RMW "Layout & Track Design" - all change............

[MikeOxon]

.................................Actually, that can be the case in reality too: I diverted SWMBO to come and watch a bit of shunting at a power station during a holiday in Ireland (think how delighted she was by that!). Anyway, long train of very light, empty bogie wagons, being propelled enthusiastically through trailing point-work. "They're asking for trouble." I said. "Why?" asked SWMBO. "Clang, bang, clatter, crash" said the wagons, as they formed a tangled pyramid before our eyes. "That's why." said I.

and you've not got the photos

[halsey]

Hi,

 

Limited if any passenger (Loco and 3 coaches max) would be branch round and round and back to branch - goods is my thing.

 

So on a main line trailing is "behind" and facing is "in front" of (the loco) and trailing wherever possible is better?

 

I am using one setrack LH curved point in the bottom left to come off the last section of a 2nd radius curve not perfect practice but it does help matters.

 

Thanks all.

 

PS just unpacked a woodland scenic 3% gradient - a bit expensive but brilliant!

[Nearholmer]

Mike,

 

I do have the photos. Not brilliantly clear ones, but photos nevertheless - I will see if I can find and scan them. [Edit: well, I found one print, of the incident in progress. The RH wagon is already 'on the dirt', and the LH one is about to roll over, but I think I must have separated the picture of the final pile-up, to use in a safety presentation, 'cos I can't find it. Quality poor, being a dull print,photographed with an iPad.]

 

It is way OT, but the 3ft gauge peat railways in Ireland run trains of, typically, 16 big bogie wagons, 25 metre cubed capacity, and operations are very "nippy". Derailments aren't all that rare, and the crews are well-practised at getting everything back on the road - they will often pick up an entire wagon (the bogies fall off in the process) using a big forklift fitted to an excavator, or simply "biff" things back onto the track with a big tractor. If the wagons are too injured, they shove them out of the way, and come back for them later.

 

Peat is usually thought of as lightweight, but a wagon will be 10T+ when full, so one maintains a respectful distance from moving trains!

 

Kevin

Edited November 27, 2015 by Nearholmer

[jon_1066]

One other suggestion for you.  Gives most of what you want but not a complete double track.

 

 

It gives you max length for the climb to the BLT and maximum length for the BLT and doesn't foul the storage sidings.  ie they won't need to be hidden.

 

Basic operations would allow you to make up a goods train in the marshaling yard and send it to the goods yard and shunt the goods yard whilst a passenger train circulates on the main line (or heads off to the BLT).

[halsey]

Hi,

 

I like it and yes from a quick look I think its do-able and would fit - clearly my difficulty is going to be to understand and choose a final track plan from various contributions (which I must do soon!) given my very high level of ignorance so if I may, and if you'll forgive me, as these are genuine questions................

 

what didn't you like about "mine" and the way it has evolved?

why is this layout better?

why should I change - is this better operationally, less of a train set, closer to prototypical practice???????

 

I can see some benefits I would just like to understand a bit more but not get sucked in too much..............

 

I hope you can see/understand where I'm coming from..............

 

Thanks.

 

PS I genuinely don't know how much I'm asking of you here but is it possible to replot this using only small radius points as that is what I have already bought

Edited November 27, 2015 by halsey5455

[MikeOxon]

.............

 

So on a main line trailing is "behind" and facing is "in front" of (the loco) and trailing wherever possible is better?

Every subject has its 'jargon' and railways are far from an exception! 

 

Think of 'facing' points as spitting the ways in front of the locomotive - if anything goes wrong, this is a recipe for disaster so is considered 'a bad thing'  Facing points have to be fitted with additional locks as an additional safety precaution. 

 

If a main line train meets a 'trailing' point that is set incorrectly, the wheels should simply push the blades to the side and all should be well (hopefully).  The alternative route can only be taken by deliberately reversing back over the points, so the train crew have to make a deliberate action.

 

Mike

[Chimer]

You are a star!!

 

I have been looking for a plan to work in my 9*7 shed and like Keegs did all the obvious things and ended up in a bad place - if you look at my post started yesterday (Google images etc) you will see the back ground and lots of help already received.

