Eastwood Town - A tribute to Gordon's modelling.

[cb900f]

Gordon,

 

I think I have the solution to your shed options .

Sell all your stock and go ex LMS and then all you need is a roundhouse and coaling facilities. 

 

No ?  Just a thought.

 

Pete 

Edited January 10, 2018 by cb900f

[Regularity]

Fixing tie bars to copper clad track is one of those things I compromise on.  I just use a dummy sleeper and solder the blades to a piece of 4mm copper clad.  That's fine as I have long point blades, but you are still applying a torque motion to the tie bar which over a period of time may fracture the joint.  Having seen how others deal with this issue, I started playing around with pins that would rotate within the tie rod and reduce this stress.

 

Pete Harvey dropped me a line and this is what I've come up with.

 

Scan.jpeg

 

A piece of 0.3mm brass with a hole to take a 0.60mm lace making pin.  Once I get organised I will know exactly how far apart these holes will be on the tie bar to set up the exact 1.7mm or 2mm clearance on long point blades.  The tie bar is a piece of single sided board and is fitted copper side down with a small cut to electrically isolate each side.  The underside is drilled and then counterbored to accept the lace making pin.  The pin comes up through the pivot and the right angle bend butts up to the point blade. The reason it's upside down is to eliminate the problem of solder flowing over and around the pivot and locking up the tie bar.  If that happens, you're no better off as some part of the fixture has to be free to rotate.

 

A quick dab with a soldering iron will create a fillet that attaches the pivot to the blade and the top part of the pin.  Snip off the pin at the solder joint and job done.  The pin is free to rotate within the tie bar and the joint protected.

 

Here's a sketch and the production drawing.  Since this drawing was produced by Pete, I have reduced the length to 3.00mm rather than 3.5mm.  It will be etched on a sheet that will contain around 400-500 components and will be on sale to anyone.  Of course I don't know if this will work at this stage, but I believe it will.  

 

Here's the component drawing.

 

Screen Shot 2018-01-10 at 10.59.42.png

 

Brilliant.

 

One of those items where you buy a whole sheet, and gradually use them up, with plenty to spare.

 

In your case, though, I expect you will buy several sheets...

[The Stationmaster]

Just to be a nuisance I like both Options 1 and 2 although I will admit to a little bias in favour of No1 for personal reasons amplified below.  But having said that both are workable layouts and Option 2 does have a number of attractions especially as subsequently amplified.

 

Now to the personal note - although not entirely relevant in the model railway world.  Having managed, for my sins, a depot where a turntable was an essential feature of the way the place worked (even if it was a diesel depot) I can thoroughly endorse the idea that it is not a good idea to have one at a critical place in the layout.  Every time ours broke, regrettably all too frequently until major repairs were put in hand to renew the centre casting, it created significant problems in doing what was supposed to be done as it completely upset the flow system of movements through the servicing shed by turning it into a single ended building.  And that cost a lot of time and extra movements (and often money as well), particularly when dealing with locos coming in off morning peak services.

[47137]

... I'm open minded about either.  Each has its own attraction, without too many negatives, so I would certainly appreciate any comments you may have to finally make my decision and go off and start cutting wood....

Well, I am left-handed and if ever able to see this masterpiece I would find option 2 more relaxing to work with because it would keep my left arm and sleeve away from the main line. Somehow, many sketches here look like the word of a right-handed person?

 

- Richard.

[sixoh8sixoh]

I like both options - the flow of Option 2 is good - it seems more like the shed complex was carefully planned before building, whereas Option 1 has a more organic look to it - which might not be a bad thing. I still like the diamond crossings in Option 1, but it does seem to isolate areas of the complex a lot more from the incoming main line than Option 2 does.  That might be a good thing if you're using a second panel and operator for that area, though!

Edited January 10, 2018 by sixoh8sixoh

[martin_wynne]

Pete Harvey dropped me a line and this is what I've come up with.

 

 

Hi Gordon,

 

I'm sorry to say this is a poor design for flexible switches. It's fine for loose-heel switch blades, but you are not building those.

 

In order for flexible switch blades to work properly, it is important that the tip section is kept as stiff as possible. Otherwise the tip section will flex too much on opening and a full flangeway clearance will not be achieved all along behind the open switch blade. Because you have been using a solid soldered tie-bar fixing you have not seen this problem, but you will see it with a pivoted design.

 

To keep the tip as stiff as possible it is important that the rail foot remains intact on the inside. If you do that, this etched design will not reach into the rail web to create a solid soldered fixing.

 

Earlier in this topic I posted a design which I manufactured in the 1970s and 80s which allowed for a full rail foot on the switch blades. Here it is again:

 

 

For this etched design, I would strongly suggest that you allow a Z-fold upstand so that it can reach into the rail web, like this:

 

 

The resulting soldered rail fixing would be very much more solid.

