Jump to content
 

Layout design struggles


JN
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 18/06/2021 at 02:02, JN said:

I seem to remember, though, being able to reach over the far side of my Dad's 6x4 layout, though - it was a stretch, but just about doable (or I could be remembering with the proverbial rose-tinted glasses lol). 

 

I very much doubt you were able to stretch over a four foot wide layout unless you are exceptionally tall and the layout was fairly low.  How far you can stretch depends on both your size and the height of the layout.  For a layout that is at chest height, I can stretch about 650 mm (around two feet and two inches), that being the distance between my arm pit and the centre of my hand.  That is the furthest from the baseboard edge at which I would be able to, say, clean the track. 

 

However, if the layout is lower, such that I am able to bend at the waist, I can stretch about 850 mm (just short of three feet).  Whilst I could probably retrieve a derailed coach from the back of a three foot wide baseboard, I wouldn't be able to clean the rails if the track was that far from the baseboard edge.  Someone a bit taller than me (I'm only five foot eight inches tall) can probably reach over a three foot wide baseboard, but I think that would be close to the limit for most people.  I assume if anything derailed on the far side of your father's layout, you were probably able to retrieve it from one or other of the edges, so your maximum stretch would have been three feet. 

 

Anyway, it doesn't seem like you'll have an issue if you stick to a central operating well and two foot wide baseboards, although I do agree with some of the other comments that a wider operating well would be preferable.  I would certainly fit in one two foot wide, but having mocked it up (ie standing between the batons that will support my 610 mm wide baseboards), it feels a little constrained.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 18/06/2021 at 09:41, Chimer said:

I'm not sure what radii you are using, maybe 16" and 18" in the bottom right corner?  Whatever, your Streamline points naturally give a 2" track separation which is not enough for long vehicles like modern freight or passenger stock to pass one another on such tight curves.  This is why set-track uses 2.625" track centres (which look horrible in my opinion) ...... you've got lots of space so why use such tight curves everywhere?  You will see in the top corners of the plan I drew, I do use tight curves, but not with parallel tracks.

 

I have noticed and understand what you say about symmetry, but you will give yourself far more options if you can get away from everything being parallel with the baseboard edges!

 

And I agree with everyone else - 4' wide baseboards do need to be accessible from both sides.

 

Good luck!

The individual boxes on my design = 10cm as the software is in metric. This is my fault, though, I should have mentioned that when I showed my initial design.

 

Yeah, thanks, I think I've got the measurements of the curves wrong. My process was to lay down 2x22.5d* third radius curves in Peco 100 setrack and create the same in flexitrack code 75 (I believe the only code using concrete sleepers which is good for my choice of era) creating 45d then have a short straight then another 45d curve to finish the required 90d. I tried making the outer curves longer, but the same angle, thinking this would be fourth radius equivalent.

 

I thought a mid-curve straight would help with running bogie coaches/DMUs and wagons, that this would allow me not to have every wheel set on a curve (a reason why I've put a short straight with two of the points on the main line - I'm not so fussed about he siding). I recognise that I'd mostly be running semi-fast and stopping passengers (with a sometime railtour rather than 'top line' expresses) or freights that normally run at a maximum of 60mph (I've found that empty coal and steel trains run with the 6XXX coding with coal trains running at no more than 45mph). Only modern container trains running at 60-75mph. The only trains that I plan on running at 90mph are 158s, but even then this would be on the trunk A-route main lines like the E/WCML rather than a B-route main line like Darlington to Middlesborough or Newcastle via Hartlepool. I imagine my layout to be more of a secondary, non-trunk, B-route main line (which is why I'm really not all that interested in OHLE catenary - that said, the GWML has only received partial catenary fairly recently - the Bristol to Exeter and Penzance section still hadn't in the summer of 2019). However, I found that the mid-straight curves were taking too much space, pushing the track close to the furtherest edge and not leaving enough for scenery like platforms and platform fencing. I basically decided the improved performance (precisely how much of a difference it would have made I've no idea) wasn't worth losing reach and scenic possibilities - I'm even skeptical as to how much scenery I could add on the track to 2ft side of the baseboard and I'm considering coming down to 1-2ft and designing the layout from that perspective...

 

I'd like the town and station to be on the same level, being close to a 'port' (underneath town is possible if I decide on an industrial siding, 'somewhere' further in land), the town would be at sea level, so 'underneath the town' would mean the station platforms and rails would be at negative feet or if the platforms were at sea level, then the town would be at plus x feet with no obvious gradient. As I say, its not a problem for inland towns etc as there might well be sudden gradients with a town of post-Beeching railway station size (like Bolton) or arches/walls (like Manchester).