 

BUT what I was really looking for was a yard linked to a canal, as that is my summer pastime and lifelong interest, why didn't I think of Brentford!

 

I have 2 LMS locos but other than that no real commitment to the midland's so I will now look more closely

 

I can also utilize the space away from my main modelling area, as mention in my thread, to provide a fiddle yard  facilities and the all imoportant to me loop.

 

Could you PLEASE find the time to comment on using your plan with 2 main fiddle loops in my space and any tweaks?

 

Does anyone know how I can link these 2 threads so they now stay together?

 

 

Hi,

 

I like it and yes from a quick look I think its do-able and would fit - clearly my difficulty is going to be to understand and choose a final track plan from various contributions (which I must do soon!) given my very high level of ignorance so if I may, and if you'll forgive me, as these are genuine questions................

 

what didn't you like about "mine" and the way it has evolved?

why is this layout better?

why should I change - is this better operationally, less of a train set, closer to prototypical practice???????

 

I can see some benefits I would just like to understand a bit more but not get sucked in too much..............

 

I hope you can see/understand where I'm coming from..............

 

Thanks.

 

PS I genuinely don't know how much I'm asking of you here but is it possible to replot this using only small radius points as that is what I have already bought

 

The question you asked in the first quoted post is the key.  It wasn't my plan so I didn't respond, but one thing you can't sensibly do with it (in my opinion anyway) is use the third line down as a main running line.  That line is an integral part of the yard, which was basically designed to be used as a shunting puzzle.  The top two lines were for passing traffic, and in that thread the designer partly agreed with me that a single passing line might have worked better in his circumstances - where that 7' x 2' was all the space he had.  We've been trying to find a reasonable way of linking that yard into your desired two-track roundy-roundy with junction to a branch, and give you a prototypical junction into the bargain.

 

Now we've seen the whole picture, there are, I believe, two more problems:

 

1.  You need to be able to get into your fiddle yard from both circuits, and be able to leave it in either direction running on the correct (left-hand) track.  This needs a crossover at each end of the FY, preferably in the non-scenic area so wrong road running is "out of sight".  That is reasonably easy to fix.

 

2.  You need around 8" clearance above FY tracks if you want to be able to actually fiddle (as opposed to shunting and running round), e.g. to swop a loco and a brakevan round by hand so a freight train can depart in the other direction.  We can now see you're planning a branch terminus on top of the FY - so your gradient needs to climb at least those 8", which takes about 27' at 1 in 40, which is quite steep.  That is not easy to fix.

 

So we're offering alternatives ...... all (except preferring visible crossovers to be trailing, and the junction layout, which are both about prototype practice) related to making it better operationally.

 

Try things, see what works, just don't fix anything too permanently just yet!

 

Cheers again

 

Chris

[halsey]

Thanks Jon_1066 but after a great deal of thought I will struggle to make that plans "construction" work as it will need the bridge across the door to carry 3 running lines one of which would be at a higher level and that concerns me.

 

Taking Chimers comments - I think my latest plan addresses your concerns - I believe point one is addressed on the latest version (attached again here for clarity) and point 2 is covered in part by the fact that the branch baseboard at 4.5" does in fact only cover the headshunt and points not the sidings and one day the "empty" area to the left may well be developed with a turntable and engine shed or a canal basin who knows..

 

I think its now decision time and time to start track laying so I thank all of you for your contributions.....

 

The final working plan as attached here is what I will now start to build with the 3% gradient being the first and a very fixed element and then the 2 loops with their associated turnouts located appropriately completing the end of phase1, the marshalling yard phase 2, the branch phase 3 and then (having learned a lot more and sadly gained a few unwelcome years) a much more detailed look at buildings etc before the goods yard at phase 4 and a canal basin or engine shed phase 5 if I survive that long! 

 

Thanks again.

[halsey]

I really must stop revisiting this and move on BUT I have just had a possible "lightbulb" moment.......................

 

I do like Jon_1066 track plan but thought the gradient would be an issue with 2 heights required on my bridge AND I do take on board Chimers comments re the marshalling yard access.........