 

p.s. You may have noticed that Peco in their new bullhead turnouts have not only kept the rail foot intact but also the head. For this very reason of stiffness. Instead of machining the inside of the switch rail they have chosen to machine a housing in the stock rail instead.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[gordon s]

ET shed is born....

 

44 sheets of A4 and a fair bit of patience and this has arrived.  Option 2 in all it's glory.  I need to lengthen the shed roads slightly as there's insufficient clearance between the escape road and the corner of the shed.  This will probably result in a redesign of the diesel shed, but I haven't started on this properly as yet anyway.

 

Just had a thought about the empty coal wagon siding.  It probably doesn't need to be that long, so I could take it off the coaler relief road.  I think that will then do away with the long headhunt as there is possibly sufficient room between the coaler and shed approach to act as a headshunt anyway.

 

It looks great and ticks all the boxes, but I'm going to have to do the same with Option 1 and then compare both of them with the original plan without the numerous crossings.

 

It's been a long haul with hours of work to get to this stage, but you really can't visualise something until you see it in this format.  Thanks Mike for your post.  I'll give that a lot of thought, once I have three sets of visuals with buildings in place.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2018 by gordon s

[gordon s]

Sorry Martin, I've just seen your mail.  I file my switch blades completely flat and don't have the projection shown in your drawing.

 

Based on that I feel my design will work OK.  Of course if you have your profile then I can see yours is a better design.

 

It hasn't cost me millions, so I'll play around and see how it goes.  This was just designed for my own use and at the time I hadn't appreciated the difference when filing switch blades.

 

If I went with your design with a flat blade, the joint would only be an edge against the blade.

 

I guess this is back to prototype appearance versus ease of building and assembly.  Life is full of compromises, so I chose a route that suited me and was quick to file up. 

[Regularity]

Fine by me: loose heel blades suit my interests just fine!

[Ray H]

Gordon

 

Do all the buildings need to be parallel to each other? Would "twisting" some overcome the clearance issue?

[gordon s]

Right now they're just plonked in position.  I can't do a lot with the track layout on a curve or diagonal and believe me, I've tried.  There is hardly a straight line on ET for exactly the reasons you have raised, but believe it or not space and the size of the buildings makes it quite a challenge.

 

This is a classic case of sketching something out and the when you apply your own restrictions such as 36" minimum radius and turnouts that are typically B7 or C10, you find it can't be done.

 

I remember a few years back a guy wrote a whole book of track plans and once it was published we realised that few if any could actually be built even with Peco track work.  I can't for the life of me recall who it was, but it got a pasting on RMweb.

[martin_wynne]

I file my switch blades completely flat and don't have the projection shown in your drawing.

 

Hi Gordon,

 

If you file the blades flat you will have problems with a pivoted tie-bar fixing unless you significantly increase the 20p / 10p opening at the tip. Otherwise wheels will rub against the back of the open blade, causing at the very least a slowing of the train, if not a derailment.

 

When I suggested that amount of opening, I was assuming sufficient stiffness of the blade tip.

 

If you decide to go ahead with filing them flat, I suggest you leave a thickness of say 0.2mm at the tip instead of filing to a knife edge. You will then need to provide a GWR-style joggle in the stock rail (Templot has an option to print the stock rails with a joggle).

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

I remember a few years back a guy wrote a whole book of track plans and once it was published we realised that few if any could actually be built even with Peco track work.  I can't for the life of me recall who it was, but it got a pasting on RMweb.

 

Hi Gordon,

 

I didn't see the discussion on RMweb, but you may be thinking of "Aspects of Modelling: Track Layouts" by Anthony New, Ian Allan 2008.

 

If you assume the squares on the plan are 2ft instead of 1ft*, some of the designs are very interesting and worth a look.

 

* for 4mm/ft scale

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited January 10, 2018 by martin_wynne

[gordon s]

Try this from 10 years ago.....

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=34358

[martin_wynne]

Try this from 10 years ago.....

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=34358

 

Thanks Gordon.

 

I see Anthony New made a reply to the criticism: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=535725#p535725

 

I found the book an interesting and knowledgeable read. There is a whole chapter (Chapter 5. Loco Sheds) covering the same subjects as the recent discussions here, with 8 assorted plans based on prototype locations.

 

Just ignore the suggested baseboard sizes. Anthony New obviously knows more about the prototype than modelling.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[gordon s]

I'm fairly certain I bought a copy, but can't see it on my bookshelf.

 

Found it....

 

I'm still sticking Option 1 together, so I'll take another look later.

Edited January 10, 2018 by gordon s

[hayfield]

Hi Gordon,

 

If you file the blades flat you will have problems with a pivoted tie-bar fixing unless you significantly increase the 20p / 10p opening at the tip. Otherwise wheels will rub against the back of the open blade, causing at the very least a slowing of the train, if not a derailment.

 

When I suggested that amount of opening, I was assuming sufficient stiffness of the blade tip.