 

As regards the points, yes, you're definitely right about that. I left them as is because I didn't know about the correct length of track to have between the two switch roads. I remember trigonometry from school, but I was struggling putting the points in the right place etc. Also, because I was geusstimating the lengths of the curves etc I wasn't able to get the centre to centre measurement of 5cm correct around the whole layout. Rich Papper (of Catford https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/118696-catford/&do=findComment&comment=4480695). I just thought 'get the design of the sidings right and you'll know how wide you need at least some of your baseboards. Besides, six four by two foot (three along one side and three along the second side with two two by two feet at each end) kind of made sense to me, made things simple from a baseboard perspective. If I need to sacrifice a depot, so be it, as a siding (industrial or port) would probably be more realistic (in the sense that the Stockton and Darlington railway moved coal from mines to port - I also like the idea of a port as the traffic can be bi-directional - imports as well as exports).

 

I'm not rejecting the advice, but I can see that I've expressed the conclusions of my thinking rather than the process of my thinking as well which has probably made things harder to understand/give advice on.

 

*d = degrees because I can't find the degrees symbol.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TonyMay said:

Given the space available, which is reasonable but not too extensive, and your interest in modern traction, and because I like left-field options, I'd recommend N gauge as something that would enable you to get what you want into the space you have.  

Hi Tony,

 

Thanks for that idea. I was very tempted by N-gauge for a variety of reasons (track plans and better train lengths being the most obvious). The main problem I had though, is that my inherited rolling stock (a Class Five, a Patriot, Mallard, a Class 40, a Deltic, a Class 117 DMU)* as well as my childhood locomotives and stock are all OO gauge. I just thought it would be nice to give the rolling stock mentioned a run even if its regarded as a railtour if not as a service train. Also, I'd like numbers/transfers can be more easily added to OO than N gauge (converting 'Bow Fell' to 'Ben MacDui' - I climbed Ben MacDui in 2005 and the locomotive has hauled steel trains as per photo seven on http://www.penmorfa.com/Wrexham/three.html). A good idea, though and one worth considering until I buy the track.

 

The type of port I'm happy with is 'Mostyn' rather than wanting it to be somewhere like Felixstowe or having a scale size marshalling yard the size of Acton, Arpley, Dollands Moor, Margam, Tees or Tyne.

 

Thanks again,

Regards,

Jonny

 

*It should have been much more, but there's a complicated and personal story that I don't want to go in to the details of especially on a public forum like RM Web...

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, JN said:

I thought a mid-curve straight would help with running bogie coaches/DMUs and wagons, that this would allow me not to have every wheel set on a curve (a reason why I've put a short straight with two of the points on the main line - I'm not so fussed about he siding). 

 

I'm not sure that I understand your logic here. You have 90 degree curves, so unless your stock is un-prototypically long, then each of your bogie coaches and wagons will have all wheels on the curve at some point.

 

I'd recommend the inclusion of a short straight between two curves of opposite hand (ie a reverse curve) where the purpose is to avoid buffer lock on the transition from one curve to the other, but I don't think it would provide any benefit to what you are trying to do when the two curves are of the same hand.  If it was me, I'd get rid of the short straights and try to incorporate as large radii curves at the ends as you can manage. 

 

As has already been highlighted, the 2" (50.8 mm) track spacing for Peco streamline is based on having closer to scale curves than the Set Track geometry, which requires a 67 mm spacing between first and second radius curves.  From my own experiments, if you're planning to operate Class 158 units, Mark 3 coaches or large bogie wagons like Heljan's Cargowaggons, I think you need to either get the end radii up to something like 762 mm (2' 6") or you need to start increasing the track spacing to something larger than 51 mm.  For my own layout, I'm planning to increase the spacing to about 55 mm on my circa 30" curves.  I don't think that's strictly necessary, but I'm aiming for around 5 mm clearance just to make sure my trains don't touch.  If you adopt the standard streamline spacing with curves of less than 30", you are likely to encounter issues with some combinations of modern stock.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

I very much doubt you were able to stretch over a four foot wide layout unless you are exceptionally tall and the layout was fairly low.  How far you can stretch depends on both your size and the height of the layout.  For a layout that is at chest height, I can stretch about 650 mm (around two feet and two inches), that being the distance between my arm pit and the centre of my hand.  That is the furthest from the baseboard edge at which I would be able to, say, clean the track. 

 

However, if the layout is lower, such that I am able to bend at the waist, I can stretch about 850 mm (just short of three feet).  Whilst I could probably retrieve a derailed coach from the back of a three foot wide baseboard, I wouldn't be able to clean the rails if the track was that far from the baseboard edge.  Someone a bit taller than me (I'm only five foot eight inches tall) can probably reach over a three foot wide baseboard, but I think that would be close to the limit for most people.  I assume if anything derailed on the far side of your father's layout, you were probably able to retrieve it from one or other of the edges, so your maximum stretch would have been three feet. 

