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

[halsey]

I agree with you that a pair of IRJs between points 3 and 4 might be a good idea, together with moving the power feed for the goods yard to between point 4 and 5. The main reason I think this would be a good idea is that it would avoid and unexpected and difficult to diagnose behaviour arising from power being fed to points from the heel end. A possible side benefit is that it would allow the branch terminus to be run with more than one loco (although not simultaneously). For example, a loco could be shunting in the goods yard, then isolated in a siding (or even the headshunt) while a passenger train arrives and runs round. Then, while the passenger train is waiting to depart, the passenger loco could be isolated on its platform and the goods loco could finish shunting the yard and depart with its train. Again, this would only need the new IRJs and one power feed moved; no additional switching would be required.

 

Hi both - re the above further "improvements" I can see where you are coming from but as its quite a bit of work to do this I will continue to test the operational aspects and keep it firmly in mind - I'm sure you will be proved right but I always like to be convinced through my own findings/endeavours.

[Chimer]

Memo to self - explore all options fully before committing to internet and making *** of oneself (3 times!!!) in future - I thought about doing more diagrams but didn't bother, would have realised the point of that IRJ if I had done one with point 2 set the other way.  But carrying on digging ......

 

I suspect that as you now have it, if point 2 is set towards point 3, and point 7 towards point 2, 2-7 will be live, which still isn't the way you want it.  The top rail of 2-7 will always be fed from the original feed on the left, and the lower rail will be fed from the new feed to the right whenever point 7 is not set for the crossover.

 

Fingers crossed - post!

[halsey]

I'll try it tomorrow and report back!

[DCB]

I habitually feed points from the heel end, it can save yards of wire, just connect + and - to the two outer rails of the four, it is exactly the same as feeding from the toe. 

[halsey]

not sure I completely understand the wire saving comment but assume this is electrofrog related?

 

Have decided to get stuck in and implement further "final" branch track related changes today as suggested by EJS

 

Thanks all

Edited January 29, 2016 by halsey

[ejstubbs]

I suspect that as you now have it, if point 2 is set towards point 3, and point 7 towards point 2, 2-7 will be live, which still isn't the way you want it.  The top rail of 2-7 will always be fed from the original feed on the left, and the lower rail will be fed from the new feed to the right whenever point 7 is not set for the crossover.

 

I agree with this.  In fact I was going to raise it earlier, but I got confused about halsey is actually trying to achieve in his branch terminus: is it the ability to operate two (or even more) locos in that area, or is it making sure that there won't be any power dead spots?  If the latter then the more power feeds the better (a la DCC).  If the former then KISS should apply - but then KISS to me would be mean full cab control (because that way you design out 'phantom' routes for power and you know which sections are powered and which aren't), and IIRC halsey has already said he doesn't want that.  Which of course is entirely his choice.

 

I habitually feed points from the heel end, it can save yards of wire, just connect + and - to the two outer rails of the four, it is exactly the same as feeding from the toe. 

 

That's not what I meant by powering from the heel end.  What I meant (and what halsey's trackplan in post #236) was powering from both rails of one road on the heel end of the point,  Doing it that way means that, in an insulfrog point, power to the toe end from that power feed will be interrupted by setting the point against the road to which power is being applied.  (And yes, I know that in halsey's track plan the goods yard can also be powered from the other power feed, provided points 2 and 3 are set appropriately, but that's by no means going to be the case with every track configuration.)

 

not sure I completely understand the wire saving comment but assume this is electrofrog related?

 

No, it's nothing to do with electro vs insul frogs.  David is simply pointing out that you can apply power at any location along the continuous (ie unswitched) rails which run through the each side of a point, even a good ways further along each road from the point in question - hence potentially saving wire if the point itself is a long way from the control panel.  Personally I wouldn't do it that way, since I would prefer to spend a bit more on wiring in order to make debugging easier at a later date - but again, each to his own, rule 1 applies etc etc.

 

 

(By the way: in case anyone takes exception to the tone of any of the above, please be assured that no offence is intended.  It's just that it's Friday, I still have a cold and I'm struggling to be as cheerful as I would normally try to be.  Sorry!)

Edited January 29, 2016 by ejstubbs

[halsey]

No offence taken at this end - far from it!

Very helpful - a short answer I am very new so I don't know what I'm trying to achieve and want it all (why not) - I am very much being guided by RMW - I do like logical (to me) solutions and that is where we seem to be heading esp if as today I implement your "final" suggestions.

