Help with design

[LMS14B]

Good afternoon Robin

Thank you for your post.

I have been thinking about access to the board which is large.

The actual steam shed is 18 inches by 48 inches if we keep 8 roads.

my plan is to have a lift out section say 15 inches by 36 inches that I could stand up in.

this would give me access to all areas.

hopefully I can use stay alive DCC which would help with the small gap in the track were the lift out section sits.

the lift out section would of course be wired to the bus.

Hornsey could have up to 80 locomotives on shed.

so to make the model look realistic I will need quite a few locomotives.

Now, my collection of steam models will probably  stay in there display case.

The newer ones, say the last 5 years should be ok to fit DCC inside.

The point you raise about cost is valid.

over the last few years leading up to my retirement I have manged to save some money for this project.

 Providing I don't  go made it should be ok even if it takes me longer then the two years I believe it will take to complete.

Regards

Dougie

 

 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

6 hours ago, LMS14B said:

Good afternoon Robin

Thank you for your post.

I have been thinking about access to the board which is large.

The actual steam shed is 18 inches by 48 inches if we keep 8 roads.

my plan is to have a lift out section say 15 inches by 36 inches that I could stand up in.

this would give me access to all areas.

hopefully I can use stay alive DCC which would help with the small gap in the track were the lift out section sits.

the lift out section would of course be wired to the bus.

Hornsey could have up to 80 locomotives on shed.

so to make the model look realistic I will need quite a few locomotives.

Now, my collection of steam models will probably  stay in there display case.

The newer ones, say the last 5 years should be ok to fit DCC inside.

The point you raise about cost is valid.

over the last few years leading up to my retirement I have manged to save some money for this project.

 Providing I don't  go made it should be ok even if it takes me longer then the two years I believe it will take to complete.

Regards

Dougie

 

 

 

Dougie I wasnt really questioning your ability to fund what you were proposing to do, that is a private matter. I didnt phrase my comments properly. What I was really asking was whether it was worth converting 60 locos, apart from the cost, because you would only be able to operate a fraction of them at any one time. You can park a lot of locos on the available track but they wont be able to move around much. I'm not really sure how much correlation there is between age of loco and ease or otherwise of fitting decoders.

[roythebus1]

You might want to look down the age to the Hand-built track and Templot group, there's a new product for pointwork which will give you prototypical looking track that is kit-built. You might also want to look at the Templot track planning software, it's free but takes quite a bit of getting used to.

 

If you can't got to handbuilt or kit built paintwork, I suggest you use Peco bullhead. It looks a lot better than code 100 and better than code 75. Everyone and his dog uses that and though it's very reliable and easy to use you'll probably end up with a big layout that looks like a lot of others track-wise.

Edited April 21, 2021 by roythebus1

[LMS14B]

Good evening Robin.

you raised a valid point and I was happy to answer.

I see the point you were making now.

it will only be me operating the model.

i am hoping it will work like this.

The shed area will be filled with locomotive's a computer program will randomly choose a locomotive to leave the shed at a set time. I will need to locate the locomotive then move any others that are in the way.so that the correct locomotive leaves the shed at the correct time as it would have done back in the day.

This  then would be repeated several times. the locomotives that have been sent off shed would be hidden behind the back scene and turned before being returned to the shed later in the day. they will need be coaled and turned ready for the next shift.  the next time the computer will choses a different set of locomotives. this will mean there will be something going on the all the time but with a purpose its a little bit like a shunting puzzle.

regards

Dougie

[Harlequin]

13 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

You might want to look down the age to the Hand-built track and Templot group, there's a new product for pointwork which will give you prototypical looking track that is kit-built. You might also want to look at the Templot track planning software, it's free but takes quite a bit of getting used to.

 

If you can't got to handbuilt or kit built paintwork, I suggest you use Peco bullhead. It looks a lot better than code 100 and better than code 75. Everyone and his dog uses that and though it's very reliable and easy to use you'll probably end up with a big layout that looks like a lot of others track-wise.

