Space-efficient traverser design

[Izzy]

On 19/12/2019 at 23:17, Lacathedrale said:

I guess (!) the problem is that the exit track of the layout is the headshunt for basically all movements, so would always require an empty cassette there. A traverser would be a gentle pull to align the tracks while operating, whereas a cassette would neccesitate 'restaging' for every train by getting up, physically moving the cassette to a shelf and getting a new one down.

Some years back I built a few layouts in succession based around the use of cassettes but eventually came to the conclusion that while they can work quite well with layouts where all the movement(s) take place on the viewable section, any that use the ‘fiddle’ section to complete moves need something quicker/easier as you surmise.  I found it a real fag to spend perhaps as much as 70/80% of the operating session just continually changing them for the simplest of sequences. I now consider the traverser/sector plate type to be far better all round than cassettes.

 

Izzy

[DCB]

Seems to me either this is an ideal location for the "Hockey stick Traverser."  It moves length ways 20mm or thereabouts per road, Normal traversers move sideways 50 mm per road with the right angle curve a 6 road moves 100 mm 4"sideways  instead of 250mm 10"n pf the standard traverser.

The spacing is set so roads 1 and 4, 2 and 5 plus 3 and 6 align simultaneously, yet all roads align with both Up and Down tracks.

the curves leading from it widen out to normal spacing so the first 2 feet maybe are unusable but less wasted space than the pointwork and much more flexible.

 

Otherwise do as Ron Ron Ron says, a vertical traverser or lift to sidings or a traverser on the low level under the station.  Now I would arrange a top level which sits over the Traverser well and provides a headshunt for the outgoing line when the lift is down. That way the lift deck can move most of its travel while shunting continues, it is going to take an appreciable time for the lift to descend or ascend, well ascend, you could drop the lift deck very quickly!

Actually there is no reason for the outgoing track lift to have the power to raise a train, as long as it can lower the train reasonably gently and raise itself that is all that's needed, the incoming lift needs to raise the train but shunting would not normally be done on the incoming main so the time to rise is not so critical.

Edited December 22, 2019 by DavidCBroad

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

A bit of a left field idea, but why not just rotate the layout so the fiddle yard is at the left hand side, then the exit/entry tracks will be at the front?

 

Mike

[unravelled]

Could you steal a bit of length from the hidden part of the scenic board and make  a parallelogram traverser. The direction of slide would be parallel to the face of the scenic break bridge, which would stay where it is. The traverser track length would be a bit longer than on the original design. There is a possibility that the front right of such a traverser would hit the side wall, before full extension was reached, but I can't be sure without drawing it out.

 

Dave

(purveyor of silly ideas...)

[DCB]

Seems to me r this is an ideal location for the "Hockey stick Traverser."  It moves length ways 20mm or thereabouts per road, Normal traversers move sideways 50 mm per road with the right angle curve a 6 road moves 100 mm 4"sideways  instead of 250mm 10"n pf the standard traverser.

The spacing is set so roads 1 and 4, 2 and 5 plus 3 and 6 align simultaneously, yet all roads align with both Up and Down tracks.

The curves leading from it widen out to normal spacing so the first 2 feet maybe are unusable. I would use the same radius curve for all of them starting with varying lengths of straight to get the  separation started as quickly as possible.  This less wasted space is less than the pointwork in the FY design and much more flexible.   Its like a moveable baseboard, supported on slides, or wheels in channels. only the guide rail adjacent to the main board need to be precisely aligned, the others just guide the board. I would use Aluminium channel or actually I have some Dexion angle iron.  It should work very freely compared with a sideways traverser, and the jolts will be pretty much lenghways on the trains not sideways blows which derail stock.  You could even power it with a couple of old power bogies if you were that way inclined.   Its different and not something which Bachmann or Nelevator are likely to come up with any time soon.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by DavidCBroad

[DCB]

Drawn in Anyrail wth 3rd radius curves.  Usable length around 1/2 way around the curve.  The longer it is the more space efficient compared to conventional transverse traverser.