 

If you decide to go ahead with filing them flat, I suggest you leave a thickness of say 0.2mm at the tip instead of filing to a knife edge. You will then need to provide a GWR-style joggle in the stock rail (Templot has an option to print the stock rails with a joggle).

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

 

I have learnt to leave one half of the foot intact, and by using the EMGS switch rail filing jig, it has made it easier to file them up.

 

The benefit is that it will makes the solder joint (whatever system you use) much stronger. Even without the jig its not much more effort doing it than not. 

 

Still each to their own, if we all did the same life would be very boring 

[gordon s]

Decision time....

 

This has surprised me somewhat.  Here is Option 1 with the same buildings in place.

 

The first thing that struck me is how much more spacious it feels. Without the diesel shed I've gained the best part of two feet.

 

The other pleasant surprise is that the coaling stage has a smaller footprint than I had allowed, so it should be possible to get a direct line from the coaling road, rather than the relief road.

 

The same issue applies re the empty coal wagon siding.  It doesn't need to be that long and that may free up even more space.

 

There's loads of room between the shed and coaling stage and the shed itself has a lot more room for additional loco storage which will go some way to disguise the plain wall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any comments on the layout?  Would this be acceptable in terms of prototypical design?  How do the diamond crossings to the coaling stage stand up to scrutiny?

 

I thought this was clear cut, but this has surprised me, so I shall have to sit quietly and consider which is the better option of the two.

Edited January 10, 2018 by gordon s

[gordon s]

I have learnt to leave one half of the foot intact, and by using the EMGS switch rail filing jig, it has made it easier to file them up.

 

The benefit is that it will makes the solder joint (whatever system you use) much stronger. Even without the jig its not much more effort doing it than not. 

 

Still each to their own, if we all did the same life would be very boring 

 

 

Thanks John/Martin.  It's something I've never considered and have always filed them flat.  Despite that I can't recall any coming adrift, but of course few have ever been in a full operating condition.

 

I've had a few problems as you describe Martin, but opening up newly constructed turnouts to 2mm has solved that.  I've also gone back to earlier turnouts and checked the gauge opposite a point blade and admit I have widened the gauge fractionally at that point.

 

My check has always been to close my eyes and propel a coach or wagon through a turnout.  If I can feel the slightest bump it has failed and then I rework it until it meets my standards of not knowing when it has travelled through a turnout.  Only then will I be happy and it will be installed on the layout.  If I cannot correct any faults, then it goes in the bin,  even though it may 'work' and does not derail.

[martin_wynne]

I've had a few problems as you describe Martin, but opening up newly constructed turnouts to 2mm has solved that

 

Hi Gordon,

 

Yes, but that is using a solid soldered tie-bar. Changing to a pivoted design of tie-bar changes things. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

 

With a solid fixing the tie-bar not only pulls the switch blade open, but also twists it.

 

A pivoted tie-bar can only pull, not twist it.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Hi Gordon,

 

A picture is worth a lot of words.

 

 

I tend to assume this sort of stuff is common knowledge, and I think it was in my modelling circles when I started on Templot 40 years ago.

 

Discovering that it isn't now, has made the process of writing the Templot docs a massive task -- which I wish I had never started.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[eldavo]

I'm sure both options can be made to work and will be fun to operate.  One thing that isn't obvious to me is where the ash pits are. These are obviously a key part of "the flow".

 

Cheers

Dave

[gordon s]

Thanks Martin.  It would appear everything I'm doing is not by the book, but running quality is perfect as far as I'm concerned.  

 

Here's a D12 turnout with the switch blades soldered as a solid unit 12 sleepers away from the dummy sleeper tie bar.  I've listened to your good self and John re tie bars and am trying to do something about it, even though I'm very happy with the way my own pointwork runs and functions.  This issue with point blades is a total new one on me.

 

Forget the flat blade as I've understood that bit, but I'm blowed I can see any of the issues you describe.  Maybe it's my eyesight or to time to pack up this hobby and play a lot more golf.......

 

 

[tender]

'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' springs to mind. You've been doing this long enough to know what works for you Gordon, I'd stick with it.

[martin_wynne]

Hi Gordon,

 

With the longer switches a solid tie-bar fixing can help. The prototype would need 2 or 3 stretcher bars on a D switch to ensure the blade opens sufficiently all along. And you are avoiding stress on the fixing by leaving them flexible over a longer length than the prototype.

 

On a prototype D switch the blades are flexible on 9 timbers beyond the stretcher bar (7 slide chairs and 2 block chairs without inside jaws) against your 12 timbers.

 

(Plus one slide chair on the timber in front of the stretcher bar, which you are representing with the tie-bar.)

 

I suggest you don't change these long turnouts to pivoted tie-bars, especially if you are continuing to file the blades fully flat at the tip. You are likely to find flangeway problems which the present solid fixings are avoiding.

 

The pivoted tie-bars are needed to relive stress for the shorter B-6 turnouts and the like, and in slips etc.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.