Jump to content

Chilly

Shot down by the wife then ..............

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Chimer said:

That's why people designing something for this shape would usually have a station at one end and a fiddle yard at the other.  You have space for a moderate terminus top right (with a TT if you want one :)), a titchy through station bottom left and a five track fiddle yard bottom right.  Spare locos can live in loco lifts on a shelf above the fiddle yard baseboard.

So the bottom left on the straight for a titch station, what would the fiddle yard look like and how would that combine with the shelf ?

( he said cheekily :rolleyes:)

I will have a go at Scarming your top right with terminus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Main lines pass through the titchy station and a tunnel mouth which is the gateway to the rest of the (unmodeled) world.  In simplest form, the two tracks come together, then split into (probably) 5 parallel sidings long enough to take your various trains.  You could use two crossovers as we've talked about for the terminus, but that eats space.  When a train arrives, the loco uncouples and comes to rest on a loco-lift (see Peco catalogue) which enables it to be lifted (by hand), turned if desired, and replaced on the other end of the train, or more likely put on a shelf for a rest with another loco taking that train back out into your world next.  So the last 8 (ish) feet of your shelf is the "fiddle yard".  If you run goods trains with a brake van, you also need to fiddle with the brake van to shift it to the (new) rear of the train.  Other fiddling (like adding an extra coach to a rake) is equally possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the kind of thing you might be looking at

265021872_chillythroughplusFY.png.5e47b12b2ea9eef44f3f8d5ec8f8e972.png

This specific arrangement introduces a train length limit of about 4 feet, which means that you can definitely have a loco + 3 carriages, and a loco + 4 will depend on how long the loco and carriages are. Personally a loco + 3 + a CCT would be enough, but you might not be satisfied with that.

You can make the FY sidings (and hence maximum train length) longer by reducing the station length or putting the platforms on the curve. The inner track is 24" radius.

I've shown it GCR pattern with an overbridge and island platform, but there's no real reason why it couldn't be a more common 2 platform arrangement. I don't have a GCR complex by the way, but it's the obvious way to look for a 2 track heritage line...

 

Saying that, I like the idea of having two operationally different termini to play with rather than the standard issue hidden sidings. Though you're not exactly pushed for "on scene" space. Depends what you're into really.

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a read through this thread: an interesting discussion.  Cost has been mentioned, and one option if you need to phase the budget can be to get something up and running as a single track line with simplified stations as phase 1, but with the roadbed for the second line and the final station layouts planned in from the start.
 

One idea sometimes used with fiddle yards is to hide them behind a narrow sceniced feature and a scenic divide - this can be worth considering for a room with other uses depending on where the door is (ie: what is the first thing you want people to see when entering the room?).  With that approach it’s important to make sure operator access to the hidden sidings is still possible, especially when the fiddle yard is against a wall, and that you can see where the trains are in the fiddle yard when operating.
From memory, a common feature on Cyril Freezer’s plans was to have either a thin branch line terminus in front of the fiddle yard (as an alternative destination), or a dockside scene, although these ideas wouldn’t fit the heritage line theme.  A carriage siding or two could be made to look relevant next to Zomboid’s rather nice Great Central style Station, but there’d need to be some kind of crossover or headshunt to avoid facing points from the main running line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Just had a read through this thread: an interesting discussion.  Cost has been mentioned, and one option if you need to phase the budget can be to get something up and running as a single track line with simplified stations as phase 1, but with the roadbed for the second line and the final station layouts planned in from the start.
 

One idea sometimes used with fiddle yards is to hide them behind a narrow sceniced feature and a scenic divide - this can be worth considering for a room with other uses depending on where the door is (ie: what is the first thing you want people to see when entering the room?).  With that approach it’s important to make sure operator access to the hidden sidings is still possible, especially when the fiddle yard is against a wall, and that you can see where the trains are in the fiddle yard when operating.
From memory, a common feature on Cyril Freezer’s plans was to have either a thin branch line terminus in front of the fiddle yard (as an alternative destination), or a dockside scene, although these ideas wouldn’t fit the heritage line theme.  A carriage siding or two could be made to look relevant next to Zomboid’s rather nice Great Central style Station, but there’d need to be some kind of crossover or headshunt to avoid facing points from the main running line.

I have tried and tried to place a TT in but to no avail. so as I would like to keep the loco's on show I thought a loco shed on the bottom right terminus might work.

 

I like Zomboid will probably only be running 1 Loco with 3 carriages.

