The Waverley Route revisited!

[Mallard60022]

T2 already, T3 shortly including son just up the road in Donny; his is Friday midnight. Ours will be next week I suspect.

Doesn't make any difference to me apart from no outsiders in the house, but like so many I have to 'forget' what happens 'if' etc.

really isn't  it.

Never mind, that's ow it is and trains are fun.

P

[great northern]

Indomitable Peter. That sums you up. Right, all seems like a very good and sensible plan. A few thoughts for you. My fiddle yard is now far too big, and if I was starting again, I'd not look for anything like 18 tracks, as so much of my stock now lives in cassettes. For a home layout, operated at a pace which suits the owner, it doesn't really matter how long it takes to put a train together, so I have 11 coach trains split into three cassettes. Putting them together is actually quite therapeutic.

 

What I've found, just from experience, is that it is better to have the goods trains stored on the layout, as the stock is much lighter, and its easy to dislodge something while moving cassettes, however careful I try to be. 4 foot cassettes are really the maximum possible, and I now have quite a few 3ft and even 2ft ones, which are much easier to deal with. You just need a spur long enough to take your longest cassette, and which serves a road long enough to hold your longest train. A spur at each end is OK, though I haven't done it, as I don't fancy walking 20ft every time. But I do have short spurs which feed directly onto the cassette road, and they are good for short passenger trains.

 

As always, I'm here if you want to discuss anything. Keep safe.

[bigwordsmith]

Thanks Gllbert

 

I remember many years ago being told never to judge someone without walking smile in their shoes - in this area i see you as having walked many miles, so am happy to benefit from your experience.

 

I suppose the idea of having a big fiddle yard was it meant I could run a variety of trains and not have to fiddle about with putting them on and off the layout. As my health gets less reliable I am aware that I tend to find sitting preferable to leaping up and down, so was thinking about how I could create something that would allow me to spend an enjoyable hour or so watching trains trundle round with bit of modest fiddling around int he Engine Shed.

 

Melancholy I know, but you do get to point when you have to start thinking realistically!

[37Oban]

1 hour ago, bigwordsmith said:

Melancholy I know, but you do get to point when you have to start thinking realistically!

Hi,

most definitely not melancholy!  I have problems with standing for a long time and can only use one hand, so mucg as I admire layouts such as Gilbert's operating them would be a nightmare for me.  Unfortuately I don't havr room for a contunuos run so the layout I'm currently building is a small terminus with a turntable fiddle yard.  Everything is within easy reach of my chair, especially when I get an office one with castors!

 

This hobby is meant to be about fun and enjoyment and I'm all for making it that no matter what our physical limitations are!

 

Roja

[great northern]

1 hour ago, bigwordsmith said:

Thanks Gllbert

 

I remember many years ago being told never to judge someone without walking smile in their shoes - in this area i see you as having walked many miles, so am happy to benefit from your experience.

 

I suppose the idea of having a big fiddle yard was it meant I could run a variety of trains and not have to fiddle about with putting them on and off the layout. As my health gets less reliable I am aware that I tend to find sitting preferable to leaping up and down, so was thinking about how I could create something that would allow me to spend an enjoyable hour or so watching trains trundle round with bit of modest fiddling around int he Engine Shed.

 

Melancholy I know, but you do get to point when you have to start thinking realistically!

 Point taken Peter, and I entirely agree that when planning as we get older we must be realistic. I think that does raise another potential problem though. An 18 road fiddle yard needs at least three feet in width, and I now have difficulty in reaching the far side of mine, in fact I have to balance on a small stool in order to do so, which is not a particularly good idea.

 

I shall now go up to my railway, and carry out some experiments, a sort of feasibility study. I will report back later.

[St Enodoc]

8 minutes ago, great northern said:

I now have difficulty in reaching the far side of mine, in fact I have to balance on a small stool in order to do so

Everything else being equal, the higher the boards the harder that becomes. My storage loop boards are 710mm (28") wide, carrying 14 tracks, and the rail level is approximately 1200mm (47") above floor level. I'm 1780mm (5'10") tall and that combination works for me. Anything above nipple height starts to get tricky. I do need a small stool, though, for working on the rearmost couple of tracks, as distinct from just lifting stock on and off.

Edited October 23, 2020 by St Enodoc

[Stubby47]

7 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Anything above nipple height...

 

Is he allowed to say that on here ?  Is he ?  Is he ?

[St Enodoc]

1 minute ago, Stubby47 said:

 

Is he allowed to say that on here ?  Is he ?  Is he ?

NIPPLE

 

NIPPLE

 

NIPPLE

 

Yes.

[bigwordsmith]

Like many of my Celtic Brethren I have a somewhat Neanderthal frame - long body and arms but short legs. I'm a shade under 6'2 in bare feet, and the baseboards are at 4' above floor level, so reaching across to he back of a three footer is something I can do - provided of course my back isn't playing up!

Edited October 23, 2020 by bigwordsmith

[great northern]

Short experiment. Sitting on the little office chair which I have upstairs, it was easy to lift a 4ft cassette from my storage box and place it on the spur. My boards are at 3ft height though. I think you will need a good strong adjustable height chair, whatever means of operation you adopt.