 

The Finetrax turnouts look great but will only offer a limited range of geometries and no crossings or slips when they are launched. Certainly not Code 100 if that's what Dougie really wants/needs to use because of his loco collection.

 

Templot is for designing track formations, not whole layouts. Martin repeatedly says this.

 

Peco bullhead only has Large radius turnouts at the moment. It will be difficult to create a smooth and well-proportioned trackplan without the Slips, Ys, Curves and Mediums. (Bullhead Slips and Diamond crossings have been in the pipeline for a long time now but have not yet been released and it would be foolish to wait for them.)

 

If you look at the plan I posted above you'll see that it's not going to look like a "standard Streamline" layout, if there is such a thing.

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Harlequin

[martin_wynne]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Templot is for designing track formations, not whole layouts. Martin repeatedly says this.

 

Just to be clear, Martin does not repeatedly say this.

 

What Martin says is that Templot is ONLY for handbuilt track  and is completely useless for Peco and other fixed ready-made track.

 

The new FinetraX kits fall somewhere between the two, because they can be curved if desired, and follow prototype geometries quite closely. I'm hoping to add some pre-sets to Templot to match the FinetraX kits. The individual FinetraX components, if and when available separately, will also allow handbuilt track to be built much more quickly and easily than before. Watch the Templot Club forum for news.

 

Templot certainly can be used to design whole layouts. The handbuilt trackwork can be designed in great detail, and the baseboards, structures and scenic treatment can be added in the Templot sketchboard function. A couple of old screenshots:

 

 

 

Just to repeat, Templot is ONLY for handbuilt track and there is no point in even mentioning it in RMweb topics about Peco track. But it can certainly be used to design whole layouts.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Harlequin]

2 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Just to be clear, Martin does not repeatedly say this.

 

What Martin says is that Templot is ONLY for handbuilt track  and is completely useless for Peco and other fixed ready-made track.

 

The new FinetraX kits fall somewhere between the two, because they can be curved if desired, and follow prototype geometries quite closely. I'm hoping to add some pre-sets to Templot to match the FinetraX kits. The individual FinetraX components, if and when available separately, will also allow handbuilt track to be built much more quickly and easily than before. Watch the Templot Club forum for news.

 

Templot certainly can be used to design whole layouts. The handbuilt trackwork can be designed in great detail, and the baseboards, structures and scenic treatment can be added in the Templot sketchboard function. A couple of old screenshots:

 

 

 

Just to repeat, Templot is ONLY for handbuilt track and there is no point in even mentioning it in RMweb topics about Peco track. But it can certainly be used to design whole layouts.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Many apologies. I misunderstood.

 

[Harlequin]

Hi Dougie, Here's what I have come up with:

 

 

The first thing to say is that many aspects of this plan can be adjusted - it's not set in stone. However, to get to this stage I have made a lot of compromises, judgement calls and trade-offs which I think are sensible.

 

Design points:

• The track plan of the shed area is still basically traced from the map, so the wiggles and track spacing are authentic. Just some tracks removed, shortened and some things moved around slightly.
• 6-road shed to make the design more manageable and fit into the space better.
  • Shed area baseboard width is now ~3ft 8in (1122mm).
  • Leaves room for comfortable operating well and fiddle yard.
• Moved the crane to the front of the shed and adjusted the sidings around it.
• Moved the Coaling Stage at the rear so you can see coaling operations better. (Had to move the ramp connection but I think it doesn't make any material difference.)
• Lifting flap gives access to both the main operating well and the top left access well. Layout can be operated end-to-end while it's lifted but it allows prototypical handling of coal supplies from the North end (I think).
  • Really simple double track crossing the flap and track joints are not too acute.
  • Gives a roundy-round circuit for running-in and CV tuning.
• Fiddle yard designed for your required operations.
  • Lots of small sidings for locos, each long enough for a Peco loco lift to transfer locos on and off the layout - or just to turn them.
  • Get any loco in or out at any time - no queueing.
  • Small Radius turnouts in FY for maximum storage density.
  • Loco spurs can be connected at both ends if required - I've shown some connected, some not.
  • You can simultaneously run locos in and out of the south entrance to the shed area, just like the prototype.
  • Long loops along the back for coal wagons, which can be shunted and drawn onto scene either to North end or South end of shed. (I think North is correct.)
  • The outer track on the lifting flap connects to the coal wagon loops and so simulates the assumed coal sidings associated with the Coaling Tower.
• Space for a bit of scenery behind the tracks. Can be anything you like but from the map I've sketched on the rough land forms and the river with the housing behind.
• Baseboards designed for the layout. Might mean removing some of what you have but they are the foundations of the layout and best to avoid compromise in the early stages that might affect you and the layout for it's entire lifetime.
• Access areas will give great angles for photography.
• "Manhole" under shed as requested for improved access. Personally I wouldn't bother - just keep it simple and find another way to reach the back. You can get at the shed building and the track inside it, while they are in situ, from the top left access well.
• The turntable in the FY can be as simple or sophisticated as you like. Maybe just a spur leading to another loco lift.
• Minimum radius 2ft (610mm).

I can show you areas where it's difficult to reach in this design on another image.

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by Harlequin

[LMS14B]

Good afternoon Harlequin

In the words of younger people WOW, that's awesome.

To be honest I am feeling quite emotional.

I need a couple of hours to claim down and then look at how it works operationally.

Thank you.

Dougie

[RobinofLoxley]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Dougie, Here's what I have come up with:

 

 

The first thing to say is that many aspects of this plan can be adjusted - it's not set in stone. However, to get to this stage I have made a lot of compromises, judgement calls and trade-offs which I think are sensible.

 

Design points:

• The track plan of the shed area is still basically traced from the map, so the wiggles and track spacing are authentic. Just some tracks removed, shortened and some things moved around slightly.
• 6-road shed to make the design more manageable and fit into the space better.
  • Shed area baseboard width is now ~3ft 8in (1122mm).
  • Leaves room for comfortable operating well and fiddle yard.
• Moved the crane to the front of the shed and adjusted the sidings around it.
• Moved the Coaling Stage at the rear so you can see coaling operations better. (Had to move the ramp connection but I think it doesn't make any material difference.)
• Lifting flap gives access to both the main operating well and the top left access well. Layout can be operated end-to-end while it's lifted but it allows prototypical handling of coal supplies from the North end (I think).
  • Really simple double track crossing the flap and track joints are not too acute.
  • Gives a roundy-round circuit for running-in and CV tuning.
• Fiddle yard designed for your required operations.
  • Lots of small sidings for locos, each long enough for a Peco loco lift to transfer locos on and off the layout - or just to turn them.
  • Get any loco in or out at any time - no queueing.
  • Small Radius turnouts in FY for maximum storage density.
  • Loco spurs can be connected at both ends if required - I've shown some connected, some not.
  • You can simultaneously run locos in and out of the south entrance to the shed area, just like the prototype.
  • Long loops along the back for coal wagons, which can be shunted and drawn onto scene either to North end or South end of shed. (I think North is correct.)
  • The outer track on the lifting flap connects to the coal wagon loops and so simulates the assumed coal sidings associated with the Coaling Tower.
• Space for a bit of scenery behind the tracks. Can be anything you like but from the map I've sketched on the rough land forms and the river with the housing behind.
• Baseboards designed for the layout. Might mean removing some of what you have but they are the foundations of the layout and best to avoid compromise in the early stages that might affect you and the layout for it's entire lifetime.
• Access areas will give great angles for photography.
• "Manhole" under shed as requested for improved access. Personally I wouldn't bother - just keep it simple and find another way to reach the back. You can get at the shed building and the track inside it, while they are in situ, from the top left access well.
• The turntable in the FY can be as simple or sophisticated as you like. Maybe just a spur leading to another loco lift.
• Minimum radius 2ft (610mm).

I can show you areas where it's difficult to reach in this design on another image.