All good as always

BFN

[Chimer]

No offence taken at this end - far from it!

Very helpful - a short answer I am very new so I don't know what I'm trying to achieve and want it all (why not) - I am very much being guided by RMW - I do like logical (to me) solutions and that is where we seem to be heading esp if as today I implement your "final" suggestions.

All good as always

BFN

 

I'm guessing, no I'm sure from previous discussions, that you don't want to operate two locos in the area simulataneously, but would like to be able to have two (or more) in the area, with the self-isolating points ensuring two don't move at once in response to one turn of the controller.  If you keep points 6 & 7 working together, both to crossover or both not, you will be OK (honest!).  You don't need to switch them absolutely simultaneously, changing one then the other will be fine (as long as you don't have a loco moving when you make the change).

 

Chris

[halsey]

You already know me well Sir - spot on!

 

Hi all.................

 

What I have in fact done today (which seems to be OK so far!) is put 2 more IRJs to the immediate left of 7 (at the toe?) where it meets the platform straight - have also implemented EJS's suggestions in full and they too work well.

 

Had lots of little fine tuning operational issues this afternoon but all seem to be sorted now and I finish the day feeling somewhat smug - until tomorrow that is - as I'm learning that is the nature of this hobby which is fine with me.

 

My Palethorpe's 6 wheeler (with its new metal wheels) coupled to my very slightly wobbly (but it was cheap at £30) Bachmann 2-6-2 seems to make for a pretty temperamental running combination and this will now run forward and in reverse over all track-work.

 

Sod dry January I've been good enough - cheers all.

[halsey]

Hi all,

 

More help wanted please from those of you with experience.......

 

I am keen to get as many operating challenges in as I can and if you refer to #98 the space to the right of the marshalling yard and turning through the 90 degree towards the goods yard to me cries out for a turntable and shed (manual Dapol surface mounted with circle of track rebated in to BB - I cant cut a hole as such as far too much underneath and my hip issues get in the way).

 

Do you agree - are there any protocols that I need to be aware of - feel free to go mad with thoughts and I'm not precious if its a non starter!

 

The plan attached shows my VERY rough thoughts and some photos bring you up to date and show the "space"

 

Note - Siding track lengths are laid to max and will be variously cut down as scenic considerations impact and for those eagle eyed amongst you the wiring under the RH switch panel isn't connected up to the goods/main line point motors as yet!

Edited February 8, 2016 by halsey

[Nearholmer]

The only slight concern that I might have would relate to having shunting space to get engines in and out, which could "eat into" one of the marshalling-yard sidings.

 

However, any normal RM enthusiast has 8000 times more locos than a re really needed to run the layout, so, just having somewhere to stable them is very useful.

 

Kevin

 

PS: looking at the thickness of plywood you've used, if you loose interest in RM, you could possibly use the layout as bunk-beds for tired rhinoceroses, without fear of the boards bowing.

[halsey]

Ha - it's only 12mm but with good supports which were actually sourced very cheaply from B&Q who had a deal on at the time. Shed issues simply made me over engineer it! True I did have in mind back in September that it would do as general workbenches if this RM idea didn't work for me - I think its now fair to say I'm hooked!

 

KR

[MikeOxon]

I can't comment with any expertise on prototypical realism but, it seems to me that having what would be a storage area for locos, right by the control desk, is a very good idea. It would make it very easy to use the 'big hand in the sky' to feed appropriate stock into the working part of the layout for whatever you are planning to do.

 

Mike

Edited February 8, 2016 by MikeOxon

[Chimer]

Agreed on all counts.  Good idea.  It's basically in the FY area, so you don't necessarily need to worry too much about prototypicality, but there have been lots of learned discussions on here about how to lay out a shed properly if you want to make it more realistic (stuff about what happens in what order when a loco comes on shed and therefore how the flows should work).  You might just want to consider how it will relate visually to the branch terminus above it - a big coaling tower might look a bit strange ......

 

Cheers

 

Chris

Edited February 8, 2016 by Chimer

[halsey]

Promising.....................

 

You guys are endorsing my early thoughts as to why this would be a good idea - it will have to come off the "bottom" siding in the marshalling yard probably via a streamline curved point and then the TT will "turn" the right angle with some "open" bays and a couple under cover of a shed.

 

This specific area will be modelled unlike the marshalling yard  which it takes its feeds from.