 

Anyway, it doesn't seem like you'll have an issue if you stick to a central operating well and two foot wide baseboards, although I do agree with some of the other comments that a wider operating well would be preferable.  I would certainly fit in one two foot wide, but having mocked it up (ie standing between the batons that will support my 610 mm wide baseboards), it feels a little constrained.

The layout was pretty low down on a bed which got to about thigh height (when I visited my Dad at weekends I would sleep in the main bedroom and Dad slept on a sofa bed). With it being directly on the mattress it could be pushed down a little further for any correcting decoupling, derailing or stalling problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

I'm not sure that I understand your logic here. You have 90 degree curves, so unless your stock is un-prototypically long, then each of your bogie coaches and wagons will have all wheels on the curve at some point.

 

I'd recommend the inclusion of a short straight between two curves of opposite hand (ie a reverse curve) where the purpose is to avoid buffer lock on the transition from one curve to the other, but I don't think it would provide any benefit to what you are trying to do when the two curves are of the same hand.  If it was me, I'd get rid of the short straights and try to incorporate as large radii curves at the ends as you can manage. 

 

As has already been highlighted, the 2" (50.8 mm) track spacing for Peco streamline is based on having closer to scale curves than the Set Track geometry, which requires a 67 mm spacing between first and second radius curves.  From my own experiments, if you're planning to operate Class 158 units, Mark 3 coaches or large bogie wagons like Heljan's Cargowaggons, I think you need to either get the end radii up to something like 762 mm (2' 6") or you need to start increasing the track spacing to something larger than 51 mm.  For my own layout, I'm planning to increase the spacing to about 55 mm on my circa 30" curves.  I don't think that's strictly necessary, but I'm aiming for around 5 mm clearance just to make sure my trains don't touch.  If you adopt the standard streamline spacing with curves of less than 30", you are likely to encounter issues with some combinations of modern stock.

I know how it feels to repeat.

 

Although you didn't quote from the same post... ("My process was to lay down 2x22.5d* third radius curves in Peco 100 setrack and create the same in flexitrack code 75 (I believe the only code using concrete sleepers which is good for my choice of era) creating 45d then have a short straight then another 45d curve to finish the required 90d. I tried making the outer curves longer, but the same angle, thinking this would be fourth radius equivalent."). Whether I succeeded is down to ability (knowing arc lengths for any given angle and radius etc) rather than intent - I genuinely thought I was making third and fourth radius curves. I couldn't use your measurements, but I was able to use the following:

Curves (inside) - 582mm @ 22.5d

Curves (outside) - 652mm @ 22.5d

Straights - 889mm

Even these caused a varied gap between the tracks - I did try for a gap of 70mm, but going clockwise from the first top-left straight the gap is (in mm): 70, 70, 70, 60, 59, 67, 65, 50, 50, 65, 69, 69, 33, 47, 27, 70, 70, 64, 64, 70. Yet all the track is the same angle, the same length and all connects. I'm sorry, but I don't know what I'm getting wrong and I'm (or the software or both) obviously getting something wrong...

 

I also thought 50mm (50mm which equals 12ft 6in seems a bit much, though) was the correct track centre to centre measurement for OO gauge and it being prototypical for the wagons to conform to the track (rather than the other way around). I might actually be wrong on that). Anyway, I'm not too fussed about ferryvans - like I said, I'm happy with a Mostyn type port with rather than needing a Felixstowe.

Screenshot 2021-06-20 at 02.44.07.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

This layout siding gives a train length maximum of one locomotive with two BBAs or five HAAs or HEAs. A locomotive the size of a class 37/47/56/60 would be 1/3 of the train length. Even as a Mostyn, rather than a Felixstowe or Immingham, it would look kind of strange. This would also be the standard rather than the exception. Mostyn was barely ever used during the early 1990s (I think its only recorded use, for steel, was during the 1989  port strike in Scotland - as per photo one of http://www.penmorfa.com/Archive/twentynine.html).

 

If I did this in N-Gauge, the track lengths would be the same, but the wagons would be about 1/2, so I would get four BBAs or 10 HAAs or HEAs in to the siding (on current plans). I can't really shrink the port entrance to as this would be the shunting area - I'm thinking Class 08 and one BBA wagon without using the main line as a shunting area (out, switch points, then back to the other siding)My Dad, on his 6x4 layout, has a 5:8 scaling up ratio. Even this would only give me a train length of three/four BBAs or eight HAAs/HEAs... My layout would also have a lower scaling up ratio - not 1:1, but less than 5:8.

