Jump to content

length needed for runaround at a Terminus


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

A number of points have been raised in subsequent posts:

 

10 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Sounds like a good plan. After all, it is what happens on the real railway

I had a career in IT. The first question I would always ask of folks was 'What's the problem we're trying to solve here?' No different with this, what train service am I trying to provide..

 

5 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

If you have access to a PC you could consider downloading the demo version of Anyrail.

I had a 'scratch the surface' dabble with it a few months ago, but without a real plan in mind, rather lost focus with it. I have just downloaded it again today and am furiously trying to learn its operation...

 

5 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

The Southern didn't really go in for 0-6-0 tanks

I have a G6 on the stock list and, as I suggested in my initial post, I may have to invoke Rule 1 to use it...

 

4 hours ago, Zomboid said:

That's plenty of space. Do they have to be set up in a straight line?

Probably. the way I live in my house doesn't really lend itself to a permanent set up, so my idea at the moment is 3 straight boards and a 4th for a fiddle yard. However, this is not set in stone. Whatever the final orientation, these will be put up and taken down as needed. What I absolutely want to avoid is straight track, however as I think flowing curves make a much more realistic and, dare I say it, attractive, layout.

 

There are a number of other points raised here that I am taking in. I have found another track plan that I rather like - Hayes (Kent). I am less concerned about modelling a real location (for instance, one of the visitors to the station, which is fundamentally LSWR in origin will be an H Tank and a LBSCR push pull set (another invocation of Rule 1..) I am going to use the Hayes layout as my learning project for Anyrail. 

 

Edit: I have removed the Hayes track plan as it was kindly pointed out to me that it was a copyright image. It can be seen here though...  https://kentrail.org.uk/Hayes.htm

 

I really am grateful for all the input and help from all of you, it is much appreciated...

 

Hugh

 

Edited by cabbie37
to remove copyright image
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cabbie37 said:

Probably. the way I live in my house doesn't really lend itself to a permanent set up, so my idea at the moment is 3 straight boards and a 4th for a fiddle yard. However, this is not set in stone. Whatever the final orientation, these will be put up and taken down as needed. What I absolutely want to avoid is straight track, however as I think flowing curves make a much more realistic and, dare I say it, attractive, layout.

As I say, this is probably not exactly what you're looking for and it'll need a bunch of compromises that you might not want to make, but if you arrange the boards differently, you can do something like this (which I've drawn up for the other thread, so this is purely to illustrate the option of going to a different configuration):

reg1-3c.jpg.990c879dc6bfe0dc8cbef0c4bdc3209a.jpg

(it's a 6" grid, so let's just call that a 150mm grid for all the difference that the Imperial - Metric conversion will make). The overall footprint is 3600x1200.

 

With your 1200x600 boards that would be two connected beside each other for the circuit section, and then a pair of boards for the terminus. You've got a lot more width on the terminus board than this shows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is proving to be such a thought provoking thread. From a 'concept' viewpoint, I am very strongly of the opinion that a railway should sit in a landscape and I'm already concerned, with the briefest dabbling with Anyrail, that 600mm deep baseboards are not going to give sufficient 'depth of field'. The baseboards I am making myself in conjunction with a pal, who is going to draw up the components in CAD and who also  has access to a laser cutting facility. I'm already shifting my thoughts to having boards 1000mm deep which will need changes to the CAD and the most efficient cutting scheme for the ply. But this discussion is helping me so much in developing and refining my ideas.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cabbie37 said:

I'm already shifting my thoughts to having boards 1000mm deep which will need changes to the CAD and the most efficient cutting scheme for the ply.