[Mallard60022]

Are we constrained by 'tradition' or just years of looking at others' layouts, especially at exhibitions?

If you have a comfortable seat next to the ops position(s) of the layout, what sort of view are you going to have? If we took the average height layout for an exhibition, which seems to be around belly height, or even the layouts that never leave home, are they a good height for:

1. Operating at sitting height?     Probably not!

2. Really good views of everything?    Nope!

3. Dealing with adjustments, incidents, stock positioning at the furthest distances without difficulty, awkward reaching whilst standing?     Probably OK.

If you want 1 & 2 , does the lower height allow comfortable reaching when standing etc?

 

Maybe a little experiment with a decent comfy chair and if that can be height adjusted somewhat then fine?

In my case, 'dropping' the height to around normal Kitchen Worksurface height is the height I could tolerate as that height is just below my Pelvis top. When I lean against the board edge at that height it supports my 'leaning reach'. However, the surfaces in our kitchen  are 37" and if it was 39", which is my trouser belt height, it would be more comfy and I can reach 3' 6" without back strain.

The seating view for me with this. on a normal kitchen chair is a tiny bit low at 14" eye level above surface level, but with an adjutable height chair it would be fine. I'd say raising the chair about 3/4 inches would make it better.

Conclusion is that I'd make the boards at top of pelvis height when standing so when you bend you 'fold' over the layout at that height!!!!!  Just a thought as seat height adjustment is a fairly simple thing to achieve.

Phil

[St Enodoc]

11 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Are we constrained by 'tradition' or just years of looking at others' layouts, especially at exhibitions?

If you have a comfortable seat next to the ops position(s) of the layout, what sort of view are you going to have? If we took the average height layout for an exhibition, which seems to be around belly height, or even the layouts that never leave home, are they a good height for:

1. Operating at sitting height?     Probably not!

2. Really good views of everything?    Nope!

3. Dealing with adjustments, incidents, stock positioning at the furthest distances without difficulty, awkward reaching whilst standing?     Probably OK.

If you want 1 & 2 , does the lower height allow comfortable reaching when standing etc?

 

Maybe a little experiment with a decent comfy chair and if that can be height adjusted somewhat then fine?

In my case, 'dropping' the height to around normal Kitchen Worksurface height is the height I could tolerate as that height is just below my Pelvis top. When I lean against the board edge at that height it supports my 'leaning reach'. However, the surfaces in our kitchen  are 37" and if it was 39", which is my trouser belt height, it would be more comfy and I can reach 3' 6" without back strain.

The seating view for me with this. on a normal kitchen chair is a tiny bit low at 14" eye level above surface level, but with an adjutable height chair it would be fine. I'd say raising the chair about 3/4 inches would make it better.

Conclusion is that I'd make the boards at top of pelvis height when standing so when you bend you 'fold' over the layout at that height!!!!!  Just a thought as seat height adjustment is a fairly simple thing to achieve.

Phil

4. Can you work comfortably under the baseboards if necessary?

[St Enodoc]

11 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Pelvis top

 

11 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

trouser belt height,

Stubby!!!!!

[Mallard60022]

8 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

4. Can you work comfortably under the baseboards if necessary?

If you can sleep under them then yes I suspect that would be the way to go.

IF Smiffy is canny he could make all his points manual so there is little to go 'wrong' under the board. FY could be surface mounted Peco/Gaugemaster with Micros. Shed could be clever wire in tube jobs? Faffy but far less expensive than Motors? Another way would be to make the whole Depot/Shed part a lift, a liftable Piano Lid style board, if you want point Motors under there? It may never have to be 'lifted up', but coud be if required.

P

 

[bigwordsmith]

The shed is already on hinges, the plan for the fiddle yard is to use my extensive store Of H&M point motors, surface mounted.

 

Wiring will be fun. The cost of converting 100+ locos to DCC would be prohibitive, so I’m thinking of analogue, with up and down mains and up and down fiddle yard both having power. I’m thinking of a cab control option so you can drive a train in and out of a fiddle road, and be able to move trains in the yard while something is thrashing around the main

 

I’m going to need sections at the end of each road so that I can hold a train, even if the points are set for through travel, and On the mains, so I can pause a train thereon

 

I was also thinking last night about getting locos to/ from the fiddle yard, as I want to have the mains higher than the shed. I have it planned at the moment  as an incline, but if I had a decent separation, say 3”, then this wouldn’t work.

 

so I’m thinking about running the shed road under the main line, which I fancy on a long curving viaduct anyway, then using some kind of loco lift in the non-scenic section.

 

I’ve got A Peco loco lift, the challenge now is how to make it go up and down without the Hand of God!

[bigwordsmith]

OK forget the idea of a loco lift - I just redrew it with a line from the loco shed diving under the mains than coming up the back behind the scenes - it works out as a 1:30, which any light engine should be able to manage, and lets me shunt locos in the fiddle yard.

 

I've also done away with the third cassette spur - I've allowed two on the Up main, and if I want to run a train over to the Down main I can just flip it on the facing X-over on the RH side of the plan and re do the engine as a shunting manoeuvre.