 

The bottom terminus station will be one long platform (so the wall side) which has a straight before the two 3 way points of 6ft, the platform on the top side between the point and the 3 way point is 4ft. The top terminus would accommodate a 1 loco +3 carriage arrangement on both platforms.504508639_PickmontDCZFlocoyard.jpg.4ea7bf8feda99cff076875d3739d73c2.jpg

 

The loco yard appears to afford storage for the non-running loco's and the top terminus appears to offer storage for the non-running carriages.

 

Not prototypical of anything but looks like a lot of enjoyment!

 

Both corners could be used for buildings etc.

 

Are there any bloopers made or suggestions for the loco yard/shed.?

 

Chilly

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking the loco yard access from there cuts one of the platforms in half and generally feels a bit unlikely. To get a loco area in that space I would probably go for an Ilfracombe style station arrangement there and the loco yard can then come off the run round line.

Share this post


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

Taking the loco yard access from there cuts one of the platforms in half and generally feels a bit unlikely. To get a loco area in that space I would probably go for an Ilfracombe style station arrangement there and the loco yard can then come off the run round line.

I have found some pictures but can't see the joint is it anything like this?

 

949757292_PickmontDCZFyardV7.jpg.8aa5489e1608910007c74337311fe52b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Taking the loco yard access from there cuts one of the platforms in half and generally feels a bit unlikely. To get a loco area in that space I would probably go for an Ilfracombe style station arrangement there and the loco yard can then come off the run round line.

I think this maybe more like it

 

910905318_PickmontDCZFYard.jpg.08a220e9fa8045160c8754889064c490.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planning a large layout is fun but building it all can be a bit overwhelming, especially if this is your first serious layout.  From personal experience I had a loft layout planned but eventually just the branch terminus actually got built.  This was because:-

a) it took much longer than I expected,

b) I continually improved my building technique and had to go back and re-do earlier efforts,

c) the plan had flaws which were too extensive to correct easily,

d) I decided to shelve OO and move to P4

This was only over about 3 years!

 

You mentioned using Peco code 100, this is tough reliable track but the most unrepresentative for OO.  This is one aspect that you might be unsatisfied with but will be stuck with if you lay all the track to start with.  Better that you experiment with different track types to see which you like the look of and at the same time hone your ballasting and weathering skills.

 

I have dabbled with DCC for an On30 layout so understand the basics but am too invested in DC for my P4 and 0-16.5 activities.  Nevertheless for a loco-heavy heritage layout I would favour DCC otherwise the wiring and number of isolation sections may be somewhat complex.  DCC wiring is relatively simple but of course initial set up is more expensive.

 

Taking point 'c' above, there is no perfect track configuration, real railways changed layouts to suit new or simplified operations all the time.  Some actually got built with flaws that made operations quite awkward, in a model this can add interest and increase movements but it may have to be carefully designed to be awkward in the right way!  Witness the number of suggestions so far in this thread.

 

Finally, you sound as though your priority in building this layout is to operate and watch the trains go by, but in building it you might find that you get as much pleasure from creating it!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Chilly said:

I think this maybe more like it

I meant change the whole station.

The character of Ilfracombe actually can be fitted into your space without too many compromises. The loco yard isn't quite right as it should have a TT, but that's not an easy thing to fit in in a couple of minutes effort, and the freight has gone (But in a heritage setting it would have gone anyway.

You'd probably have your main loco area at the other end of the line, or you could do it where Ilfracombe had its carriage sidings.

Train length in the run round line is an easy 4 carriages, 5 would probably be doable.

Chilfracombe.png.97a95d32daf86f93ac621c4b49b55c01.png

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best place for a semi-proper-looking depot might be on the far right end of the top board.  Do the top station further along the board as if it had been a through station originally, with a couple of crossovers so you can run round the train now its a terminus.

 

Chilly3.jpg.b12e977f9bebb06f7e99b73273e284a1.jpg

 

As you seem to be allowing yourself extra width at the end of the lower board now, you can fit in a proper looking terminus there.  Also solves the stretch of the imagination necessary to believe that a line was built to join two places and never went anywhere else, which is implied by two termini …..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Chimer said:

The best place for a semi-proper-looking depot might be on the far right end of the top board.  Do the top station further along the board as if it had been a through station originally, with a couple of crossovers so you can run round the train now its a terminus.

 

Chilly3.jpg.b12e977f9bebb06f7e99b73273e284a1.jpg

 

As you seem to be allowing yourself extra width at the end of the lower board now, you can fit in a proper looking terminus there.  Also solves the stretch of the imagination necessary to believe that a line was built to join two places and never went anywhere else, which is implied by two termini …..

Haha - Loughborough Central style :jester:

 

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks chaps for your input I will revisit the other person in my life (albeit virtual and known as Mistress Scarm) and will reconfigure.

