baseboard corner, though the kickback partially solves that.  You'll need a big crane to shift cargo from canal to standard gauge.  Not a lot of operational scope for the 009, but perhaps enough for proof of concept.  I think your first idea was better ...... using sharp 009 curves in the canal basin area gives you more options than if you leave the standard gauge in there.  In my opinion ....... 

[halsey]

39 minutes ago, Chimer said:

Could work, but not easy to get a track from the side of the canal to the 45 degree baseboard corner, though the kickback partially solves that.  You'll need a big crane to shift cargo from canal to standard gauge.  Not a lot of operational scope for the 009, but perhaps enough for proof of concept.  I think your first idea was better ...... using sharp 009 curves in the canal basin area gives you more options than if you leave the standard gauge in there.  In my opinion ....... 

 

Perhaps a compromise might be out there somewhere??????

 

I don't want to lose all three 00 sidings so perhaps just losing the "top" one and stop trying to link the canal and the 00 might work.

 

If the top one is removed completely there is a reasonable sized space if the 45 deg corner is the focus - thoughts??

[halsey]

On 29/09/2021 at 17:10, Chimer said:

Quick and dirty, developing our PM discussion .......

 

 

I've used 00 set-track points for the 009 section (in blue) as I didn't want to load more parameter files into XTC.

 

Green is lifted track to make room for the interchange platform (which could also offer end loading for standard gauge vehicles).

 

The idea is to suggest the 009 goes on to something significant (docks, quarry, colliery) beyond the canal basin, which justifies the narrow-gauge railway (which a link from the canal basin to Hawkesbury goods yard certainly wouldn't, on its own).  You might be able to use a cassette to swop stock around there ....

 

Think I should have added an extra crossover between the two canal sidings to form another run-round loop, but will leave that for another day.

 

Hope this generates some debate!

 

Chris

 

P.S.  You might want to ask the Mods to move this back to "Layout and Track Design" or start a new thread there?

 

 

 

I have just asked Andy to move it so "we" get more input

J

[halsey]

Just a crude measurement diagram of the potential 009 space to help others (other than @Chimer)

Hopefully its easy to understand the hatched area is the max space available for the self contained 009 - assuming the shortening of the 2 parallel 00 sidings as above and now the complete removal of the "top" 00 Canal side siding and that it arrives/departs from the 45 deg baseboard corner

 

Edited October 2, 2021 by halsey

[halsey]

16 hours ago, Chimer said:

Could work, but not easy to get a track from the side of the canal to the 45 degree baseboard corner, though the kickback partially solves that.  You'll need a big crane to shift cargo from canal to standard gauge.  Not a lot of operational scope for the 009, but perhaps enough for proof of concept.  I think your first idea was better ...... using sharp 009 curves in the canal basin area gives you more options than if you leave the standard gauge in there.  In my opinion ....... 

 

 

I do want to keep more of the 00 siding space than with my very first thoughts but if we accept that it won't directly serve the canal except via a transfer platform process then it feels as though the (3) 00 sidings could be accessed as now from the goods line but could lie much more to the left without needing the somewhat useless curves which do take up quite a bit of space.

 

I think there is then scope to create a little more operational space within this even further improved 009 layout space with the only givens being the "destination " still being from/to the 45 deg corner and track with a kickback being tight to the canal edge - can you (and your software) now inject a bit more fun?

 

This is not an academic exercise as I am going to do it  - I only envisage one loco and 6-8 wagons which I am actively sourcing.

 

Continuing thanks

 

J

[Zomboid]

You could make the canal siding dual gauge.

 

I haven't looked into it in any depth, but tillig do dual gauge track and the associated bifurcations

 

https://www.dccconcepts.com/product-category/track-and-track-making-parts/tillig-elite-track-and-pointwork/tillig-hoe-and-hohoe-dual-gauge-track-and-pointwork/

 

Then maybe put some more NG in the place of the other two sidings.

Edited October 2, 2021 by Zomboid

[halsey]

5 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

You could make the canal siding dual gauge.

 

I haven't looked into it in any depth, but tillig do dual gauge track and the associated bifurcations

 

https://www.dccconcepts.com/product/flex-track-hohoe-wooden-sleeper-680mm-single/

 

Then maybe put some more NG in the place of the other two sidings.