[Lacathedrale]

Interesting, David - I'd not thought of pairing FY tracks to get a much closer spacing at the neck of the traverser. Also, I guess one benefit of OO over EM/S/O-MF is that I can use setrack and not have to worry about kinks in the areas where clearances are already going to be tight!

 

So, this has gone from a straight yard with 41" clearance for 39.5" FY tracks, to a hockey stick traverser (though the suggestions of pulleys, winches, revolvers, etc. are really interesting to read I'm just not that confident I could pull it off).  The other, 'final' choice is to move the layout from my study (with the wall and window arrangement previously discussed), into my spare bedroom. This room has alot more space for a curved FY, it would look something like this:

 

 

Though this seems to be monstrously out of proportion, it actually meets a bunch of short and long term goals:

• While at home, I don't have to mess around with cassettes, a traverser or anti-gravity device. There is no connection from the up to down lines off-scene, but that long, large radius curve would be excellent fodder for a hand laid scissors and a second cameo - and If it becomes mandatory before I get around to building one by hand, I'm sure I could add a short crossover between the yards.
• I can connect A-A together directly if I ever exhibit the layout, for a traditional linear arrangement. The FY and scenic boards should stack nicely (since the FY can be the standard folding design - another Minories callback, ha!). This is why it's important that the Home Curve doesn't contain any FY-relevant pointwork - though I guess it could contain pointwork that's only used by the FY - for example a Cannon Street style MPD, or an optional headshunt or carriage road (as per @t-b-g's suggestion).
• If the space to host the layout in this arrangement becomes unavailable in future, I can still fabricate the  FY/traverser/cassette arrangements  discussed in this thread (which is why I haven't adjusted the length of the scenic boards even though there's more space available).
• The cost and complexity of a couple of ply boxes with four turnouts is SIGNIFICANTLY less than any of the compact arrangements.

I'm aware that the FY track arrangement would be more efficient if staggered rather than in-line, but it would make A-A alignment impossible, or reduce the capacity by a line (i.e. both up and down would share a single FY track in the middle). As you can see, my current longest train fits easily into the shortest track. I can also fit a Bulleid Pacific and four Mk1's - depicted in pink - in the longer tracks, so I think that fairly sorts me! I've also lengthened the platform roads as per @Nearholmer's suggestion and I've fiddled with the platform ends and all trains (for which the layout is currently designed) fit in beyond the notional platform starters with a little room to spare. I can imagine a bolt-on section to the right hand side of this which would extend the tracks under an overall roof/etc. as per the original minories if I ended up being overly concerned with train length in future.

 

Though this is a divergence, I think it is wholly in the spirit of the discussion so would gladly take comment or criticism.

[t-b-g]

That last design has a sort of elegance and simplicity that some f the earlier versions just missed somehow.

 

You can set up 6 trains, have one or two in the station already and operate for quite a while until you have all 6 fiddle yard roads full again. A couple of minutes to swap locos around and you are ready to go again.

 

Speaking from experience, that is much more enjoyable than any arrangement that requires constant attention to the fiddle yard between moves. 

 

There comes a time when you have to stop thinking and start building.

 

If it was my layout, that would be now!

[ColinK]

I agree with the above post; I have a similar arrangement for my layout and it works well at home and at exhibitions. Each fiddle yard road is long enough for loco - train - loco, so by shunting light engines about we never need to touch a loco. When trains arrive on the FY the loco is uncoupled automatically by kadee magnets in the track (use the ones that uncouple only).

 

If you are using DCC you can use route setting (very easy on a NCE powerPro) so 1 sets up road 1, 2 road 2 etc. so the operator(s) can sit by the station and never have to run back and fro to the fiddle yard.

 

if space is limited you can shorten the FY by a loco length by using Peco loco lifts to remove the loco by hand.

 

I do like your curved corner piece - something similar would have been useful on my layout. Its about 15 feet long and fitted in the loft at my previous house, but its too long to erect in my current abode - a corner piece would have solved the problem.

 

I’ll be exhibiting at Chapel-en-le-Frith in February, if you are able to come along introduce yourself and have a look. I may dismantle the layout afterwards.

[Lacathedrale]

Thank you all for your help and advice, the cutting of the sod is imminent.