 

I might be able to 'get away' with a 37/47 with a four or five mk1s or mk2s and two-car DMUs, but I prefer the idea of a freight-based layout. That said, the typical traffic for Mostyn seems to be short TTA tank trains (http://www.penmorfa.com/Archive/twentyseven.html). The added bonus of a tank train, too, is that the load is unseen. Maybe this is a better way to go.

Screenshot 2021-06-20 at 05.19.06.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 16/06/2021 at 18:38, JN said:

Thanks for that. The space is 12x6, so I’m planning on using 6 (three on one side and three on the other side) 4x2 baseboards along the sides and 2 2x2 baseboards at each end. I decided on the baseboard dimensions for a variety of reasons - space being the leading consideration (a bit like the 'buy the best you can afford' maxim 'build the biggest layout you can').

 

Regards,

Jonny

Can I make a suggestion that you only have one side of your layout 2 feet wide, and the other 3 sides 1 foot wide with extra width in the corners. This would give you a wider operating area in the center of the layout, and cut out alot of wasted space.

 

In the period your modeling around 1995 the majority of stations had slimmed down to just the basics, the classic goods yard and cattle shed was long gone so stations can be small. It's possible to build a 2 or 3 track station area on the narrow 1 foot wide side of the layout, then build your yard/sidings on the wider 2 foot side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, simon b said:

Can I make a suggestion that you only have one side of your layout 2 feet wide, and the other 3 sides 1 foot wide with extra width in the corners. This would give you a wider operating area in the center of the layout, and cut out alot of wasted space.

 

In the period your modeling around 1995 the majority of stations had slimmed down to just the basics, the classic goods yard and cattle shed was long gone so stations can be small. It's possible to build a 2 or 3 track station area on the narrow 1 foot wide side of the layout, then build your yard/sidings on the wider 2 foot side.

I know by 1990-94 cattle docks at stations weren't a thing. In all the years I've been alive, I cannot recall a single instance of something like this (some stations didn't even have this when they were originally built). Maybe I wasn't very clear and/or got my maths wrong, so the corners and centre-to-centre measurements are wrong. Possible if not probable for the former. Actually the case in the latter (I still don't have things right). However, I was thinking of a car park for one side of the station.

 

You should see from the thread that I've never mentioned a cattle dock. The only mention of a historic layout possibility is that of a coal export port, similar to that of the original purpose of the Stockton and Darlington railway - this wasn't without precedent in the early 1990s:

Bidston (I think this actually closed in the early 1980s)

Ellesmere Port

Harwich is the smallest rail connected port I can think of on the East coast of the UK

Holyhead (okay, intermodal exports/imports and passengers)

Hunterston (okay, coal and iron ore imports)

Mostyn (okay, not coal)

Seaforth (okay, coal imports)

As I've mentioned, or at least implied, Felixstowe or Immingham (or marshalling yards like Acton, Alexandra Docks, Arpley, Dee Marsh, Healy Mills, Kingmoor, Margam, Mossend, Tees, Toton and Tyne) are just too big to model in the space I have (certainly in OO and probably even in N too). However, no-one said I have to model Felixstowe or Immingham etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JN said:

I also thought 50mm (50mm which equals 12ft 6in seems a bit much, though) was the correct track centre to centre measurement for OO gauge and it being prototypical for the wagons to conform to the track (rather than the other way around). I might actually be wrong on that). 

 

True scale track spacing would actually be a minimum of 45 mm centre to centre, so you are correct: 50 mm is too wide and the tracks should be placed closer together if you want to be really prototypical. 

 

However, mainline stock is designed to negotiate a five chain radius curve 'dead slow' - ie at a speed of less than 5 mph.  A chain is 66 feet long, which means that in model form, that equates to a radius of 1.32 m (52").  All railway track laid at a radius of less than 10 chains, would be continuously check railed, which most of the network isn't, so if you want to replicate true scale curves on a double track line, then you need to be working with radii greater than 2.64 m (8' 8").  Sadly none of us have the space for such generous prototypical curves.  That therefore means that we need to increase the spacing between tracks to be greater than that of the prototype to accommodate the stock that we wish to run simply because it will overhang on a curve more than it does on the prototype.  Peco chose a 2" (50.8 mm) spacing for their streamline range as a suitable compromise based on the assumption that modellers could probably accommodate curves of perhaps three foot radius and with a three foot radius curve and tracks 2" apart, you should be able to run two trains at the same time round the curves.

 

However, if you drop down to set track radii, then the overhang of a coach, DMU or bogie wagon becomes greater still and therefore the 2" streamline spacing is no longer enough.  That is why the set track spacing is greater - 67 mm.  The difference in spacing between first, second, third and fourth radius curves is based on being able to run stock on first and second radius curves without collision, which means that it's wider than is strictly necessary between third and fourth radius.

