Help with design

[ITG]

2 hours ago, LMS14B said:

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

Well, my input to this would be purely theoretical. But if you changed the series of multiple diagonal loco spurs in the FY, to a more conventional series of parallel tracks, subdivided into pull out drawers,  built in such a way that any track on drawer A could align with any track on drawer B , you could store locos there. The traverser drawer effect would mean the risk of locos being ‘trapped’ on a blocked track would be lessened, compared to a conventional straight line fiddle yard. .  See photo (found via google) but in your instance the traversers would be double ended, ie drive on drive off.

Edited April 25, 2021 by ITG

[LMS14B]

Good afternoon ITG

Thank you for your post.

That's a clever idea using kitchen draw runners.

I don't believe that would help me operationally but certainly a good way to hold locomotives.

Locomotives often left Hornsey tender first to join the front of the train at Kings Cross.

On there return they would come back to Hornsey tender first which is what I would like to replecate.

You are right that I need plenty of storage off shed but I also need the ability to turn them. 

How I have seen spinning FY traversers which would do the job but because mine butts up against a wall it wont work.

Regards

Dougie

 

[ITG]

My thinking came from pondering if you opted to avoid so many points in the FY area, and instead went for a more conventional FY of a series of parallel tracks probably with a fan of points at each end. Whereas long roads in FYs are ok if running lots of full length trains, for you, as most traffic would be light engines, the long roads would lead to locos stacking up behind each other, possibly in the ‘wrong order’. Harlequins idea of short diagonal but parallel FY roads overcomes that stacking congestion, but of course eats up a lot of points and point motors, and below board space for said motors.

So if you instead had sliding drawers, alternating with fixed panels, of FY track, you could more easily align a vacant ‘through track’ by opening/closing drawers, to plot a route for loco x to return to shed. Of course, if you wished to change its direction, you’d need to use the turntable in the FY.

Harlequins idea for cassettes which could be hand manoeuvred to reverse locos would avoid the use of the turntable, with or without traversers. I only mentioned traversers as I personally would probably prefer them to removable cassettes if I had to make such a choice.

You are correct that rotating traversers wouldn’t work against a wall.

 

Not sure on space requirement, but would the turntable fit in the centre of the FY area, to make it more accessible for locos parked at either end?

[Joseph_Pestell]

6 minutes ago, ITG said:

My thinking came from pondering if you opted to avoid so many points in the FY area, and instead went for a more conventional FY of a series of parallel tracks probably with a fan of points at each end. Whereas long roads in FYs are ok if running lots of full length trains, for you, as most traffic would be light engines, the long roads would lead to locos stacking up behind each other, possibly in the ‘wrong order’. Harlequins idea of short diagonal but parallel FY roads overcomes that stacking congestion, but of course eats up a lot of points and point motors, and below board space for said motors.

So if you instead had sliding drawers, alternating with fixed panels, of FY track, you could more easily align a vacant ‘through track’ by opening/closing drawers, to plot a route for loco x to return to shed. Of course, if you wished to change its direction, you’d need to use the turntable in the FY.

Harlequins idea for cassettes which could be hand manoeuvred to reverse locos would avoid the use of the turntable, with or without traversers. I only mentioned traversers as I personally would probably prefer them to removable cassettes if I had to make such a choice.

You are correct that rotating traversers wouldn’t work against a wall.

 

Not sure on space requirement, but would the turntable fit in the centre of the FY area, to make it more accessible for locos parked at either end?

 

Is there a "wrong" order? How much does it matter if you can't get at all of the locos to return to the depot whenever you want them to. A bit of careful design of the fiddleyard should give enough flexibility.

Yes, a roundhouse type of arrangement in the middle of the fiddleyard is definitely worth consideration. Minitrix (?) used to do a gadget that combined turntable with traverser. But I don't think any HO gauge manufacturer has made one.

[Harlequin]

I think that on balance the fiddle yard as designed is the best compromise for Dougie, even though it looks turnout-heavy. It's space efficient, flexible and easily automatable.

He can start off with just the parallel feed and return tracks and a few sidings between. Use loco lifts to make up the extra storage and to turn locos. Then add more turnouts, more spurs, add point motors and reduce the reliance on loco lifts over time.

 

[LMS14B]

Good afternoon ITG and Joseph Pestell.

The way the locomotives return to the shed can be in any order.

Manly tender first this then gives me the reason to use the turntable.

The challenge for me is sending away the locomotives from the shed in the correct order.

so my computer will randomly select a locomotive and a time to leave the shed.

I will need to clear the road for this to happen this is similar to a shunting puzzle.

so if the sequence involves sending 25 locomotives off shed at 3 minute intervals that will take 1 hour and 15 minutes to complete.

Now this might involve more or less movements I wont know until I press start.