 

Wow thanks for that - I didn't even know it existed but its a bit pricey - esp the turnouts - I probably want to do something truly separate as part of the overall "experiment".

Cheers 

J

[Tallpaul69]

6 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

You could make the canal siding dual gauge.

 

I haven't looked into it in any depth, but tillig do dual gauge track and the associated bifurcations

 

https://www.dccconcepts.com/product/flex-track-hohoe-wooden-sleeper-680mm-single/

 

Then maybe put some more NG in the place of the other two sidings.

Dual gauge sounds interesting, and certainly something different!

However, not sure about the DCC operation of it?

 

It seems to me that the key to success in the 009 idea is making something that has 009 operational interest without reducing the 00 sidings too much and loosing the operational interest of that.

Keep going Jules, the answer is out there somewhere!

Cheers

Paul

[halsey]

3 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Dual gauge sounds interesting, and certainly something different!

However, not sure about the DCC operation of it?

 

It seems to me that the key to success in the 009 idea is making something that has 009 operational interest without reducing the 00 sidings too much and loosing the operational interest of that.

Keep going Jules, the answer is out there somewhere!

Cheers

Paul

 

Hmmmmmm

 

The crossover looks useful though?? I have asked if it works with Peco 00-009

 

J

[Zomboid]

You could probably get away with just a straight bit along the quayside. Standard gauge entering from one end, and narrow from the other.

 

It would probably be pretty trivial stuff for someone who knows how to build their own track, but that's no use unless you know someone...

[halsey]

OK - so I have made a start by removing all the 00 gauge track and placing what I think is a good solution for the 00 sidings taking up much less space with a suggested placement of the transfer track/platform - all the rest is open for 009 with a thought that it might access the layout via the gatehouse archway and an absolute given that the 009 must run along the wharf side - the rest is up for suggestions to achieve optimum operating potential?

 

The transfer platform area might be better achieved by shortening the right hand 00 and aligning it with the other two 00 sidings and then allow the easier curves of the 009 to locate the transfer platform within that area rather than by the canal this would allow more 009 operational space esp for a kickback/run around of some value

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by halsey

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi @halsey, as I like to look through both the Layout Planning and the Narrow Gauge Modelling Forums (Fora?), I’d been reading the updates to this thread shortly before I saw your post asking for pointers in the NG section of RMweb.  I’m not an experienced NG modeller so others will be able to add more, but if I might share a few basic pointers I’ve found helpful:

 

1.  Simple statement of the obvious: while scenery is the same size (big advantage: the Metcalfe / Superquick kits you use don’t get smaller), when it comes to track laying and rolling stock it can be like working in N-Gauge, so things like fishplates and bogies / wheel sets are half the size (which means one quarter the area and one eighth the volume).  Don’t worry - I’ve found it just takes a bit of getting used to - the only time I’ve wondered if switching to NG was wise was the first time I tried to fit an 009 bogie underneath a coach.  So it is worth persisting.

 

2.  If you’re looking at r-t-r 009, some of the stuff available now is fantastic, but it’s not going to be cheaper than OO (if budgeting to buy new, assume the same per wagon / coach / locomotive - sometimes more, due to lower volumes).  Again, this may be obvious, but some people still think NG modelling will be intrinsically cheaper than SG.

 

3.  If you’re looking at Peco 009 Setrack, please be aware of the following:

• Short wheelbase 009 locomotives can have a tendency to stall on the Peco Setrack Insulfrog points (larger Streamline points have live frogs).
• Some of the new r-t-r 009 locomotives will only go round 12” radius curves, not the Setrack 9”.
• The range of r-t-r track is more limited, so some modellers use N-Gauge track anyway - for a Quayside where the track may be inset anyway, this shouldn’t be a problem.

4.  As of today, I think it’s fair to say that DCC is not as widely used in NG as in SG modelling, just to be aware.

 

I’m afraid I don’t have any spare NG track to pass on (it’s been as scarce as every other sort), but I hope this helps.  You will have fun, Keith.