 

It certainly is a learning curve but better designed on a laptop than fixed to the top of a board and regretting it :D

 

The depot moves

 

Next instalment coming

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chaps

 

The drawing board was revisited and 3 possibilities A,B or C - it is a DC layout and an imagined layout no resemblance to any where.

 

A - no X over appears to give ability to move around standing carriages at terminus and both tracks ability to access TT - not quite West Somerset

B - X over again ability to move around if not a little bit more awkward if that is the word especially for the south bound to access TT

c - no TT and lots of sidings ( cost of points probably same as a TT) again could tweak for inner to move to sidings as per A.

 

Or combination of A plus C's sidings instead of TT

 

Are any of these workable or will it be short circuit hell !

 

Thanks Chilly

 

 33611527_PickmontDCZF-A.jpg.6cb88682ec63e67eff329363f0b74fe5.jpg

1179540697_PickmontDCZFB.jpg.5b34c5f666f94acf926d43ccceed38e9.jpg

502185366_PickmontDCZFC.jpg.545dffd194077381be5c7921fffbc405.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To get the terminology right so we don't confuse one another - two points allowing trains to move from one parallel track to another form a crossover; the thing you've shown in B and C is a diamond crossing; the thing you actually need in B and C where you've got a diamond crossing is a double slip.

 

In my opinion ….

 

Top station - the slip allows an arriving train to access both the lower platforms, so B or C are better than A overall.  If you use a turntable, you haven't got any sidings anywhere for anything other than locos, so probably I'd vote for C (but you are a bit of a loco-centric I think).  You don't need the wiggle between the slip and the left-hand crossover - if you take out the two short angled straight tracks it will all line up more neatly.  

 

chilly2jpg.jpg.bc14bbe5455e385ac5be3d3eabf24006.jpg

 

Bottom station - the access to the loco sidings should be from a left-hand point either to the left of the leftmost crossover, or between that crossover and the leftmost three-way, not direct from (certainly not only from) the bottom platform road.

 

There are no short circuit issues or tricky wiring issues (except maybe the slip) with any of these designs (but of course anyone can create short circuits anywhere if they get their wires crossed).

 

I still think either terminus to through station to fiddle yard or terminus to once-through-station-now-terminus would be more believable and operationally interesting.  But hey, it's your railway :)

 

Cheers, Chris

Edited by Chimer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi Chris

 

Thanks for the input I will adjust accordingly.

 

It also explains why I got my self in a muddle as I didn't appreciate the double slip aspect, which by the way is great.

 

I thought I could perhaps store some carriages on the top left siding and perhaps the left siding at the station.

 

We are nearly there !

 

Thanks Chilly

 

 

Edited by Chilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


 

20 hours ago, Chimer said:

To get the terminology right so we don't confuse one another - two points allowing trains to move from one parallel track to another form a crossover; the thing you've shown in B and C is a diamond crossing; the thing you actually need in B and C where you've got a diamond crossing is a double slip.

 

In my opinion ….

 

Top station - the slip allows an arriving train to access both the lower platforms, so B or C are better than A overall.  If you use a turntable, you haven't got any sidings anywhere for anything other than locos, so probably I'd vote for C (but you are a bit of a loco-centric I think).  You don't need the wiggle between the slip and the left-hand crossover - if you take out the two short angled straight tracks it will all line up more neatly.  

 

chilly2jpg.jpg.bc14bbe5455e385ac5be3d3eabf24006.jpg

 

Bottom station - the access to the loco sidings should be from a left-hand point either to the left of the leftmost crossover, or between that crossover and the leftmost three-way, not direct from (certainly not only from) the bottom platform road.

 

There are no short circuit issues or tricky wiring issues (except maybe the slip) with any of these designs (but of course anyone can create short circuits anywhere if they get their wires crossed).

 

I still think either terminus to through station to fiddle yard or terminus to once-through-station-now-terminus would be more believable and operationally interesting.  But hey, it's your railway :)

 

Cheers, Chris

 

Hi Chris

 

Double slip in.

 

Board redrawn.

 

Which one top or bottom? (difference is entrance point to bottom right loco yard)

 

Any other suggestions

 

I will be going down the Peco code 75 route as once down the track will stay!.

 

Thanks Chilly

 

1336234137_PickmontC-A.jpg.566ed1d643ed06bf786e86ea53cc3467.jpg

 

717447652_PickmontCB.jpg.8120a804c7a354a05e02a7497a2ed138.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your main question - don't think it matters, maybe a slight preference for the first one - but I'd keep all the points as close to the 'Y' as possible with no intervening bits of straight.