 

My only real remaining question is how to handle the viaduct - I'm using Tim Horn baseboards, so should I trace and cut out the track plan from the surface board and raise it up on vertical risers, or build it as designed and add a viaduct in afterwards?

 

Kind regards,

[t-b-g]

One of my layouts had a viaduct like that screening the exit. I kept the structural integrity of the baseboards intact and added a viaduct made of card after all the track was laid, ballasted and tested. From experience, ballasting under any bridge is tricky if you have to do it with the bridge fixed in place!

[Lacathedrale]

Well in this case, the viaduct is what is carrying the track - that's what I meant!

[Satan's Goldfish]

Just one observation: if your A-A track spacing is such that the fiddle yard can either be connected to the curve or in a straight line to the scenic layout; for exhibition purposes, rather than making the layout 1 long straight, it might be easier from an operators POV to still use the curve but orientated to take the fiddle yard backwards rather than forwards as drawn. Much less distance to plod along when turning locomotives. Plus if you do decide to hand build a curved scissors on that board then that can be used either way around too.

 

HTH

[Satan's Goldfish]

Also, don't cut the TH board for the track bed on a raised viaduct; build the track bed and viaduct structure separately and plonk it on top of the 'as designed' TH board, will be good and strong that way.

[Lacathedrale]

Here's a render of the new arrangement, I think it works nicely.

 

As @Satan's Goldfish good point - it might be better for the curve to be double-sided, maybe a slot for a backscene on either side? Something to think about (in future, not now - additionally whlie I'm fairly certain I could fit effectively three modular baseboards in the back seat of a car, I'm not sure I could fit a 4' x 3'6" corner piece!)

 

 

I figure the station board would be fine to be build as-is with a viaduct plonked ontop since there's no pointwork - there will be a scissors, three-way, double slip and another turnout adjacent each other on the throat board viaduct. I guess large access holes cut into the surface of the TH board along with a removable viaduct would give the best of both worlds in that case?

 

The only reason I want to be sure, is that I can start building the tim-horn boards right now, and I don't want to get it all together only to find that I should have been lopping bits out post-hoc

 

I'm wondering if a large building like that shown at Ludgate below, might be a more effective scene-break than a rail overbridge:

 

 

Unfortunately for better or worse I don't think there's much chance of a bridge on the station throat with all the pointwork!

Edited December 28, 2019 by Lacathedrale

[t-b-g]

13 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Well in this case, the viaduct is what is carrying the track - that's what I meant!

 

My apologies! I misunderstood and thought you were talking about the bridge with tracks on masking the scenic exit. I would agree that keeping the main boards intact and creating a raised track bed would be my preferred choice. Anything else would add a lot of work altering parts that are designed to go together a certain way to the point where you might as well have not used a kit at all. It would also do away with much of the structural integrity of the laser cut boards.

[Lacathedrale]

Thank you - it is a bit of a dilemma to figure out. Although I will end up recreating most of the left hand station board at platform (viaduct) level, I just don't think I can face the carpentry required to draft the lot out of open frame honeycomb.

 

The Peco equivalent is as follows (purple showing cutouts, light green grid at 6" spacing, yellow bars representing the footings of the viaduct piece):

 

 

I think I'll have to lay that middle crossing by hand, since the scissors is slightly curved - generally it's a little annoying that the Bullhead threeway, double slip and crossing are not yet available - I am considering taking a leaf from @MartinWynne and the excellent work on Eastwood Town, to attempt to hand lay the throat in 4-SF - I've always liked tracklaying and had a modicum of success in it in 2mmFS, so I feel that this should be doable too. If I am able to hand lay, this is what it would look like:

 

 

There's really not much in it, is there? About 3" in length and very slightly wider spacing on the right hand exit! Either way I've already ordered the gauges from C&L, and have a decent amount of pointwork timbers/etc. so just waiting on delivery and I'll get a test turnout knocked up. I'm debating the relative merits of both approaches - I've had so, so many layouts which have never gotten past track-laying I'm wondering to myself if I just bite the bullet and buy a streamline code 75 assymmetric point and short crossing until the bullhead version becomes available!

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Lacathedrale