[halsey]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Hi @halsey, as I like to look through both the Layout Planning and the Narrow Gauge Modelling Forums (Fora?), I’d been reading the updates to this thread shortly before I saw your post asking for pointers in the NG section of RMweb.  I’m not an experienced NG modeller so others will be able to add more, but if I might share a few basic pointers I’ve found helpful:

 

1.  Simple statement of the obvious: while scenery is the same size (big advantage: the Metcalfe / Superquick kits you use don’t get smaller), when it comes to track laying and rolling stock it can be like working in N-Gauge, so things like fishplates and bogies / wheel sets are half the size (which means one quarter the area and one eighth the volume).  Don’t worry - I’ve found it just takes a bit of getting used to - the only time I’ve wondered if switching to NG was wise was the first time I tried to fit an 009 bogie underneath a coach.  So it is worth persisting.

 

2.  If you’re looking at r-t-r 009, some of the stuff available now is fantastic, but it’s not going to be cheaper than OO (if budgeting to buy new, assume the same per wagon / coach / locomotive - sometimes more, due to lower volumes).  Again, this may be obvious, but some people still think NG modelling will be intrinsically cheaper than SG.

 

3.  If you’re looking at Peco 009 Setrack, please be aware of the following:

• Short wheelbase 009 locomotives can have a tendency to stall on the Peco Setrack Insulfrog points (larger Streamline points have live frogs).
• Some of the new r-t-r 009 locomotives will only go round 12” radius curves, not the Setrack 9”.
• The range of r-t-r track is more limited, so some modellers use N-Gauge track anyway - for a Quayside where the track may be inset anyway, this shouldn’t be a problem.

4.  As of today, I think it’s fair to say that DCC is not as widely used in NG as in SG modelling, just to be aware.

 

I’m afraid I don’t have any spare NG track to pass on (it’s been as scarce as every other sort), but I hope this helps.  You will have fun, Keith.

 

Hi Keith and thanks for this,

 

I'm not a fan of Setrack in 00 so would instinctively keep clear anyway "live frogs" will be new to me but not a problem.

 

I'm thinking RTR locos, to ensure DCC, isn't an issue but to make my 009 wagons.

 

I don't have any illusions re costs as if anything on first review 009 stuff seems more expensive

 

I know I will have fun as I already am!

 

J

 

 

Edited October 3, 2021 by halsey

[Chimer]

Maybe too late now, but just for completeness, here is an improved version of my original approach.

 

 

I did briefly consider dual gauge along the canal wharf, but thought in model form it might be too difficult.

 

Cheers, Chris

[halsey]

22 minutes ago, Chimer said:

Maybe too late now, but just for completeness, here is an improved version of my original approach.

 

 

I did briefly consider dual gauge along the canal wharf, but thought in model form it might be too difficult.

 

Cheers, Chris

 

Thanks for this Chris I look forward to seeing your interpretation for the revised true space - don't want dual gauge but something that is truly independent but connected via a transfer platform solution

 

Cheers

 

J

[halsey]

On 29/09/2021 at 17:10, Chimer said:

Quick and dirty, developing our PM discussion .......

 

 

I've used 00 set-track points for the 009 section (in blue) as I didn't want to load more parameter files into XTC.

 

Green is lifted track to make room for the interchange platform (which could also offer end loading for standard gauge vehicles).

 

The idea is to suggest the 009 goes on to something significant (docks, quarry, colliery) beyond the canal basin, which justifies the narrow-gauge railway (which a link from the canal basin to Hawkesbury goods yard certainly wouldn't, on its own).  You might be able to use a cassette to swop stock around there ....

 

Think I should have added an extra crossover between the two canal sidings to form another run-round loop, but will leave that for another day.

 

Hope this generates some debate!

 

Chris

 

P.S.  You might want to ask the Mods to move this back to "Layout and Track Design" or start a new thread there?

 

 

 

Looking at this in more detail I think with the addition of a run around on the canal sidings it might be a good fit within the new space - your second attempt was perhaps too busy?

 

I have laid out revised 00 sidings thoughts and then some plain paper and sketched in VERY roughly to Chris first plan - I think it looks pretty good and takes up about the right amount of space to allow for buildings etc.

 

The foreground run around needs to be shorter so the turnout spacing works better and the transfer platform is obviously in the btm LH corner just out of sight but it tests the feel...........

 

6 lengths of 009 track and 6 turnouts (3LH 3RH) needed to get going  

 

J

 

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by halsey