Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Good evening Robin

I will have a look at the MTB-1 point motors they sound more flexible with regards to fitting.

Now, the track plan is more challenging than I thought it would be.

I have been trying to copy exactly the track plan as it was in the late fifties.

Peco 100 was my track of choice due to its large range of products.

I now realise, it is impossible to follow the original track plan exactly without building my own track.

This would be so far outside my ability; it is a nonstarter.

So, the question I am asking myself, is how far can I go away from the original track plan?

Surly if I deviate too much, I lose the point of recreating a real location.

Regards

Dougie

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, LMS14B said:

 

The funny thing is, I have found answers to some of the questions but then it raises others.

 

 

The more you learn, the less you know, as the philosophers put it.

 

You have not told us a lot about your collection of locos. Although I understand that you have personal links to Hornsey, is it really the best location to model? Grantham, for instance, was more interesting but far more compact.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
44 minutes ago, LMS14B said:

So, the question I am asking myself, is how far can I go away from the original track plan?

Surly if I deviate too much, I lose the point of recreating a real location.

I’m not a modeller in the prototype re-creation mould, but at my fairly limited level of experience and skill, the aim is to create an atmosphere and an impression . Translating that to a real location, I think the aim is the same, albeit built on a different foundation. I would say that if you end up with 10 parallel tracks instead of 12 or 15; or a symmetrical three way point instead of a curved one etc...... the overall picture you paint can still be a masterpiece. Set your own personal bar too high, and there will be disappointment. But make the compromises in the planning stage, then you can still aspire to achieve the resultant goal.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, LMS14B said:

Good evening Robin

I will have a look at the MTB-1 point motors they sound more flexible with regards to fitting.

Now, the track plan is more challenging than I thought it would be.

I have been trying to copy exactly the track plan as it was in the late fifties.

Peco 100 was my track of choice due to its large range of products.

I now realise, it is impossible to follow the original track plan exactly without building my own track.

This would be so far outside my ability; it is a nonstarter.

So, the question I am asking myself, is how far can I go away from the original track plan?

Surly if I deviate too much, I lose the point of recreating a real location.

Regards

Dougie

 

Hi Dougie,

 

Almost everyone who aspires to model a real location makes compromises, chooses to omit things, shorten things, simplify things. And yet they create scenes that look amazingly atmospheric and realistic. This is where the true artform of layout design begins!

 

So don't worry about changing things. Pick out the aspects that are really characteristic of the place and the things that are important to you, the views you used to see.

Where there is repetition in the prototype you can reduce the amount in the model.

Where there is featureless open ground in the prototype you can shorten distances to help get the scene into your room.

 

BTW: Don't forget Peco Code 75 trackwork. That is closer to prototype scale than Code 100 and has an equally large range (with some small differences to Code 100). You only need Code 100 if your rolling stock has the older larger wheel flanges. Buying a length of flexitrack and a turnout won't break the bank and would allow you to test your stock.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

You have not told us a lot about your collection of locos. Although I understand that you have personal links to Hornsey, is it really the best location to model? Grantham, for instance, was more interesting but far more compact.

 

The Shed Bash I linked up thread suggests Hornsey didn't have a great variety of locos by the late 1950s (mostly a lot ofN2s and J50s), though an advantage is that most are available rtr.

 

OTOH if you want to use modeller's licence to include other types, then worrying about reproducing the exact track layout seems unnecessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think it's all down to selective compression. Draw the track plan from memory - don't look at a map. Then see how much is the same/different. The important elements will probably be the same, whereas other things (like number of sidings) might differ. Anyway, just a thought... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evening

ITG, Harlequin, Robin, Flying pig and Peter.

Thank you all for your posts and basically you are all making the same point.

I have dreamt about building a model of Hornsey for several years.

Now I am in the position to give it ago, but I have no idea how good my modelling skill are.

You are correct, if you asked me to draw the track plan from memory, I would not have a clue.

So, what is it that I remember apart from the locomotives?

Well of course the coaling tower was big and noisy, the turntable plodding around in the corner.

The site was covered in smoke, dirt and general grime so much so that my Mother would clip me around the ear for coming home so dirty.

But what you have made me understand is that several elements make up a model.

With this in mind I feel a lot happier seeing the bigger picture and not trying to get every detail 100% correct.

Hopefully, I should be able to post my track plan over this weekend and look forward to your input.

Thank you again for pointing me in the right direction.

Regards

Dougie

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

The Shed Bash I linked up thread suggests Hornsey didn't have a great variety of locos by the late 1950s (mostly a lot ofN2s and J50s), though an advantage is that most are available rtr.

 

OTOH if you want to use modeller's licence to include other types, then worrying about reproducing the exact track layout seems unnecessary.

But surely there must have been a lot of 'Passing trade' with the mainline so near and the facilities requiring to be used for sundry 'purposes'. Just pretend that A4's used the shed - I bet the OP has a few of those!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good afternoon Robin.

Yes, you are correct Hornsey was always busy, you never new what you would see in the  repair shop.

There was always 9Fs and A3s in for service. Flying pig is right towards the end of steam it was manly. J52s J50s and N2s in fact almost any 0-6-0 tank could be seen on occasions.

They were used manly for moving carriages from Ferme Park to the cross but also were still used on some suburban routes.

Hornsey had a turntable, and this was used by most of the express locomotives to turn and run tender first back to the cross ready for their next journey.

In fact, the Flying Scotsman was based there when Mr Pegler became the new owner.

So, it was always busy and that was a problem along with Kentish town 14B and Camden 1B.