 

Will the location of the layout allow access from both sides?  One reason why two foot (600 mm) wide baseboards are popular is that it is easy to reach across from the front of the layout to the back-scene.  1000 mm is too big a stretch for most people.  It's also worth highlighting that layout height has an impact on how far you can stretch, but the typical limit of stretch for most adults would be somewhere in the region of 750 mm (2' 6") to 900 mm (3') with lower layouts being easier to stretch over.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a reasonable observation, and one I will keep in mind. Given my approach that the railway should sit in a landscape, I wouldn't expect there to be running lines more that 750mm from either the front or the back of the boards. It's a point well made about the height of the boards, though. Another thing to take into consideration as I develop the plan... thanks..

Link to post
Share on other sites

My layout is on boards which are 1000 X 450, and moving it around is requires quite a bit of strength and dexterity. 1m depth is a bit much for a layout that needs regular setting up and breaking down. You might get away with it if it's a permanent peninsula type.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.. I shall have to build a 'light' railway then...:D

 

But, indeed, another factor to take into account. And I thought the model making, the wiring, the scenery and all the other bits you actually see were going to be the tricky bits....

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, cabbie37 said:

Hmmm.. I shall have to build a 'light' railway then...:D

 

But, indeed, another factor to take into account. And I thought the model making, the wiring, the scenery and all the other bits you actually see were going to be the tricky bits....


Another option if you’re interested in scenic modelling is to use some of the techniques that hide / mask how narrow our baseboards are compared to reality: carefully planned and well executed, incredible things are possible, but I’m afraid I’m not the person to offer guidance here.  
 

A favourite of mine that takes the whole thing to another level is Tyteford Halte - it’s tiny, but totally absorbing.  Keith.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a railway in the Landscape then the conventional flat top baseboard is not a great starting point.  Railways are more normally on or through the landscape which makes good solid track bases and open frame construction a goods starting point.  Ply with big round lightening holes, round so there are no stress raisers to start a crack for the frames and let the scenery descend to rivers and rise above the tracks.   I do the opposite, the baseboard edge on the viewing side is the railway fence, so flat tops work. except mine slopes at 1 in 100 unintentionally so the carriage sidings have to be at a angle to the base or the coaches run away.  Look at some American Railroad mags for inspiration. They are about 20 years ahead of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
On 06/10/2020 at 00:09, Dagworth said:

I think I can see the problem here....

 

Andi

Yes .....but is it a bit blurred?

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

If you want a railway in the Landscape then the conventional flat top baseboard is not a great starting point.  Railways are more normally on or through the landscape which makes good solid track bases and open frame construction a goods starting point.  Ply with big round lightening holes, round so there are no stress raisers to start a crack for the frames and let the scenery descend to rivers and rise above the tracks.   I do the opposite, the baseboard edge on the viewing side is the railway fence, so flat tops work. except mine slopes at 1 in 100 unintentionally so the carriage sidings have to be at a angle to the base or the coaches run away.  Look at some American Railroad mags for inspiration. They are about 20 years ahead of us.

That seems a bit harsh to me. The US has a continental landscape where railways run through deep valleys and high mountain passes. The trains even used to get attacked.......

 

We have bucolic landscapes and pretty looking villages with plenty of trains to nowhere branch lines and masses of archive photography to recall them. Hence our choice of scenery

Link to post
Share on other sites

The USA has the mountain passes etc as well as European/ British style scenery, not instead of.

 

The man made architecture is clearly different, but rolling hills with barely used branch lines and the like can be found over there. They'd just have things like a huge 2-8-2 on a single combine (maybe some freight cars too for the daily mixed train) rather than a pannier tank & B set cliché.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough, my wife is American, and lives and works in the US, though she is here in the UK with me at the moment. We've just been looking at US magazine options and it seems there is Model Railroader magazine which she will try and snap up a few copies for me.  Let's not get hung up on the differences between a US landscape and a British/European but I am interested to explore the techiniques that are used by American modellers. After all, every day is a school day, just as this thread has already proved to me as it has developed...

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

That seems a bit harsh to me. The US has a continental landscape where railways run through deep valleys and high mountain passes.

