RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 11, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 11, 2012 I've taken on board your comments Mike and played around a bit. It does mean some changes, which I'm happy to look at, but to be honest I prefer the original even though it is not totally correct. I can't move the double junction up to the terminus as that is the start of the gradient. Moving both junctions across the corner allows a bit more space for the crossovers. The facing one could now go inside the tunnel, but this would mean doing away with the plate girder bridge under the terminus approach and replacing it by tunnelling, so that all four lines go into a pair of double track tunnels. That just leaves a trailing crossover outside the tunnel, but it does reduce the visible run considerably. Apart from the one facing crossover, I liked the flow of the original. Maybe photoshop is the answer, if that nice Mr Nevard comes to call again.... I don't like that at all Gordon - stick with the original plus the two extra double junctions and wonder about the scenicality of the facing crossover when you get to it 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Meticulious plannig, It is looking wonderful. Andy. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWJ Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Fascinating to watch the layout plans developing (and the very impressive fiddle yard). A couple of thoughts on recent discussions: 1 - Do you have a means of automatically controlling the various double junctions so you can keep the trains running smoothly while preventing collisions, or will this be down to the dexterity of the operator? 2 - Could you use the grade seperation to your advantage and make one or more of the double junctions into flying junctions, eliminating the risk of head-on collisions and making pathing easier? I ask these questions as someone in awe of the scale and quality of your work, so I hope they don't come across as critical! Cheers, Will 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted October 11, 2012 Author Share Posted October 11, 2012 With my penchant for embossed plastic, I would say go for that although given the amount you will need, including building, painting, weathering, etc., then Scalescenes may be the better option. Thanks Sandside. Whose plastic sheet would you recommend? Wills? Taken a look at Aldersgate, Pete. I really like the buildings and the brickwork is red rather than blue, but lots of ideas. Regards your questions Will, I haven't really got that far on the control front, but crossings will be protected electrically with isolating sections to prevent collisions. I'm not sure I understand your second question. All the tracks in this area are at the same height. ET terminus is 70mm higher and the grade commences from the double junction at the bottom of the plan. I really have a hang up about gradients and the rise to ET terminus is 1:100. By flying junctions, I'm assuming you mean taking one track over the other? There just isn't the space to do that as each 70mm climb needs 7m of run. Feel free to comment on any aspect of ET. I certainly don't have all the answers and welcome suggestions. I can't promise I'll act on them, but they do lead to discussion points, such as the one with Mike this morning. Another good day. The boards for the stairwell have been built, bolted together and five minutes ago they were lifted in position to make sure they fit. I'm pleased they do, so I can rest easy for the evening. Tomorrow they will be removed and work will start on laying the track bed. This board will see the track laid, wired, painted and ballasted and work will be done on the retaining walls etc before it is lifted back in it's 90% finished state. Access over the stairwell is awkward but not impossible, but it is far easier to stand the board on legs/trestles and work in the middle of the room. I'm guessing there is a couple of months work on this next board at this stage, but my guestimates have been miles out in the past.... 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tetleys Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Gordon, I'm pleased to see you are back on track with the layout (no pun intended). I've been a bit too busy to log on to E.T. for a while but it appears your council dustmen have been busy removing discarded baseboards and it's no wonder the world copper price is sky high with the amount of copper clad sleepers you've used. Since we both have rooms above garages for modelling I'm curious what height you have available for your own boards before the ceiling slopes inwards? I'm very near to starting my own track laying but since Gilbert convinced me to go DCC I'm now taking notes of such comments as your "300 wires for a board 4 x 2!" Concerned of Ancaster. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Jason T Posted October 11, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) Personally, I would go with Slaters as Wills is pretty thick and is not the easiest to match up from one sheet to another. SE Finecast's stuff is ok although the profile of the bricks is a bit rounded. Sorry, I should elaborate. I haven't got any Wills Brick sheets to hand but they are very thick plastic, a swine to cut ( in my opinion) and not that well suited to the length of retaining walls you need. The brickwork looks great, if with a bit too much relief. Slaters comes in A4 sheets, cuts easily and is very nice to work with, although occasionally you will find that the courses of bricks aren't parallel (not really a huge issue). It is the sheet on the left of the photo. SE Finecast's comes in almost A3 sheets and has a bit more profile than the Slaters (you may be able to make that out in the photo). Not quite as nice to work with as the Slaters I find, although they do also sell very handy sheets containing arches, etc., which are infinitely useful (and can, of course, be combined with Slaters) Hope that helps a bit more now than my original reply (the first sentence, basically) Edited October 11, 2012 by Sandside 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Gordon, I've just figured out the change to the plan and yes it looks good. I'm a bit slow this week as wracked with doubt and debilitated by bloody memory loss. Getting old really does suck... Apart from that I'm as fit as a fiddle! Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted October 11, 2012 Author Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) Gordon, I'm pleased to see you are back on track with the layout (no pun intended). I've been a bit too busy to log on to E.T. for a while but it appears your council dustmen have been busy removing discarded baseboards and it's no wonder the world copper price is sky high with the amount of copper clad sleepers you've used. Since we both have rooms above garages for modelling I'm curious what height you have available for your own boards before the ceiling slopes inwards? I'm very near to starting my own track laying but since Gilbert convinced me to go DCC I'm now taking notes of such comments as your "300 wires for a board 4 x 2!" Concerned of Ancaster. Dear Concerned of Ancaster Glad to hear that old heart is still ticking away. To answer your question, the top surface of my boards is 930mm from the floor. The board is set 200mm away from the wall and this gives 90mm clearance on the inner most track. No good for scenic work, but fine for storage. The total length of these three boards is 18' and there are 20 Tortoise motors and I'm estimating there are 100 separate pieces of track. I wire my Tortoise motors to a terminal strip and then to the track/switches/power feeds. With 8 wires to the terminal strip and another 8 from there to it's final place, that's 320 wires. Add to that two wires to every piece of track and that's another 200. Of course that is no different to DC if you choose to wire that way, so DCC/DC doesn't change the number of wires. The days of a Triang track clip have long gone.... GB's comment came from one board that has 12 motors which is 192 wires, 3 wires per turnout for feeds and frog polarity which is another 36 and the rest is just bus connections. Of course other boards may have less than 20 wires. I'll be glad to get onto simple boards... Here's an end on view of the boards... Edited October 11, 2012 by gordon s 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
artizen Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Hope you buy your wire in bulk reels! Concerning the board access over the stairs - have you thought of nailing a skirting board to the wall and placing cross beams between the railing and the wall so you can work on the board in situ? I am sure once the board you have just nailed to the wall is painted white, no-one would ever know why it was there! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold unravelled Posted October 12, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2012 I think the extra junction to separate the loop is a real winner, but have to mention another possibility for the older plan. The main issue is whether it would compromise curve radii, but how about making the bridge single track, and keeping the up line inside the loop. This would save a diamond at the junction, and allow the 4 track section in front of the fiddle yard to be a scenic flying junction approach. Thanks Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ray H Posted October 12, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 12, 2012 Gordon Snip . . . . . with the amount of copper clad sleepers you've used. Snip I'm about to embark on some track making using pcb sleepers. Do you meticulously clean each sleeper individually before you solder to it or is there a means to do it in bulk? I am having a lot of trouble getting the ends square when using a pair of Xuron cutters for cutting the point timbers. How do you get the ends square? Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnT Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Hi Gordon Just caught up again with this and I have to say I really like the ideas concerning the addition of the two new junctions. I remember the original ET and I just loved those retaining walls and tunnels. One thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned in relation to the two crossovers is the possibility of a scissors crossover to contain then both at the entrance to the storage sidings. I'm sure with your track building skills you could knock one up in a couple of hours. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 Lots of questions... Hope you buy your wire in bulk reels! Concerning the board access over the stairs - have you thought of nailing a skirting board to the wall and placing cross beams between the railing and the wall so you can work on the board in situ? I am sure once the board you have just nailed to the wall is painted white, no-one would ever know why it was there! Hopefully the latest pics will clarify a few things. Access to half of this board is easy. The difficult bit is where the stairs enter the room. I did knock up a footrest/stand out of 3 x 3 timber which slid between the stair spindles and would allow me to reach the part of the board over the stairs themselves, but it was all a bit scary and didn't really help with access to track at the far side. Experience has shown it is far better to build this board off site as then it is easy to access all sides of the board. I think the extra junction to separate the loop is a real winner, but have to mention another possibility for the older plan. The main issue is whether it would compromise curve radii, but how about making the bridge single track, and keeping the up line inside the loop. This would save a diamond at the junction, and allow the 4 track section in front of the fiddle yard to be a scenic flying junction approach. Thanks Dave Not sure I understand this one Dave. Can you sketch out what you mean? Gordon I'm about to embark on some track making using pcb sleepers. Do you meticulously clean each sleeper individually before you solder to it or is there a means to do it in bulk? I am having a lot of trouble getting the ends square when using a pair of Xuron cutters for cutting the point timbers. How do you get the ends square? Thanks All of my plain track is SMP flexible. My use of PCB sleepers is for power connection or a few inches extension to pointwork where it is needed. I clean the surface of all PCB sleepers with a fibre glass pen. Do it once they are stuck onto the template with double sided tape as it is then very quick to clean the solder area with the pen en masse. One word of advice. Try and get double sided tape that is residue free. Cleaning off the adhesive residue once you peel the template away is a pain. I did manage to locate some residue free tape that makes the job a whole lot easier. Cutting the ends square is no problem with Xuron cutters. It's just a matter of practice. A degree or two either way isn't going to show with sleepers that are only 4mm wide. I use 1.06mm sleepers as they match SMP. 1.6mm sleepers are much harder to cut. Just be aware there is a slight offset in the cutters, so they need to be aligned a degree or two away from the norm. Hope that helps Ray. Hi Gordon Just caught up again with this and I have to say I really like the ideas concerning the addition of the two new junctions. I remember the original ET and I just loved those retaining walls and tunnels. One thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned in relation to the two crossovers is the possibility of a scissors crossover to contain then both at the entrance to the storage sidings. I'm sure with your track building skills you could knock one up in a couple of hours. John Yes John, the two crossovers could be a scissors, but I'm not sure that addresses the problem. The facing crossover to the storage yard is the main problem. Combining them into a scissors still leaves a facing crossover and wrong road running. I thought this might be an issue, but can't see another way round it. Perhaps it will just have to be an acceptable compromise. OK, hot off the press. The first pic of 'Belle Isle' The lines on the left are the approaches to ET terminus. This is the first time I have seen this area on a full size plan and it took my breathe away to see how far away the terminus is from these first few turnouts. There must be 24' between here and the buffers. The lines to the right are the inner loops and the final pair on the far right access to the storage area. These four lines will sit in a cutting 70mm deep with a retaining wall separating them from the ET approaches. I had to realign the loop lines to generate a 120mm space for the signal box and right now it looks a little lost in the middle of these lines, but once the walls go in and the track is ballasted, I'm hoping it will look natural. By the way, if this box is in the wrong place regarding the junctions etc, please shout.... 17 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Rowsley17D Posted October 12, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2012 Wow 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 12, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2012 Hi Gordon, Looking good. Many moons ago you asked for an option to change the text size used for the page numbers in the corners of the trimmed Templot sheets. I provided such an option, but you don't seem to be using it? Go to the output > trim margins > font for corner page numbers... menu item to set want you want. If you are saving your program preferences between sessions, this setting is included. regards, Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) You're quite right Martin, I did.... You don't miss much do you.. The reason I haven't used it is because it doesn't appear on my menu as I'm still running 0.91C... I know I shouldn't be, but at my age you become attached to things and the menu's etc are second nature to me so I don't have to think about what I'm doing. I do the use Sketchboard facility on 2.05 and I will need it to do irregular crossings and given time I will move across completely, but right now 91c is like a pair of comfy slippers. Not the answer you want to hear, but as I've got older it's anything for an easy life.... By the way, I deleted all the print drivers for my Dell printer and then reinstalled a newer version. Touch wood it seems to have resolved the issue with rails missing. There is one piece of track with no rails, but compared to before it's a huge improvement. Edited October 12, 2012 by gordon s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 12, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2012 Not the answer you want to hear Hi Gordon, I wasn't looking for any particular answer, I just wanted to be sure you knew it was available. Templot2 is a natural for those curved double junctions, now