 

However, since you are working with flexitrack, there is no need to be constrained to trying to replicate third and fourth radius set track curves.  You should be able to just place down a piece of track and set it to whatever radius you want and then you should be able to offset a second track from that at whatever spacing you want.  In my case, my starting point was to adopt a radius of 762 mm for the inside track simply because I have a 30" Tracksetta, which will be used to help me lay the track.  I'll then offset the rest of the track from that.  I'll be using 2" track centres in storage loops (which are straight), but increasing the distance slightly on the curves at either end simply because I'll be running a lot of long bogie stock. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, JN said:

I know by 1990-94 cattle docks at stations weren't a thing. In all the years I've been alive, I cannot recall a single instance of something like this (some stations didn't even have this when they were originally built). Maybe I wasn't very clear and/or got my maths wrong, so the corners and centre-to-centre measurements are wrong. Possible if not probable for the former. Actually the case in the latter (I still don't have things right). However, I was thinking of a car park for one side of the station.

 

You should see from the thread that I've never mentioned a cattle dock. The only mention of a historic layout possibility is that of a coal export port, similar to that of the original purpose of the Stockton and Darlington railway - this wasn't without precedent in the early 1990s:

Bidston (I think this actually closed in the early 1980s)

Ellesmere Port

Harwich is the smallest rail connected port I can think of on the East coast of the UK

Holyhead (okay, intermodal exports/imports and passengers)

Hunterston (okay, coal and iron ore imports)

Mostyn (okay, not coal)

Seaforth (okay, coal imports)

As I've mentioned, or at least implied, Felixstowe or Immingham (or marshalling yards like Acton, Alexandra Docks, Arpley, Dee Marsh, Healy Mills, Kingmoor, Margam, Mossend, Tees, Toton and Tyne) are just too big to model in the space I have (certainly in OO and probably even in N too). However, no-one said I have to model Felixstowe or Immingham etc.

 

 

Have you looked at Boston port? These might give you some ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by simon b
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Tempfix

Hi Jonny,

 

A couple of thoughts that might help with track spacing. For the main loops on Catford, I went with the Peco long radius streamline points, with a short ST-203 straight between them:

CA308.jpg.10a7104a801310bbd1869131583ce120.jpg

 

Slight lack of prototypicality (probably not a word!) aside, I know that nothing is going to interfere with anything else on straight or curve.

 

For the curves I cheated yet further! Two of the four corners on the layout use set-track R3 and R4 curves due to lack of space, but have been disguised. One is completely in tunnel, the other is cutting and tunnel so the sharpness of the turn is not obvious. For the most visible curve I wanted something a bit more sweeping, so I brought a pair of adjustable track spacing tools. Not sure the make (Proses maybe?), they have little notches beneath that sit on the rails themselves. One pair is adjustable, so you can set it to the spacing you want and then keep two lines parallel straight or curved. BUT - to get the sweep of the curve I wanted in the space, I temporarily laid some Peco R4 curves on the inside of where the line was to be, then set my spacers to the distance shown in the picture above, then laid the inner line the set distance outside that, and once fixed, the outer the same distance beyond that. So I effectively created an R5 and R6.

CA309.jpg.c3c0c69cdfeaad6f44172e225da68ad1.jpg

 

Still probably slightly sharper than reality, and there are probably a great many more professional ways of doing it, but 10 years on it still works for me!

 

Best of luck with it.

Rich

 

PS I'm probably late on one of the comments above - but you can get code 100 concrete sleeper track - it's what I used - visible in both pics above.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JN said:

I know by 1990-94 cattle docks at stations weren't a thing. In all the years I've been alive, I cannot recall a single instance of something like this (some stations didn't even have this when they were originally built). 

 

You should see from the thread that I've never mentioned a cattle dock.

 

I don't think Simon was suggesting that you have a cattle dock or thinking you were planning on one, but was trying to highlight that the 'foot print' of a modern station is generally much smaller than it may have been in the past.  The former goods yard and cattle sidings would have become a car park or sold off as development land.  Therefore, since there would be less track in your time period, it would fit into a smaller baseboard width.

 

I think your desire for all the boards to be the same width is driven by your stated desire for symmetry, however, there is a general concern that an operating well that is just two foot wide is a bit cramped and therefore the suggestion to make it bigger, if possible.  If you could make the boards either end longer (eg 2' * 2'6" or even 3') then that would be better, but if the layout can't be more than six foot wide, then narrower baseboards would be the only way of making the operating well wider.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Dungrange said:

 

I don't think Simon was suggesting that you have a cattle dock or thinking you were planning on one, but was trying to highlight that the 'foot print' of a modern station is generally much smaller than it may have been in the past.  The former goods yard and cattle sidings would have become a car park or sold off as development land.  Therefore, since there would be less track in your time period, it would fit into a smaller baseboard width.