I may have to work around coal delivers or the breakdown crane being called out.

Hopefully you can see  how I wold like it to work.

one other point is should the ladder sidings be hidden like a normal fiddle yard?

I am very happy with the shed layout and do not wish to change that but I am open to ideas for the fiddle yard should anyone have a better idea.

Regards

Dougie

 

[Flying Pig]

15 minutes ago, LMS14B said:

one other point is should the ladder sidings be hidden like a normal fiddle yard?

 

They should be hidden by being behind your back when you are looking at the shed.  When you turn round to deal with the fiddle yard you will be glad of unobstructed access.

[Joseph_Pestell]

21 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I think that on balance the fiddle yard as designed is the best compromise for Dougie, even though it looks turnout-heavy. It's space efficient, flexible and easily automatable.

He can start off with just the parallel feed and return tracks and a few sidings between. Use loco lifts to make up the extra storage and to turn locos. Then add more turnouts, more spurs, add point motors and reduce the reliance on loco lifts over time.

 

 

Automation certainly is a factor in layout design these days. Not for me, but I do understand that other folk like the idea.

[Harlequin]

6 hours ago, LMS14B said:

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That extra line would certainly work technically - the pointwork could be slotted in very easily. You could leave a train circulating while operations continue in the shed, using the South outbound line as a headshunt if needed.

 

But since running coal trains through the shed area is not prototypically correct anyway then you could run them around the circuit already provided. Most operations in the shed could still continue - even coaling tower movements have enough room to continue.

 

So the new line doesn't really gain much and the cost is even reach problems to the back.

 

[ITG]

40 minutes ago, LMS14B said:

The way the locomotives return to the shed can be in any order

In that case, my comments about the right or wrong order of the returning stacked locos is not really relevant. I had wrongly assumed you would be structuring the returning sequence, dependant on what day’s work each loco had done, ie some round trips taking longer than others. To my way of thinking, I’m relieved on your behalf, as that would be a headache!

I concur with those who suggest Harlequins ladder idea is probably the way forward.

[Chimer]

I missed the early stages of the development of this one, but think it's looking really promising now.  I like the extra red line the OP added a few posts back, as it gives the impression of a double track main line in front of the shed and provides a double track roundy-roundy for continuous running, both of which I would see as a bonus.  The impression of course doesn't hold up when the "outer" track has to be used for access to the coaling tower roads which is its original function, but still ....

 

Just to be different, can I offer an alternative to the complicated fiddle yard arrangements, in the form of a reverse loop?  The picture is schematic, not to scale, and shows the OP's extra track in green, my proposed bit in purple.  There could be many more single-ended loco sidings in the FY than shown.  I think I have the three roads into the depot from the south as per the original plan.  I know the extra bridge across the op well would be a pain, but operating the FY would be much simpler ...

 

 

[Harlequin]

4 minutes ago, Chimer said:

I missed the early stages of the development of this one, but think it's looking really promising now.  I like the extra red line the OP added a few posts back, as it gives the impression of a double track main line in front of the shed and provides a double track roundy-roundy for continuous running, both of which I would see as a bonus.  The impression of course doesn't hold up when the "outer" track has to be used for access to the coaling tower roads which is its original function, but still ....

 

Just to be different, can I offer an alternative to the complicated fiddle yard arrangements, in the form of a reverse loop?  The picture is schematic, not to scale, and shows the OP's extra track in green, my proposed bit in purple.  There could be many more single-ended loco sidings in the FY than shown.  I think I have the three roads into the depot from the south as per the original plan.  I know the extra bridge across the op well would be a pain, but operating the FY would be much simpler ...

 

 

 

Yep, the reason I didn't do that was that, apart from the bridge across the operating well, the turnout leading to the return loop would have to be in the scenic area, which bothered me but may not bother Dougie so much.

 

[LMS14B]

Good evening  Chimer

Thank you for your post.

I do like what you have done with the reverse loop but I have a board across the entrance and then another board across the middle this  would be to much for me. I am at an age when toilet runs become a bit more urgent. lifting or ducking under two boards may lead to soggy socks.

I believe Harlequins plan still covers all of my whishes and I am set on the shed area.

I appreciate every post with suggestions to make my model  the best it can be.

regards

Dougie

 

 

 

[simmo009]

As previously mentioned, there are reach issues with the 4' deep board and access to only one side. A possible solution to this could be a Topside Creeper. We are considering one for our club for the self same issue. Just another idea to join with the others.

Good luck.

[LMS14B]

Good evening Simm099

Thank you for your post.

It sounds like a good idea but I have no idea what that is. Lol

Hopefully the internet will give me the answer.

Regards

Dougie

 

[LMS14B]

Good evening Simm099

 

I had a vison of a slow moving train on a raised baseboard.

 Found it on the internet and yes that would solve my problems

Thank you.