 

Genius

[LMS14B]

Good evening Harlequin.

I am not certain that track plan can be improved.

Its much better than i could have imagined.

I was focusing on the shed and did not consider the bigger picture.

The off shed storage and turning area is that about 16" wide?

This weekend i shall make a start building the baseboards.

Thank you again.

Dougie

 

 

[Harlequin]

Hi Dougie,

 

Yep, it's important to consider the whole layout because all the parts affect each other.

 

There are some tweaks that would improve things but at the moment I can't see how to do them without losing other things. So you're probably right - everything combined is pretty close to the best compromise.

 

For instance, I would like to angle the whole shed area a bit more but that's quite difficult because it affects the end curve and either moves or cuts into the coaling stage. (The shed and all the tracks in and around it are currently angled at 6° to the back wall. That's a key angle for setting out.)

 

I don't know how the double track South entrance worked but I assume that the inner track was inbound and the outer track outbound like normal mainline practice. (On the map you can see that they come together before rejoining the main network, with a signal box adjacent.) From the track plan and what you and others have said about how busy it was, my hunch is that the two South entrance tracks were reserved for locos coming on and off shed. The North entrance would have been used for bringing in coal traffic without blocking the busy South entrance and it has the advantage that coal can be hauled in and then set back into all of the relevant sidings without needing to run round.

 

If that assumption is right then there's no need to change the connections to the FY coal sidings on the right but if coal was ever hauled in via the South entrance then it would be better if the coal sidings had a connection to the inbound track. It can be done but it either makes the curve at the end much tighter radius or loses one or more of the "off-shed loco sidings". That's why I haven't changed it yet.

 

The thinner section of the FY is 400mm wide and the wider part with the turntable on is 560mm. If you want to drop the landscape below rail level behind the tracks remember to allow for that in the baseboard construction. It looks like it might be a bit tricky.

 

You might also want to make the lifting flap open frame and/or change it's shape to reduce the weight. At the moment it's just drawn the simplest way possible - rectangular with square joins to the fixed baseboards.

 

I've shown the turntable beside the shed the same size as shown on the map. That's 275mm diameter. The off-the-shelf models, like the Peco one, are bigger. Not a problem - it will still fit but I'm just warning you.

 

I'll tidy up the drawing and send you a PDF version by private message. That will let you zoom in to look at the details, take measurements and you could even print it out full size if you want (and if you can afford the paper and the ink... )

 

I'd like to put this plan in my track plans album. Hope that's OK.

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Harlequin

[Harlequin]

Here's the "reach map". The red areas are beyond 3ft from anywhere you can comfortably stand.

 

First taking the manhole into account:

 

Then without it:

 

(Backscenes would have to be removable to get full reach from the access wells.)

 

[LMS14B]

Good morning Harlequin.

 

Unless you have spotted an operation problem then this is perfect for me.

There is the possibility to run a coal train around the circuit and as you mentioned previously, this can be therapeutic.

you are right about coal deliveries.

Just past the shed to the North was the North Thames gas company which had extensive siding's for there coal requirement.

and I believe Hornsey sheds coal come from those sidings.

I may well print out the shed area to grantee every thing is in the right place and give me some guidance with the flexible track.

yes of course you can use the plan in your album.

regards

Dougie

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

This is a really interesting new take on a depot layout. Great work.

[ITG]

An observation...... early mentions by the OP stated a 17 foot space, and IIRC there was a room plan quoting OUTSIDE length of 18’. But Harlequins plan is actually on 18’ board, isn’t it? Are we sure this fits?

[LMS14B]

Good afternoon ITG

 

Thank you for your post.

yes you are correct I did not make the actual size that clear on my earlier post.

I am happy to confirm the the space inside is 18 foot by 8 foot luckily Harlequin checked.

what are  your thoughts on his design? 

I have now picked up the timber and looking forward to building the baseboards.

Regards

Dougie

 

[ITG]

1 hour ago, LMS14B said:

Good afternoon ITG

 

Thank you for your post.

yes you are correct I did not make the actual size that clear on my earlier post.