 

I think your desire for all the boards to be the same width is driven by your stated desire for symmetry, however, there is a general concern that an operating well that is just two foot wide is a bit cramped and therefore the suggestion to make it bigger, if possible.  If you could make the boards either end longer (eg 2' * 2'6" or even 3') then that would be better, but if the layout can't be more than six foot wide, then narrower baseboards would be the only way of making the operating well wider.

That's exactly what I was getting at. 

 

If the boards all must be the same width it could be done in 18" wide giving a 3 foot operating well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Jonny, going back to the basics of CAD planning, if you're going to use set-track radii, it's much easier to just use the set-track curves provided in the planning app.  The fact that you intend to lay flexitrack (though it's tricky to get flexi curves perfectly smooth at those tight radii), is irrelevant at this stage.  As an added bonus, it means we can immediately see what radius curves you are using when we look at your plans, which helps us to comment.  And with any luck it will guard against the overhang/underhang problems round the bends ....

 

Keep on keeping on, and we'll keep on trying to help, though you may find different people saying basically the same thing in many different ways a bit annoying at times ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Over/Underhang problems can be avoided at the track laying stage by the following method, which I believe I may have read in Model Railway Constructor back in the 60s and which may have come from Cyril Freezer.  Using the longest vehicle that is going to run on the layout, probably a mk3 or similar coach in your case, sellotape a pencil (original tip, a pen or felt tip will do just as well) to the centre of the body side at waist level so that the tip is resting on the baseboard, and then push the vehicle around the layout with the marker on the inside of the radius of any curvature.  The pencil/pen/marker will leave a trace on the baseboard surface on the inside of the radius which will be the clearing point for that vehicle.

 

Now, sellotape the marker to one of the end corners of the vehicle and repeat the pushing around the layout exercise.  The trace left is the clearing point for the overhang.  If there are any places where the traces intersect, the vehicles will foul against each other, and the thickness of half the marker provides a safety margin which will account for any wobble at speed.  It will also determine clearing points at junctions. 

 

This must be done before the track is finally fixed down permanently, but will prevent fouling collisions.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so yesterday I was able to sort out my garage’s door lock problem. I was then able to measure up inside rather than estimating and its 17x6. Granted I might have not measured accurately, so let me just say 15x6 with a bit of length to spare. I’m fine with 15x6 - a little narrower than I might have wanted, but longer than I originally thought (I mentioned originally it would be 12x6). Ideally _x8 would have been the best - breaking curves and make the railway more rectangular. That said, it’s not an option and I’ll have to make he best with what I have. Also, the narrowness forces me to choose what I really want rather than having ‘everything’.

 

Still, I’ve now got a layout plan which seems to work which involves something of which I intended. I’ve had to make a few compromises, but we all have to do that at some point. Regardless, I always knew I had to scale down my exact wishes to something workable if I was ever going to make the idea real. The depot is more like a stabling point. When I was sorting through ideas for the stabling point (the yellow section) I originally intended the junction to go to the left of the crossover. I felt this would have conflicted too much with a station on that side of the layout.

 

I got the idea for the (reformed) stabling point from Laura of UK Diesel and Electric Modelling. She said that at Hull there is such a thing at Hull Botanic Gardens (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7KYzQouEyM at about 7mins) and, well, it would be rude not to. Luckily, I’ll have enough space for four DMUs. I also I made a mistake about my thing on topography as you’ll see from her (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OosN_rIfI1w at 2hr 24m 29s). I should have realised that from Birkenhead, Greenock and Port Glasgow as well as many other coastal towns. Whilst I’m correcting things, Bidston closed in 1997 (I must have got confused with the Stockport Tiviot Dale line, now part of the M60, being closed which served the port with coal from West Yorkshire for export to Ireland).

 

The operation for the port is for a train to enter on the green section and switch into the turquoise section whilst a shunter awaits on the red. The shunter then comes out to the green and takes wagons from the train backs out to the green and Marshalls the wagons on to the red line for unloading. When the train is ready for departure, the train locomotive goes to the green section, as would the shunter and the train engine then backs on to the empties (once the shunter has gone to the turquoise section) and wrong line works until the crossover as happens at Brocklesby (I like saying ‘Brocklesby’) Junction.