Regards

Dougie

[Harlequin]

Thinking about baseboard construction, here's my suggestion for handling the level changes.

 

 

This is just the baseboards layer from the (revised) drawing. Darker is lower, lighter is higher.

 

Everything is fixed apart from the lifting flap and "manhole" (dotted red outlines). The lowest area on the right might simply be open frame.

 

Most of the shed pointwork is on the irregularly shaped board that stands above the open frame.

 

[Flying Pig]

If compatible with the method of construction, a curved board outline would give a little more room at the end of the operating well where it's rather tight and possibly help everything flow a little better visually.

 

[LMS14B]

Good afternoon

The plan is to make a mock up of the boards around the garage first.

this will allow me to walk around in the space and see how it feels.

The boards need to be big enough for the track plan but will hopefully show me were to have service hatches.

the only options may be is to move the turntable to the other end of the ladder sidings.

This would mean once you have entered the room the well space is equal.

Or do away with the turntable and use more loco lifts this would give a more rectangular well.

Having no experience to draw on I don't know how often I would need to get to the back of the layout for recovery.

you may well have seen simmo009 post regarding a topside creeper.

Doses anyone have any experience in using one of these?

I am not certain I could lay on one for too long but to retrieve a way wood locomotive should be fine.

Regards

Dougie 

[Harlequin]

14 hours ago, LMS14B said:

Good afternoon

The plan is to make a mock up of the boards around the garage first.

this will allow me to walk around in the space and see how it feels.

The boards need to be big enough for the track plan but will hopefully show me were to have service hatches.

the only options may be is to move the turntable to the other end of the ladder sidings.

This would mean once you have entered the room the well space is equal.

Or do away with the turntable and use more loco lifts this would give a more rectangular well.

Having no experience to draw on I don't know how often I would need to get to the back of the layout for recovery.

you may well have seen simmo009 post regarding a topside creeper.

Doses anyone have any experience in using one of these?

I am not certain I could lay on one for too long but to retrieve a way wood locomotive should be fine.

Regards

Dougie 

I think moving the FY turntable will lose a lot of storage capacity because it will take up space that you can't regain at the other end. It fits into a natural space on my drawing.

And I would suggest keeping the doorway as open as possible.

 

I had a nasty thought in the night: Have you insulated the garage? Are you going to? The extra thickness inside the walls could have a serious impact on the design.

 

[LMS14B]

Good morning Harlequin.

Thank you for your post.

pleased to report that all walls and Ceiling have been well insulated and the doors draft proofed.

with the battens, insulation and plywood covering there was a loss of 4 inches all the way around.

This was planned for which left the 18x8 useable space.

Just in the process of fitting inferred heating to the ceiling which should give a constant and even heat level.

point taken regarding the turntable.

what's your thoughts about using top surfaced point motors on the FY?

Flying pigs suggestion made sense but the lower area that he has highlighted I intend to use for the control centre. 

regards

Dougie

 

 

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, LMS14B said:

all walls and Ceiling have been well insulated and the doors draft proofed.

with the battens, insulation and plywood covering there was a loss of 4 inches all the way around.

This was planned for which left the 18x8 useable space.

Just in the process of fitting inferred heating to the ceiling which should give a constant and even heat level.

Sounds great. That's a relief!

 

Quote

point taken regarding the turntable.

what's your thoughts about using top surfaced point motors on the FY?

Yes, they might be a good solution. I have heard they can be a bit finicky to set up, requiring careful alignment, and they are quite expensive but they would certainly fit alongside most of the ladder turnouts and require less cutting and fiddling underneath.

 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

20 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Sounds great. That's a relief!

 

Yes, they might be a good solution. I have heard they can be a bit finicky to set up, requiring careful alignment and they are quite expensive but they would certainly fit alongside most of the ladder turnouts and require less cutting and fiddling underneath.

 

 

I would definitely go for surface mounted point motors in a fiddle yard.  From an installation and maintenance viewpoint anything that beats crawling underneath the layout has a lot to commend it   Any finickyness of installation is really a consequence of the type and design of motor you use rather than anything else and you can also surface mount micro-switches to reliably deal with any current switching for a live 'frog' point.

[LMS14B]

Good morning Station Master

Thank you for your post.

I was try to work out were to fit the cross battens on the baseboard to miss the point motors on the FY.

This was proving a bit tricky, hence the idea about surfaced mounted motors.

could you give me any pointers in what type of motor to look out for in your experience? 

my intension is to use DCC so that there can be some automation.

Harlequins design for the FY is starting to have a life of its own.

what started as a storage area is now becoming a feature to be celebrated and not hidden.

Regards 

Dougie

 

 

[Harlequin]

Possible combination to start off your research: Peco PL-11 point motors + Megapoints solenoid controller + Megapoints DCC module.