 

BUT if I allow the branch access on Jons plan to always be on the outside of the main line the 3% gradient will fit after the bridge and if I use freezers branch line plan as mentioned earlier it will all fit in.

 

Dare I ask do we all agree on this or is my plan, just posted today, better for any reason

 

We have guests for the weekend so I'm going to set myself the final decision point as first thing MONDAY am to allow this to run a bit longer but then I must start building and as mentioned the critical positioning of the gradient and the branch baseboard will have to be my starting point.

 

Thanks again

[DCB]

It still scales at 11 ft 8 "   X   8ft  if those are 6 inch squares...

[halsey]

sorry its not to scale - trust me it fits - I have loose laid the track.

 

thanks.

[Chimer]

For me, that's a better idea - especially the placing of the branch terminus - but I would take on the double height bridging section in order to make the branch start to rise immediately after the junction by the tunnel mouth, to make it obvious that's not a double track line round the top right corner and down the right hand side.

 

Chris 

[halsey]

Hi Chris - I had already decided to do that and to take that challenge on board for the reasons you have said - I will finally start building branch baseboard and gradient on Wednesday!

 

Thanks for all contributions - perhaps photos will be the next post before Christmas.

 

I am intending to lay on cork and have bought a 5m 2mm roll so do I stick it (with a light tack glue) all over the baseboards and trim away what's not wanted over time or I do allow the track where fitted (nailed down) to hold it in place making the trimming easier - but will it then hold?

 

I am proposing to use long throw Peco point motors so minimum holes in baseboards.

 

So in summary this is what I will build pretty much as drawn here (attached again for clarity) - thanks again to all parties esp Jon!

 

BFN

Edited November 29, 2015 by halsey5455

[MikeOxon]

................................The final working plan as attached here is what I will now start to build with the 3% gradient being the first and a very fixed element and then the 2 loops with their associated turnouts located appropriately completing the end of phase1, the marshalling yard phase 2, the branch phase 3 and then (having learned a lot more and sadly gained a few unwelcome years) a much more detailed look at buildings etc before the goods yard at phase 4 and a canal basin or engine shed phase 5 if I survive that long! 

 

Since it was a wet afternoon and I mentioned SCARM early in this thread, I thought I'd have a go at entering your sketch into the program.  t was an interesting exercise for me as I have never tackled anything this complicated   I tried to do as much as possible with 'setrack' curves and straights but had to resort to 'flexitrack' to close the whole loop.  Perhaps someone can explain why the SL small radius points have an angle of 12 degrees while the nearest match in a curved 'Setrack' section is 11.25 degrees.  This seems to make it impossible to get parallel tracks when using both points and curves - or am I missing something?  I also found it quite difficult to 'close' a roundy-roundy with 'flexitrack' when the ends are almost aligned but not quite.  Anyway, here's what I got (all drawn within a 102" x 80" 'baseboard'):

 

I included the upper layer, so here's a 3D view showing the branch line:

 

I hope this is of interest.  I enjoyed trying out SCARM but have probably made loads of blunders!

 

Mike

 

EDITED since original post to correct baseboard dimensions

Edited November 30, 2015 by MikeOxon

[halsey]

thanks - I think it illustrates why the latest plan is the one to follow (as posted above at 17.00) - Chimers point is also well demonstrated.

[DCB]

The S bend in the main line looks a bit odd and shunting many of the sidings blocks the main line, why not move the sidings forward 3" straighten the main line put the branch junction further back and make the inner line into a goods loop.  See drawing of sidings half.

[Chimer]

Perhaps someone can explain why the SL small radius points have an angle of 12 degrees while the nearest match in a curved 'Setrack' section is 11.25 degrees.  This seems to make it impossible to get parallel tracks when using both points and curves - or am I missing something? 

Mike

 

Mike 

 

Setrack points turn out a dramatic 22.5 degrees, as opposed to Streamline's 12 degrees, so the Setrack standard curves match the Setrack points OK - for reverse curves for Streamline points, you need to use flexitrack (or Setrack and a hacksaw).