 

Centre to centre on both straight sides is 50mm (I believe this is the correct spacing - the measurement I’ve heard from numerous people - centre to centre measurement). I’ll have to double check that. The software might be wrong in terms of the points, so yes, I will have to remember that and change things accordingly. I just hope the design shows my intention, but if there are glaring errors I’ll take that on board. The inner curves are longer than set track 4th radius curves, so I think I should be fine. Below is what I intend to run (probably with 31s, 37s and 47s, mostly, but the odd 56 and 60):

  • Engineering trains (essential, so kind of obviously everywhere on the British Rail network)
  • Coal trains of HEA/PFA (as per Seaforth/Ellesmere Port respectively)
  • Petroleum trains of TTAs (as per the North Wales coast line)
  • Short steel trains (as per trip workings)
  • DMUs (156s, 158s as per pretty much anywhere on the British Rail network)
  • Locomotive hauled passenger trains (37/4s or 47/4s with four or five mk1s or mk2s as per the North Wales coast line, possibly slightly longer as per Liverpool - Newcastle transpennine trains)
  • HSTs (as per pretty much anywhere on the British Rail network)
  • Railtours hauled by my own heritage and my Uncle Tony’s locomotives (44986, Pvt. E Sykes, Mallard, King’s Own Yorkshire Light Infantry and a couple of others I’m struggling to identify)
  • Possibly Nuclear KFAs (as per the North Wales coast line)

 

My port siding will carry about 19 HEAs in total with a locomotive, but 15 will be fine as I’d still want space for buffers and shunting. There is only enough for six BBAs with buffer, locomotive and shunting space. I’ve read the ‘correct’ width for a platform is 33mm, but here is no correct length. I’m tempted to have the platform longer than needed and have one end decaying, with weeds, possibly even fenced off. The station is going to have to be a variety of stations and not really there all at the same time - adding passing loops and such would just complicate things and I’d like to keep things as simple as possible and have some room for scenery. Sir John Betjemin’s Great Central Railway (https://www.gcrailway.co.uk/the-railway/sir-john-betjeman/) describes the scenery more than the train or railway. The idea for crafting myself a small set of BBAs came from wanting something to do and they’re used a lot. I’d like to start making something of ‘mine’ rather than just copying the people, as important to me as they are, who came before me).

 

As regards a location, well, I’m not too fussed about that. As we can see there is a strong North Wales influence. Not all that surprising, really, given my Dad took us photographing the railtours along the North Wales coast or on the Settle and Carlisle route. ‘Whereton’ sounds an appropriate name, given my conflict between the North East and North(/South) Wales. I could call it Blairford if it’s going to be “traditional values in a modern setting”. lol. Lanark, Milton Keynes, Port Sunlight, Saltaire and Welwyn Garden City are specially created towns.

 

I’m glad I settled on an oval, too. The oval means I can, at least in my head, operate a journey from place to place (1 revolution = x mile(s)). Aside from the layout, directly, I now have the challenge of sorting out my garage. Things that need to be done, if they can be:

  • Door replacement especially as the door doesn’t quite meet the ground (its at the bottom of a slope from my flat to the garage)
  • Garage floor needs tiling or some sort of flooring that isn’t just concrete - its dusty in there…
  • Needs a general tidy, so I can use ‘under my baseboards’ as storage

 

Thanks for your ideas folks. It’s hard communicating with me. When I was diagnosed with Autism it was due to my obviously poor social communication skills and social understanding. Obsessiveness is also a problem for me (one reason Anxiety and Autism are linked is because they both have a circular thinking pattern. Abstract thought isn’t a problem for me - the doctor said that my creativity and intelligence help me mask that.

 

On a personal level, I tried them and sometimes they didn’t work out, but they lead to my own way of sorting things. You have helped. Sometimes I need grounding and thinking out things as I can get overexcited about the tiniest of things. I felt encouraged- one of my great ‘general’ regrets in life is having given up so easily. I have other regrets too - like the numerous times and ways I’ve proverbially shot myself in the foot (you might not be surprised that I fell out with Getty Images). Being a perfectionist and not having the confidence to pursue that perfection. I’m my own worst enemy.

 

Once I realised there were battery generators are available I felt I could use the garage and not have to make do with an alcove or massively change (and possibly even get rid of) furniture.

 

Anyway, I must get back to those Cambrian kits - George V stuck in his stamps in to his own stamp collection. Hopefully I'll get to test them on my Dad's Chester/Crewe/Shrewsbury (during the 1950s/60s) layout.

 

Thanks again, all of you,

Regards,

Jonny

Screenshot 2021-06-22 at 01.19.45.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, JN said:

The operation for the port is for a train to enter on the green section and switch into the turquoise section whilst a shunter awaits on the red. The shunter then comes out to the green and takes wagons from the train backs out to the green and Marshalls the wagons on to the red line for unloading. When the train is ready for departure, the train locomotive goes to the green section, as would the shunter and the train engine then backs on to the empties (once the shunter has gone to the turquoise section) and wrong line works until the crossover as happens at Brocklesby (I like saying ‘Brocklesby’) Junction.

 

With regard to this bit of your post, in fact the "wrong line working" will be on the initial approach to the port sidings, not on departure - trains normally run on the left, so your outer circuit would normally see clockwise operation.

