Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, TonyMay said:

Often the builder/operator wants the best view from the operating position, but at the same time wants to access the fiddle yard.  The solution of an open fiddle yard meanwhile shows your audience the backstage. 

 

Unless the viewer has eyes in the back of their head they won't see the offstage of this layout while facing the scenic area from the operating well.  In any case, most home layouts are operated solo most of the time and suspension of disbelief when playing trains is best aided by a convenient offstage storage system that doesn't need too much distracting fiddling.  

 

On 07/03/2020 at 00:19, Harlequin said:

Cassettes are 1m long and spaced apart so they are easier to handle individually.

 

I can see the attraction of cassettes for this layout as there really isn't much room for storage offscene once the station and removable section are accommodated.  The original storage loops even if simplified as suggested would hold only four trains.  However, they could probably be made to fit the loco plus five express that Aire Head wants to run, which a 1m cassette would not.

 

My solution would be I think to use the loops for simplicity and compromise on operation, with one each of express, stopping passenger, pick-up goods (on the correct line to shunt the yard) plus another (fitted freight, parcels or whatever you like) running in seqence to give an impression of the prototype.  Changing of locos and stock between runs for variety would be possible but would probably need to be manual (although perhaps loco-lifts could be used), but otherwise the kind of full-timetable operation seen on layouts with much bigger fiddle yards wouldn't be attempted.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Can you explain why?

 

In the context of Aire Head's layout they could solve multiple issues and so they might be worth the potential downsides.

 

I was referring to my own experience with Herculaneum Dock. We used a cassette fiddle system for many years but since it has been eventually converted to a (fairly) conventional fiddle yard exhibition operation is much better. That cassette system only involved shuffling them on a flat board with very little lifting involved and certainly no turning (the locos were on separate short lengths) - your suggestion would involve lifting whole trains off the layout and storing somewhere else, I wouldn't do it unless there was no alternative.

Only my opinion but I have been there and done that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Hi @Aire Head,

 

I have a cunning new idea. To know if it would work, can I ask you: When the door is open 90 degrees, what is the gap between the wall and the back of the door? And is the door 768mm wide?

 

Edit: Supplementary question: What max train length are you realistically targeting now?

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

So looking at my design and my stock list maximum train length realistically is between 4/5 foot in length.

 

Expectation is that 5 train can be on the layout including fiddle yard as at a push you could use one of the two relief lines as a form onlf on scene fiddle yard . However this will be challenging and 4 maximum seems most likely assessment(Might add to the fun)

 

My thoughts are to have the following rakes to represent what would be seen in the area at most. Please note that this is a best hope and quite prepared for it to not be realistic

 

1 xv4/5 ex LMS corridor stock (this rake takes up 4 foot minus locomotive at its maximum length

 

1x Pick up good 12/15 wagons max

 

2x 15/20 wagon goods trains

 

1x parcels rake never more that a couple of BGs and a couple of CCTs most likely.

 

Again this is not a requirement but a wish :jester:

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aire Head said:

My thoughts are to have the following rakes to represent what would be seen in the area at most

 

That sounds good, though I agree that five trains sounds like a squeeze.  However, if you could arrange another shortish storage loop, would a three-coach stopping passenger be an appropriate alternative to one of the goods, possibly with a tank engine to keep the length down? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

possibly with a tank engine to keep the length down? 

 

Unfortunately I suspect a 2P would be more the thing at this time and place - but hardly much longer than the alternative, a 2-6-4T.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

That sounds good, though I agree that five trains sounds like a squeeze.  However, if you could arrange another shortish storage loop, would a three-coach stopping passenger be an appropriate alternative to one of the goods, possibly with a tank engine to keep the length down? 

 

 

50 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Unfortunately I suspect a 2P would be more the thing at this time and place - but hardly much longer than the alternative, a 2-6-4T.

 

Generally most what would be considered local passenger work is largely in the hands of either the big tank engines or small tender Locomotives. Pretty much everything could and would be run behind large tender Locomotives aswell

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aire Head said:

 

 

 

Generally most what would be considered local passenger work is largely in the hands of either the big tank engines or small tender Locomotives. Pretty much everything could and would be run behind large tender Locomotives aswell

 

Basically, you could run the entire layout with a single Black Five.  Very economical.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aire Head said:

 

I would argue that you could do this with most layouts ;)

 

I think you should raise this point on the Wright Writes thread. It would be an enormous boon for folk who insist on building all their locos only to have to build one.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I think you should raise this point on the Wright Writes thread. It would be an enormous boon for folk who insist on building all their locos only to have to build one.

 

I'm bold not suicidal :jester:

  • Funny 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to fiddle yard musings however. Looking at the planned stock list ideally I'm looking at a 5 track yard, with 4 of them being bi-directional (the pickup goods can stick to being on the down line) I've played around and I don't think cassettes are realistic due to the size required. 

 

Are there any other ideas that have not been floated yet worth considering?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Are you open to an improved cassette idea?

 

I have worked out a scheme with a bit more flexibility than my previous idea. It uses 1080mm long cassettes - long enough for 4 Stanier corridor coaches or 3 plus loco. Locos could be handled separately. Cassettes would have side walls, lifting end stops and optional covers to keep stock safe while moving.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Are you open to an improved cassette idea?

 

I have worked out a scheme with a bit more flexibility than my previous idea. It uses 1080mm long cassettes - long enough for 4 Stanier corridor coaches or 3 plus loco. Locos could be handled separately. Cassettes would have side walls, lifting end stops and optional covers to keep stock safe while moving.