 

I was intending that the shed buildings would provide the visual "break" from the shed level BB to branch level BB I hadn't thought about coal in this area as that is headed for the main goods yard but yes it will need further thought and almost certainly some aesthetic licence!

 

KR

 

PS - why do so many people on eBay (other auctions sites are available) claim locos are "mint" and "excellent runners" when they list them and send them out but miraculously they arrive with bits missing and don't run! - or am I just unlucky - I've just bought my last used loco as eBays returns process is too much like hard work with too many sellers protesting their innocence - wagons seem to be a better bet (esp if you re-wheel them) but locos are another story - at the moment I have only had a 50% success rate - rant over!

 

"the bitterness of poor quality lingers long after the sweetness of a cheap price is forgotten"

[Nearholmer]

Ah, you are now touching upon why I rarely buy from individuals, unless they are very clearly decent, and usually buy from one or two known dealers. They might charge a few % more, but they have a reputation to protect, and that makes for a great deal less "wishful thinking".

 

K

[halsey]

All turnouts on loops, branch and goods entrances wired and checked (goods and marshalling yards will be "Maradona method" to save money and to give me some exercise!) - an expensive pastime but well worth it - shame PL11s don't look better but they work well enough with a CDU and micro switches

 

Dapol turntable kit has arrived so that's the next thing to "play" with before I commit to revising the track plan in the marshalling yard - my first "airfix" kit build for 50 years!

 

Hi Mike(Oxon) - I'm finally enjoying modelling whilst a train is therapeutically running around the room!

 

BFN all

Edited February 9, 2016 by halsey

[MikeOxon]

..........

Hi Mike(Oxon) - I'm finally enjoying modelling whilst a train is therapeutically running around the room!l

Take care - you'll find yourself talking to the engine crews next

[DCB]

I cut one "bay" from  Dapol turntable and it still turns GWR Kings and my LMS Duchess, I think you could cut two bays from it and still turn 0-6-0 and 4-4-0 locos, probably small 2-6-0 and even ex GER 1500 (B12) 4-6-0.

 

See pic of Turntable in pristine Dapol grey livery with elderly Hornby King.   (I just realised it has GWR lining and a BR Totem)

Edited February 10, 2016 by DavidCBroad

[halsey]

Hi David (anyone),

How did you secure the track to the actual turntable "bridge" section?

[DCB]

The track is set track which is more rigid than flexi.   The last few sleepers are removed and the rail ends are soldered to copped clad circuit board, the board is held to the turntable with 10 BA screws,

 

One end is fixed. the turntable placed on its pivot and one of the "Exit" roads aligned with the rails at one end of the turntable.  Then the turntable is then turned 180 degrees and the other end of the turntable rails aligned both sideways and vertically. When both ends are within about 1/2 mm with all the screws tight then you can line up the other exit tracks

 

My method for electrifying the tracks is the left hand rail has a post soldered to it passing down through the plastic to a long 10" wiper contact, both L/H rails contact sprung wipers which make contact through about 180 degrees with the middle 90 degree segments dead (so the left hand rail makes contact at one end and the other rail makes contact at the other end)

 

My motorising is still at the planning stage but involves a motor on a lower level driving the turntable deck through a 50mm dia pivot (With a big ball race at the pivot) which also houses the wiring.

[halsey]

Wow I almost wish I hadn't asked!

I was thinking of the switching being via a DPDT switch would that work as I'm assuming the only time it will be needed would be for the full 360 turn as I could wire the shed sidings to cope with the "default" wiring pattern

Very thorough and a lot of food for thought - many thanks

[halsey]

OK guys where would you put the TT (and why?).

Note the "feed" is now in place.

I could put some track work under the branch base board with a dummy shed façade but I don't think it would be as good as the other 2 options photographed.

Cheers

[Nearholmer]

I'm never sure whether there is a prototype for it, but I think putting the TT as in the first of your two photos, and using it to obtain a ninety degree turn, to a loco-shed and sidings where that Manila file (or piece of MDF?) is lying, makes very good use of space on a layout.

 

Need to think about fire-disposal, water and coal too, ideally so that a loco receiving any of these things doesn't obstruct other movements in/out of the shed.

 

K

[halsey]

Hi K -  my thoughts as well - assuming that is where the TT will now go I am struggling to find any sort of track plan to follow for this environment or is it just a case of do what fits and looks right - should I have anything complicating the route to/before the TT where there is some space - could that be a siding for coal/water etc?

Cheers