 

Leaving that aside, once the train has departed, what happens next?  It's got to reverse somewhere if it's going to get back to the port, so you need to arrange either a way for the loco to run round the train, or have somewhere to park it, preferably without blocking the main line, so another loco can come out of the depot and couple on to the other end.  You talk about a journey from place to place, but you don't have the second place, yet.

 

And a final thought (for now :)) - your possible shunting moves are very limited and the operation as you describe it will be very repetitive.  Which is OK if you're more interested in the modelling that surrounds the railway than the railway operations - but personally I like to be able to "play trains" and wouldn't get much joy from this.  

 

I could offer a plan to address some of these issues, but am conscious you said you want to keep things simple.  Do you have a limit to the number of points you would be happy to use?  Would you be happy to use single and double slip crossings?  You now have a huge amount of space (by most peoples' standards) and although lots of people here applaud not filling space with track, your current plan takes this concept towards the extreme!

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Over/Underhang problems can be avoided at the track laying stage by the following method, which I believe I may have read in Model Railway Constructor back in the 60s and which may have come from Cyril Freezer.  Using the longest vehicle that is going to run on the layout, probably a mk3 or similar coach in your case, sellotape a pencil (original tip, a pen or felt tip will do just as well) to the centre of the body side at waist level so that the tip is resting on the baseboard, and then push the vehicle around the layout with the marker on the inside of the radius of any curvature.  The pencil/pen/marker will leave a trace on the baseboard surface on the inside of the radius which will be the clearing point for that vehicle.

 

Now, sellotape the marker to one of the end corners of the vehicle and repeat the pushing around the layout exercise.  The trace left is the clearing point for the overhang.  If there are any places where the traces intersect, the vehicles will foul against each other, and the thickness of half the marker provides a safety margin which will account for any wobble at speed.  It will also determine clearing points at junctions. 

 

This must be done before the track is finally fixed down permanently, but will prevent fouling collisions.

 

Good idea, but I'd suggest using masking tape rather than sellotape, as sellotape can lift paint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's more you can do in the space as well - I'll have a bit of a cogitate/sketch out too.

 

One issue with your plan is that when the shunter shunts the wagons from the blue line to the red line, it will need to come out on to the main line to do it.

 

Don't forget that not all the track has to be laid at once - you can lay the main line(s) with their points first and add more later so it's being done in bitesize chunks rather than a mass of complication in one go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/06/2021 at 10:54, simon b said:

 

 

Have you looked at Boston port? These might give you some ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for these. Enjoyable and interesting. I found the first video especially useful. I know I'm prone to what's known as 'hyperreality' as well as (sometimes) misinterpreting what people have typed. Thanks for sharing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

With regard to this bit of your post, in fact the "wrong line working" will be on the initial approach to the port sidings, not on departure - trains normally run on the left, so your outer circuit would normally see clockwise operation.

 

Leaving that aside, once the train has departed, what happens next?  It's got to reverse somewhere if it's going to get back to the port, so you need to arrange either a way for the loco to run round the train, or have somewhere to park it, preferably without blocking the main line, so another loco can come out of the depot and couple on to the other end.  You talk about a journey from place to place, but you don't have the second place, yet.

 

And a final thought (for now :)) - your possible shunting moves are very limited and the operation as you describe it will be very repetitive.  Which is OK if you're more interested in the modelling that surrounds the railway than the railway operations - but personally I like to be able to "play trains" and wouldn't get much joy from this.  

 

I could offer a plan to address some of these issues, but am conscious you said you want to keep things simple.  Do you have a limit to the number of points you would be happy to use?  Would you be happy to use single and double slip crossings?  You now have a huge amount of space (by most peoples' standards) and although lots of people here applaud not filling space with track, your current plan takes this concept towards the extreme!

You might be right as regards to wrong line working… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Bpcova56Kk shows that I got Brocklesby Junction ‘wrong’ and had assumed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cthRoU8AXEk was ‘how it had always been’. That just shows I should have done the research more thoroughly. Right now I can’t really deal with another junction or changing any of the junction layouts, but let have a tinker - I’ve thought of a three-way point might help - the track plan as is won’t allow for a ladder crossing which is the most obvious way of sorting things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That operating well looks far too narrow to me.  There is minimal stock storage.  That is fine with 1960s trains but 2000s stuff really needs to be put on the layout and not taken back off until it needs servicing in my case 5 years later, otherwise you will break bits off.   As  a minimal fix  I would extend the operating well and designate one side of the layout as scenic and the other as a FY where stock can be uncoupled and moved about with a Loco lift or similar.

With diesel haulage a helix or even a ramp from low level storage sidings would be do able, my outside layout has a 1 in 14 ruing grade with class 37s hauling 6 coach trains so a lot of stock could stay on the rails at low level while you play on the upper.  

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...