 

 

I will try anything once ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Why do they need to be bidirectional?

 

Saves having to handle stock. I could have 2 goods, a passenger and a parcels train and have the option to run them either direction without having to completely set them up from scratch each time.

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

 

Saves having to handle stock. I could have 2 goods, a passenger and a parcels train and have the option to run them either direction without having to completely set them up from scratch each time.

 

Understood, but I think this may come at a high price in terms of eating into the scenic area of the layout (which was behind my earlier comments).  Still it will be interesting to see some worked out plans.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

OK, so here's a revised version of my previous idea, which tries to make efficient use of the space by combining the access route into the operating well with the fiddle yard.

 

This concept assumes that 4-coach trains are the maximum sensible train length, given the size of the layout.

 

It uses cassettes to perform multiple functions of the traditional FY to save space:

  • Multiple storage loops (infinite!)
  • Passing loops
  • Crossovers
  • Turnout fans

154990830_EastburnConcept2.png.2430f1283e226db009ce3c16707de31a.png

 

  • Min radius: 610mm
  • There's a lifting flap in the main circuits so that continuous running is easy and separate from storage.
  • 4-coach cassettes (1080mm long) have their own separate connections, with room on (some of) the feeder tracks to place and remove locos.
  • The cassettes no longer have to be in place for the duration of a running session and so, if you are methodical about removing cassettes when they're not being used, access in and out is easy - just lift the flap. I would also suggest making rail level quite high so that it's easy to duck under when you don't want to lift the flap or remove the cassettes.
  • The inner cassette connection is double ended but the outer connections are single ended and when they are in use the door can't be opened or closed. These restrictions might seem odd but they are carefully thought out compromises to make the whole design work. (The outer cassette could be double-ended if the minimum radius was allowed to drop down to R2.)
  • The station passenger buildings hide the fact that the tracks keep turning and hide one of the cassette loop turnouts from normal viewing angles.
  • The station track plan is deliberately simple - not trying to fit a big station with lots of features into a small space.

Bad things: the curve of the platforms - but that's part of the design compromise.

 

  • Like 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Understood, but I think this may come at a high price in terms of eating into the scenic area of the layout (which was behind my earlier comments).  Still it will be interesting to see some worked out plans.  

 

It's something I need to play around with a bit. Another consideration was to try and see what the maximum number of roads I could get away with was.

 

11 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

OK, so here's a revised version of my previous idea, which tries to make efficient use of the space by combining the access route into the operating well with the fiddle yard.

 

This concept assumes that 4-coach trains are the maximum sensible train length, given the size of the layout.

 

It uses cassettes to perform multiple functions of the traditional FY to save space:

  • Multiple storage loops (infinite!)
  • Passing loops
  • Crossovers
  • Turnout fans

154990830_EastburnConcept2.png.2430f1283e226db009ce3c16707de31a.png

 

  • Min radius: 610mm
  • There's a lifting flap in the main circuits so that continuous running is easy and separate from storage.
  • 4-coach cassettes (1080mm long) have their own separate connections, with room on (some of) the feeder tracks to place and remove locos.
  • The cassettes no longer have to be in place for the duration of a running session and so, if you are methodical about removing cassettes when they're not being used, access in and out is easy - just lift the flap. I would also suggest making rail level quite high so that it's easy to duck under when you don't want to lift the flap or remove the cassettes.
  • The inner cassette connection is double ended but the outer connections are single ended and when they are in use the door can't be opened or closed. These restrictions might seem odd but they are carefully thought out compromises to make the whole design work. (The outer cassette could be double-ended if the minimum radius was allowed to drop down to R2.)
  • The station passenger buildings hide the fact that the tracks keep turning and hide one of the cassette loop turnouts from normal viewing angles.
  • The station track plan is deliberately simple - not trying to fit a big station with lots of features into a small space.

Bad things: the curve of the platforms - but that's part of the design compromise.

 

 

That's certainly very interesting and I will have a look at it and play around. Sadly my PC has just died meaning it's going to be a couple of days :cray_mini2:

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

There's enough room in that plan to put the goods shed in the usual Midland position, on a loop off the down siding:

 

916769505_Midlandstationlayoutssketch.jpg.5d45e6d1a55768d139261c3596c92a4c.jpg

 

This was the one thing that has really irked me about my plan so far. I just couldn't get the loop to work!

 

I would also like to add an additional trailing crossover as shown in your top plan so I can also use the down siding as a refuge.

Edited by Aire Head
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
34 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

 

This was the one thing that has really irked me about my plan so far. I just couldn't get the loop to work!

 

I would also like to add an additional trailing crossover as shown in your top plan so I can also use the down loop as a refuge.

 

The goods shed loop might be possible by abandoning the back siding but it will be quite short.

 

Amazingly, it looks like the extra trailing crossover can be fitted in without much trouble. (I was expecting it to be a real headache.)

 

I'll post something tomorrow.

 

Remember that Compound said that the extra crossover was only needed when the down siding was also used as a refuge and that doesn't have to be the case, esp. at a smaller station. And not all Midland stations followed the archetypal pattern. (Just thinking about the less-is-more principle... :wink_mini:)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
15 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

......Just thinking about the less-is-more principle... :wink_mini:

 


a very wise principal! although something I find difficult to put into practice sometimes :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
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.