I think David was describing the method of baseboard construction rather than the type of scenery to go on it. Open or L-girder benchwork makes for much more natural-looking scenery regardless of the prototype. The difference being in the UK the tendancy is to think in terms of portable layouts that can be moved about - in the USA layouts are far more lkely to be a permenant fixture, which the open/girder method suits better. Not that it "can't be done" for a portable layout, just that it's easier to think in terms of flat-top boxes that easily join together for the solution.

For the OP I wouldn't underestimate the 'depth of field' possible on a 2ft-wide board. It's all down to how the scene is modelled, & how it blends with the backscene. A board that's 3ft or so wide, as well as however many feet (4?) long, is going to be a cumbersome thing difficult to move by one person.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Hi Hugh,

 

You might also consider getting some of Iain Rice's books. He explains baseboard design for both UK and US models, in all the forms you could possibly imagine. His methods are very practical and hands-on.

 

(Edit: And you might encounter Iain Rice articles in Model Railroader.)

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have his book, "An approach to layout design in small spaces" and should re-read that in light of some of the aspects thrown up in this discussion. Although that book is now 30 years old, I  am certain that the guiding priniciples are still valid, though some of the techniques may have moved on. If there are others of his books that people might like to suggest (I do rate him as both an author and modeller) I would be more that happy to hear them..

 

thanks...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Among his American books published by Kalmbach (who publish Model Railroader), I’d rate Ian Rice’s “Shelf Layouts for Model Railroads” (2009).  It has useful information on baseboards and scenic treatments for narrow spaces - as well as some lovely layout ideas, for those who just enjoy reading Planning books.
 

Of course, it is possible to get caught out when translating US outline ideas for British practice - no need to ask how I know...

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, breaking news. My pal who is playing with the baseboard CAD has suggested that 3 x 1200x800mm would come out of one board with the support framework being cut out of another board. So given the discussion of board depth we touched on, that could be a perfect compromise bearing in mind width, weight and manouverability.. We are still working on possible cutting schemes, so not set in stone yet..

 

Hugh

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true, of course. I have been thinking about the various comments made in this thread about various widths (the proposed length of 1200mm I think will be ok) and have been playing in Anyrail with a proposed track plan. At this moment in time, 800mm depth may work, but, I agree, it does need more prototyping before we fire the laser up...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding books and US modelling, I would also recommend the annual Kalmbach magazines 'Great Model Railroads' and Model Railroad Planning', both available (sometimes) at (some) branches of WH Smith, or online.

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 07/10/2020 at 14:57, Joseph_Pestell said:

Your friend's calculation is right, of course. But one should always try to design the baseboard for the layout rather than layout for the baseboard.

I’ve never had the luxury, though I agree in principle.  I’ve always had to design the boards to fit the space and the track plan to suit the boards.  In a way this is not entirely a bad thing as you are disciplined to fitting a track plan that functions realistically and efficiently from a railway operating point of view in a limited space, in the same way that real railways had to, so there are no sidings that ‘might be useful’; real railways want to run the best service they can with as little land, trackbed, track, signals, and anything else that costs money to produce or maintain as they can get away with. 
 

It forces you to think in a railway-like way, and when you do that, realism follows effortlessly!

Edited by The Johnster
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I’ve never had the luxury, though I agree in principle.  I’ve always had to design the boards to fit the space and the track plan to suit the boards.  In a way this is not entirely a bad thing as you are disciplined to fitting a track plan that functions realistically and efficiently from a railway operating point of view in a limited space, in the same way that real railways had to, so there are no sidings that ‘might be useful’; real railways want to run the best service they can with as little land, trackbed, track, signals, and anything else that costs money to produce or maintain as they can get away with. 
 

It forces you to think in a railway-like way, and when you do that, realism follows effortlessly!

 

Fazackerly.  If you design the boards to fit the room, the layout won't fit on the boards, but if you design the boards to fit the layout, the boards won't fit in the room.  Given just 6 more inches in each direction, everything would always fit perfectly ........ :rolleyes:

  • Like 2
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.