I am happy to confirm the the space inside is 18 foot by 8 foot luckily Harlequin checked.

what are  your thoughts on his design? 

I have now picked up the timber and looking forward to building the baseboards.

Regards

Dougie

 

Well, I think it’s a very imaginative plan, which cleverly incorporates not only your ‘core’ requirement of the shed area, but also provides somewhere for locos to go to and from.... plus the coal traffic. We all have different priorities (good thing too) but if it was me, I would have probably muddied the waters by wanting to see some of the big locos from the shed wizz by with a dozen coaches, or trundle by with long goods trains. But then that would compromise the very essence of what the plan is about. Well done for maintaining that focus - it’s all to easy to try to fit everything in.

[RobinofLoxley]

One thing with reach-over, take care not to build the baseboards too high off the ground. I have just rebuilt and reduced the height of the boards by about 6cm, which has made it  a lot easier to reach across. So build with leaning over in mind - depends on you own height of course

[ITG]

15 hours ago, LMS14B said:

I have now picked up the timber and looking forward to building the baseboards.

Remember to map where points will be (if you’re planning on under board point motors) before fixing any bracing battens. With so many points, it could require some careful forethought.

[Harlequin]

Yes, the baseboards for this plan could be tricky. You might consider making an open structural subframe and then making lightweight ply removable "jigsaw pieces" that sit on top of it to carry the track and other features.

 

That would:

• Allow for the dropped landscape behind the tracks
• Allow pieces to be lifted out and turned on their sides to access the wiring underneath
• Make it easier to position cross-bracing to avoid point motors
• Make it easier to work on track laying or scenery more comfortably
• Get access to parts of the layout that are normally beyond reach
• Might even make the "manhole" easier to build.

But it would create new problems of maintaining alignment and visible joins in the scene. Needs some careful thought...

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Harlequin

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 23/04/2021 at 13:30, Harlequin said:

Hi Dougie, Here's what I have come up with:

 

 

 

•  

 

 

Looking at this again, I do wonder if the "off shed" sidings need to be quite so complex - using a lot of pointwork. I can see that it does mean that any loco can come back on shed at anytime, but is that so necessary? I feel that a slightly more traditional fiddleyard arrangement could give enough flexibility of operation at much lest cost (both financially and space).

[Harlequin]

28 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Looking at this again, I do wonder if the "off shed" sidings need to be quite so complex - using a lot of pointwork. I can see that it does mean that any loco can come back on shed at anytime, but is that so necessary? I feel that a slightly more traditional fiddleyard arrangement could give enough flexibility of operation at much lest cost (both financially and space).

 

Yes, I agree. I was trying to avoid stacking of locos.

 

A simple way to do that with less pointwork would be rely on loco lifts even more. Just provide a few spurs to connect to the running lines and leave the fiddle yard as mainly clear space for storing locos lifts. That avoids the point motor positioning problem as well. But the downside would be much more manual intervention  and thus no chance of automating the layout.

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Harlequin

[ITG]

Or possibly an array of short (loco length) traverser drawers, say 4 or 5 tracks wide, where one could create a through path via any combination. Well beyond my carpentry but you never know.

[LMS14B]

Good morning ITG, Harlequin and Joseph Pestell.

Thank you for your posts.

I must start by saying that the track plan as not left my side since I received it.

which means I have been walking about with a silly grin on my face.

To be honest, this will be the only layout  that I will build.

so its important that I take on board other points of view from experienced modellers.

The one thing that crops up is the lack of a dedicated running loop.

I have shown  a track in red, which might achieve this but not sure what knock on effect this might have. (apart from a wider board)

This would only be used for long coal trains.

My carpentry skills are ok  the plan is to build an outer frame and then mark and dill for the point motors before fixing the cross bearers.

I would be grateful if you could expand on the idea of  traverser drawers.

Now it is only me who will be operating the model so it is important that there is some automation.

regards

Dougie