that it can generate irregular diamonds easily. You might find you could save a bit of space, or ease a radius somewhere. regards, Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 12, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2012 Yes John, the two crossovers could be a scissors, but I'm not sure that addresses the problem. The facing crossover to the storage yard is the main problem. Combining them into a scissors still leaves a facing crossover and wrong road running. I thought this might be an issue, but can't see another way round it. Perhaps it will just have to be an acceptable compromise. Gordon are you mentally missing one bit of wrong line running? As it stands at present you will have wrong line running over the Down (to the staging yard) from the yard to the trailing crossover plus of course the stuff which crosses to the bang road at the facing crossover. By putting a scissors a bit nearer to camera than the present site of the facer you remove the longer stretch of bang road running on the Down line. But having said that I then come to the 'scenic possibilities' where I can see a possible excuse fir all the business of trains apparently going in the wrong direction and I'm thinking now of Copenhagen Jcn and the entrance to Kings Cross goods etc where your staging yard becomes, in effect, Kings Cross Goods with signalling provided accordingly so you can go in and out - legitimately in a railway sense - on both lines. This gives the flavour of it perhaps - and you'll know the scene well anyway of course OK, hot off the press. The first pic of 'Belle Isle' The lines on the left are the approaches to ET terminus. This is the first time I have seen this area on a full size plan and it took my breathe away to see how far away the terminus is from these first few turnouts. There must be 24' between here and the buffers. The lines to the right are the inner loops and the final pair on the far right access to the storage area. These four lines will sit in a cutting 70mm deep with a retaining wall separating them from the ET approaches. I had to realign the loop lines to generate a 120mm space for the signal box and right now it looks a little lost in the middle of these lines, but once the walls go in and the track is ballasted, I'm hoping it will look natural. By the way, if this box is in the wrong place regarding the junctions etc, please shout.... The 'box is excellently sited - look at the link above, it seems someone else had a similar idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 12, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2012 Hi Gordon, To avoid wrong-road working between the crossovers, you could try a bi-directional middle road. With 3 tracks, it's not obvious to the observer which road is which, and the outer tracks are always running right road anyway. Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 With you on that Martin, but where does the double junction to the continuous loop fit? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) Sorry Mike, you are quite right about the other wrong line running. I suppose I'm trying to get out of making a scissors.....but it would look neat. Edit: Just looked at the plan and I don't think there is room between the diamond of the junction and the first storage road turnout to fit the two turnouts required for a scissors.....Maybe the double junction will have to move down a bit. Perhaps this is just destined to be a train set. Edited October 12, 2012 by gordon s 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 12, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2012 Sorry Mike, you are quite right about the other wrong line running. I suppose I'm trying to get out of making a scissors.....but it would look neat. Edit: Just looked at the plan and I don't think there is room between the diamond of the junction and the first storage road turnout to fit the two turnouts required for a scissors.....Maybe the double junction will have to move down a bit. Perhaps this is just destined to be a train set. Just use the 'explanation' I offered you Gordon and don't change the plan - just the scenicification (if it doesn't match that scenario) and the signals (shssh, who mentioned signalling? ). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 12, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2012 With you on that Martin, but where does the double junction to the continuous loop fit? I thought you had moved them down into the bottom corner? Just suggesting an idea in principle, I don't have a copy of your box file to see how it might fit in practice, or not fit. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) OK, I understand. No I dropped that one and went back to the previous version as that one just didn't look right... Don't worry Mike, this is just the start, signalling will be coming eventually and I can imagine that subject will be a lot of fun... Track is relatively simple. Signalling is a black art..... ....and that pic is fabulous! Edited October 12, 2012 by gordon s 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold unravelled Posted October 12, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2012 Sorry about delayed reply, and untidy scribbles on your plan, but this is what I was suggesting. I didn't make it even messier by altering the spacing of the lines past the bridge, though that would need to be a sloping single line each side of the double track. As I said, i don't know if the ruling curves would allow this, and what effect it would have on the planned carriage sidings. Thanks Dave 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now