 

Chris

[halsey]

Hi David - you are working from the wrong "final" drawing  - it is attached above with Jon_1066 comments but attached again here to further clarify

Edited November 29, 2015 by halsey5455

[DCB]

It does not look like much fun to operate or have much scope for scenic treatment. I thought Mike Oxon's version was better.

 

As a reference I have an awful lot more crammed into my still incomplete "Bed Layout" which at 76" by 54" sits on a double bed.

It had troubled with the spiral but I think I can rebuild it with a modern spiral and actually make it work.

 

Please see drawing attached, drawn from the layout so not to scale  Min Radius is 15" and mainly set track points. 

 

I drew it on top of your layout plan to give me a scale and your plan shows through in places.

Edited November 30, 2015 by DavidCBroad

[halsey]

Morning all,

 

Nearly had a major wobble overnight as I hate indecision and do want to get on.

 

Still intend to continue as per Sunday 29th 15.09 post - the only real issue for me is that I would have preferred the branch to be behind me but I think the negative of it being over the marshalling yard is too strong (I might make it smaller/simpler - perhaps just a run around and a siding on a 6ft * 8" shelf which would solve it) - the difficulty is that I don't feel I can do anything until I resolve where the branch baseboard and its gradient is going and how the points on the main loop(s) work - I am away now until Wednesday.

[Nearholmer]

One thought about the branch terminus, wherever you put it (personally, I heavily favour the "not over the fiddle-yard" location) is that, if you build it as a "lift off" unit, perhaps composed of two baseboards that fold together, it could make a nice little portable layout to take to exhibitions.

 

Might be worth leaving the finer details in that area open at this stage (just get a track up to the right level), then come back to the topic separately, so that we can all bombard you with conflicting suggestions about exactly what to do, later!

 

Kevin

[MikeOxon]

It does not look like much fun to operate or have much scope for scenic treatment. I thought Mike Oxon's version was better........................

NB - not 'my' version - just the result of my entering halsey's sketch into SCARM!  It was an 'exercise' in playing with the software and put to rest those comments that 'it won't fit'

 

I found it was easy to build up the layout in 'modules' that I could then move around and fit into the overall scheme.  I also feel that it would be quite easy to modify the plan without having to re-do the whole thing.  Overall, I found SCARM a very flexible tool that I shall consider, if I do any future designs.

 

Mike

Edited November 30, 2015 by MikeOxon

[jon_1066]

Mike - Did you make a mistake with sizing the baseboard in Scarm as the 102" by 80" on your drawing looks a lot larger than on mine.  It should be about 2.6 m by 2.0 m.

 

Halsey - Here is another tweak with the marshaling yard facing the other way.  I think this would be more sensible because it would give an out and back to the BLT.  You can use the short points you have in the BLT.  It utilises the goods line as a headshunt for the marshaling yard and both lines as the run around.  You can get 8-10 wagons in the sidings.

 

 

I think operations would be quite fun on something like this given the OPs interests - shunting small wagons.  You have a continuous run, a fiddle yard to BLT, and a shunting "puzzle" with a large goods yard with sidings facing opposite ways and a runaround loop.  What more can one guy operate?

[Nearholmer]

Oh, well!

 

I can't resist it.

 

Here is a concept sketch for the BLT in light-weight, lift-off-able, format.

 

The very shallow-depth of construction of the baseboards is to avoid having to climb too far to get clearance over the tracks below. It might not be quite flex-proof enough for portability, but that can be solved by putting a "retaining wall" all the way along the back, to the height of the hinge-axis, using 6mm ply, and something similar along the front, going downwards, with holes cut for the tracks on the lower-level to pass through.

 

Make a little fiddle yard to plug onto it, and you'd having something to tuck under your arm and take to a show.

 

K

[MikeOxon]

Mike - Did you make a mistake with sizing the baseboard in Scarm as the 102" by 80" on your drawing looks a lot larger than on mine.  It should be about 2.6 m by 2.0 m.

 

Yikes!   you're right.  I seem to have got the origin in the wrong place.  I must try and work out where I went wrong.

 

So as not to mislead anyone, I'll edit my earlier posts when I've sorted things out - all part of the learning curve

 

Mike