 

Other thoughts …… which you may think are a bit nit-picky

 

At the top station, the first two crossovers should be deleted.  I realise you've put them in so you can get directly in to and out of the fan of sidings behind the station, but that wouldn't be allowed in practice (a safety issue).  Those sidings would be accessed using the long siding leading away from the station as a headshunt.  If you were thinking of using the longest of those sidings as a fourth platform track, which would therefore need direct access, you need a different route to it (another point in the throat, or one of the points changed to a slip).  In fact, looking at this in detail, a re-design of the throat is probably necessary - I'll try to post some options later today. 

 

It would look more realistic if the gap between the track leading to the bottom loco sidings and the nearer main line was greater than the gap between the main lines - about half as much again.  It's just one of the things the railway did.  Similarly, a larger gap between the main lines and the long siding / headshunt running away from the top station would be good.

 

A little gradient on the track to the bottom loco sidings, so the sidings sit perhaps an inch or so higher than the main line going round the bottom left bend, might look good - but that would obviously stop you parking any coaches or wagons on the approach track.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Chimer said:

At the top station, the first two crossovers should be deleted.  I realise you've put them in so you can get directly in to and out of the fan of sidings behind the station, but that wouldn't be allowed in practice (a safety issue).

 

Why not? Southend Goods had a similar arrangement (facing access direct off the Main) from circa 1906 if not earlier. The yard was used for general goods at first, with carriage sidings added later. 

 

Edit: having said that, Southend Goods also had its own release crossover so locos could run round inside the yard. 

Edited by Titanius Anglesmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As promised - first for 3 platforms

 

1887273900_chilly3pjpg.jpg.ca6693992eb5c068d8b684406f835f4c.jpg

 

then for 4

 

1725171717_chilly4pjpg.jpg.a2480c9c9f2eb408a4677e7b48796aff.jpg

 

In both cases, the crossover shown in red is unnecessary because its functionality is duplicated by the crossover to the left of the slips - but you might think it looks better left in, and it does mean you can run round a train without going so far to the left.  And you will see in both cases there is a second double slip - either or both slips can be replaced by back to back points, but that does obviously take up more room.

 

Hope all this is a bit helpful! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

Why not? Southend Goods had a similar arrangement (facing access direct off the Main) from circa 1906 if not earlier. The yard was used for general goods at first, with carriage sidings added later. 

 

Edit: having said that, Southend Goods also had its own release crossover so locos could run round inside the yard. 

 

I stand corrected :wacko:, but surprised :scratchhead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chimer for your continuing assistance I will amend to see which I prefer 3 or 4 platforms.

 

Thanks also Titanius for your contribution.

 

One question does arise albeit it maybe my naivety again - both separate tracks will be run by 2 separate controllers (gaugemasters), I assume,  and will they operate all sidings etc on their respective circuits or will I need anything additional?

 

The next point is that I will be using electrofrog points throughout out but I think the code 75 double slips are not, will this have any impact on the operation of the track?

 

Next I will attempt to motorise the points, what make  would you suggest for this and especially for the 3 points and double slips.?

 

I have costed the track build so far, but not the motors, which comes at just over £500, looks like a large order going into Rails of Sheffield.

 

Many thanks again Chilly

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

I stand corrected :wacko:, but surprised :scratchhead:

 

On the other hand, for a model I prefer your suggestion (access via headshunt), or a trailing access from the departure road via a crossing or single slip. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you can get Code 75 slips in Insulfrog (SL-190) or Electrofrog (SL-E190).  The easiest way to power them and the points is using Peco motors (PL-15) clipped directly into the points, with PL-12 microswitches to change the frog polarity if you want to do that (most people recommend you do).  I have never used 3-way points or slips myself so don't want to give you false info on how easy or difficult wiring them is, there's lots of discussion about it on here.  They are space savers and look great, but you can always use two standard points instead …...

 

I'm not sure I'd bother motorising the points at this stage though.  Fastening the track down temporarily and changing the points by hand until you are certain the whole thing works, and gives you what you want out of it operationally, might be a smarter move.  They're all in easy reach.

 

One controller for each line is definitely not the best approach.  You want to avoid handing over trains from one controller to another, which you'd be doing all the time.  Too late to go into that tonight, more tomorrow!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks again for the input Chimer

 

It does make sense to see that there are no issues running it first before I get the wife to enrol on the wiring course :D

 

Track amended showing 3 or 4 station track and points tweaked, hopefully now down to just one or the other. What do you think?

 

Look forward to your advice regarding the powering of the layout.

 

Thanks Chilly

 

1075694802_PickmontStation3.jpg.4caf64dd20e69fe0cceec357af6c1ffb.jpg

 

 

1463863079_PickmontStation4.jpg.e5467b0716c84ab0de41f0d5f6f68e88.jpg

Edited by Chilly

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.