Smoke pollution was becoming an issue around North London steam sheds.

 Dieselisation was just around the corner which would solve the problem.

Regards

Dougie

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have got the hang of Anyrail fairly quickly. And there are still 8 roads to the shed, well done. Will you have enough access all round the board to reach the centre?

 

Using R610's to fill in gaps in the layout planning is fine to start, in practice you need to use lengths of flexitrack cut to fit, flexitrack can be dragged to length and curve if required within Anyrail. For the coaling tower access have you tried moving the long point back against the other one but using the opposite hand of point.

 

I would think that the access line to the turntable needs to be straight all the way from the diverging point on the shed sidings, to try and lose the 'wiggle'.

 

How much extra length if any do you have to the right hand end to have a 'scenic break' as its called.

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

What is the gradient up the coaling ramp? You might need to move the turnout before the ramp further to the right to get a sensible gradient. Edit: Remember you need to allow some distance to transition from level to grade and then back to level again.

 

It looks like you might have used Settrack turnouts in the entrance crossover? If so, that will look worse than the rest of the trackwork and it will really show up when locos run through it. The small Y's in the centre of the plan will also create sharp turns for big locos. (The larger radii turnouts you can use everywhere, the better.)

 

What is the smallest track-centre-to-centre spacing of the tracks in the shed?

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

The array of points in the entrance is more complex than the original and doesn't seem to add anything to the operation of shed, and I think could be simplified and result in a more spacious look.

image.png.4b1c7c639a041e1c07ee87480c032b3b.png 

I also wonder about modelling the shed building in its entirety.  It will be around 4 feet long, and whilst you will be able to have some 30 odd locos in it under cover, you won't be able to see them, which I thought was the main point of the layout.  If space had been your problem, in the beginning I would have suggested modelling only the front of the shed, perhaps reduced to only 6 tracks, and providing more, and/or longer, lines in the open, but you seem to have, if anything, too much room, a nice problem to have!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good afternoon Robin.

Yes, I have become addicted to Anyrail

Thank you for your suggestion, I have modified the track plane which now shows a straight road to the turntable.

This doses look a lot better and I am pleased with the result.

There is a further 8 feet to use as a fiddle yard behind the scenic break.

Hopefully, I will publish the amended track plan a bit later.

Regards

Dougie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good afternoon Harlequin.

Thank you for your post.

I must confess you have caught me out.

I do not know the centre-to-centre track spacing in the shed.

The gradient to the coaling stage, sorry not a clue.

That is why the forum is so important to beginners like me.

Now, I have modified the track plan to include a longer gradient.

I will relook at the entrance to the shed.

By using the set track, I assumed that this would give me the correct distance between tracks.

Lesson learnt.

Latter I will publish an updated version.

You will see that Nick Holliday is suggesting a more simplified approach to the shed as well.

But he as not given any detail how he believes this can be achieved.

Thank you for help.

Regards

Dougie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good afternoon Nick.

Thank you for your post.

I would like to keep the 8 roads into the shed.

But I have reduced the length of the shed to 3 foot as you suggested.

Harlequin and yourself both suggest a more simplified approach to the shed.

I would be grateful for any suggestions on how I may achieve this.

Regards

Dougie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coaling stages/cenotaphs need two sidings, one for full coal wagons and one for empties, so full wagons can be pushed up the bank, emptied and added to the train being prepared for outgoing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
48 minutes ago, LMS14B said:

Now, I have modified the track plan to include a longer gradient.

I will relook at the entrance to the shed.

By using the set track, I assumed that this would give me the correct distance between tracks.

Anyrail will do a fairly accurate gradient calculation, if enabled. Both in terms of clearance height and slope.

 

using set track (points) will give a 67mm track spacing, compared to 50mm using any Streamline points (irrespective of radius). Scale spacing would be around 44mm but that can be too tight if using too tight a radius curves. If you have used set track points , it would be worthwhile redrawing with Streamline ones, noting the different radii available. You are likely to get a completely different feel to the appearance of the layout plan, due to smoother curves in points and improved track spacing.

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

The coal ramp gradient looks much more workable now.

 

Where do the tracks go to off the right hand side?

 

Since you're getting into AnyRail you can make your life easier, and make the plans clearer for us, by exporting them as bitmap files (File | Export). That saves you printing and photographing them. (PNG format is probably best.)

 

Cartoon character's hands are famously drawn with only three fingers and a thumb because four fingers never look right. I see something like that with the 8 road engine shed...

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good afternoon Harlequin.

Thank you for your guidance regarding the posting of drawings. 

there is a further 3 foot of board depth but another 8 feet of board width.

I intended for this to be a fiddle yard hidden by a back screen.

regards

Dougie

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

I see your track parts numbers are streamline for points, although had you noted that some are electrofrog (shown as SLE) and others are insulfrog (SL). Doesn’t matter in size terms but if you use the Anyrail parts list as a shopping list, you may buy things you didn’t intend!

 

As I said in earlier post, your track spacing is likely 50mm, as you’ve used streamline points. (set track are notated as ST).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evening ITG

sorry for not responding to your earlier post.

I've been concentrating on trying to get a track plan that works, and not paying enough attention to the basic things.

since deciding not to replicate Hornsey track by track,  I've have been liberated to an extent.

Harlequin wanted to make sure That I  had enough distance between the tracks in the shed so that it looked correct.

i just assumed that I did.

Too be honest I do need a bit of hand holding so thank you for your post every bit of information is greatly received.

regards

Dougie

 

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.