 

Thinking about it, if I wanted to achieve train symmetry I could simply detach the engine at the end of a circuit, send it off to shed and run another one out to put it at the opposite end of the train then go for a spin around the other loop!

 

Lots to keep oneself amused!

 

 

[St Enodoc]

11 hours ago, bigwordsmith said:

OK forget the idea of a loco lift - I just redrew it with a line from the loco shed diving under the mains than coming up the back behind the scenes - it works out as a 1:30, which any light engine should be able to manage, and lets me shunt locos in the fiddle yard.

 

I've also done away with the third cassette spur - I've allowed two on the Up main, and if I want to run a train over to the Down main I can just flip it on the facing X-over on the RH side of the plan and re do the engine as a shunting manoeuvre.

 

Thinking about it, if I wanted to achieve train symmetry I could simply detach the engine at the end of a circuit, send it off to shed and run another one out to put it at the opposite end of the train then go for a spin around the other loop!

 

Lots to keep oneself amused!

 

 

That makes very good sense Peter.

[bigwordsmith]

OK cat among pigeons time.

 

I've just been watching trains on Gresley Junction and thinking it really doe look better with a station - it doesn't;t nee dot be Waverley, but there are lots of smaller junctions on theWaverley Route that could add interest.

 

So, do I bin the engine shed and have a station, or do I bin the fiddle yard,?

 

OR....

 

Given that the engine shed is already a 12' long self-contained board that hinges up for wiring access, would it be practical to have the fiddle yard at 4" below the shed running rail height so the Hand of God can get in if needs be, and if it gets too much we clear off the locos in shed and lift it up, thus getting clear access to the fiddle rods beneath? Obviously I'd need to stick down the various scenic bits that currently just sit on the board, but it is tempting...

[great northern]

It seems to me Peter that the difficult bit of all your recent plans is reconciling the engine shed to the rest of what you would like. I fully understand why you would like to keep the shed, and it make sense in that it gives you quite a big ready to run area at a time when you probably will have limitations as to how much you are able to do for the time being.

 

Having said that, it is a large shed, and would in reality have served a pretty large station. Having the station off scene dealt with that, but a smaller station adjacent to a large shed wouldn't look "right". Of course what is right is actually what suits you, but I suspect it might niggle you somewhat. I suggest that you think carefully as to what kind of operating you wish to do. I found that my shed area on the old loft layout sat unused most of the time, as shunting puzzles and complex multiple movements just to get one loco out onto the main lines doesn't appeal to me much. If what you really want is to mainly watch the trains go by, I would think that hardening your heart and letting the shed go, thus freeing up the room for a sensibly sized station would be a good way to go.

 

As you say, there were some interesting stations on the Waverley route which you could look at. I thought about St Boswells when I went through my Waverley route phase, a country junction, and with a small engine shed adjacent to the platform, but where most of the main line trains stopped. At the end of the day though, what suits you and fits in with the practicalities of health etc has to be the right way to go.

[bigwordsmith]

Wise words Gilbert, and you sum up

my dilemma well ! 
 

I could look at selling the shed off I suppose!

[St Enodoc]

5 hours ago, great northern said:

Having the station off scene dealt with that, but a smaller station adjacent to a large shed wouldn't look "right".

Thinking of Scotland, Haymarket Station is small compared to Haymarket shed.

 

Why not try modelling a foot or two of the platform ends before they disappear under a bridge (which could include the station building as at Haymarket), to simulate a station in minimum space?

[bigwordsmith]

8 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Thinking of Scotland, Haymarket Station is small compared to Haymarket shed.

 

Why not try modelling a foot or two of the platform ends before they disappear under a bridge (which could include the station building as at Haymarket), to simulate a station in minimum space?

 

I don't know if you;ve seen the rather Wonderful Waverley West layout - also on RMW- where Dave has done exactly that!. I did on the last line try to set out a homage to the East End of Waverley, which did look rather fine, but was of necessity somewhat truncated - it's definitely got some merit, especially as only a short stub of the platform sticks out from under the train shed roof!

 

 

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, bigwordsmith said:

 

I don't know if you;ve seen the rather Wonderful Waverley West layout - also on RMW- where Dave has done exactly that!. I did on the last line try to set out a homage to the East End of Waverley, which did look rather fine, but was of necessity somewhat truncated - it's definitely got some merit, especially as only a short stub of the platform sticks out from under the train shed roof!

 

 

Indeed I have, Peter, and his Haymarket Depot looks good too.

 

Somehow I think you would regret losing the shed more than not having a station.

[bigwordsmith]

52 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Indeed I have, Peter, and his Haymarket Depot looks good too.

 

Somehow I think you would regret losing the shed more than not having a station.

 

I think you could be right...

['CHARD]

I think you'd regret selling the shed.  There's no guarantee that when the new owners moved in they wouldn't convert it to non-rail use and you would have dozens of lorries and stacks of materials, pallets, heaven knows what across what was once the loco yard.  Or worse, raze it to the ground and build a supermarket, apartments or a rugby stadium....