Brambleford Layout - Retaining wall

[nicolasgreenin]

More progress today I was running out of space and getting frustrated not being able to get underneath the track as it was sitting on a table. I needed to get a saw as so a quick trip to screwfix



So I have now added some legs and mounted the control board.



I have now wired 3 points


I am having trouble with 1 side of the ADS-2fx point controller the relays fire but the out put doesn't change!

Edited June 20, 2017 by nicolasgreenin

[Jaggzuk]

Wow coming on really fast.  Just adding legs make it look like a proper little layout!

[nicolasgreenin]

Hi, All it has been a while since an update I have not had time work on the test track. I have been making some changes to the track plan.

 

I have taken on the less is more comments and changed all the track to Peco setrack 100 with most of the points being medium radius.

 

Thanks to Jaggzuk for your help and advice and help with the SCARM plans

 

 

[nicolasgreenin]

Hi All,

 

It has been a long time since I posted mainly because I have been waiting as we are moving in August and I don't want to strat the mail layout until then.

 

I have been refining the layout and I have finally had a chance to spent some time changing all the track and points to Peco Streamline 100 with electro frog points. 

 

Please see below and comment 

 

 

 

 

We have also doubled compliment of locos as I brought my son a TTS Class 47 for his birthday and I myself brought a Hornby R2155B-HX 68478 Class J83 0-6-0T Tank (just for testing)

 

My son also wanted a station for his birthday so I brought a Metcalfe wayside stone station kit which I was very impressed with very easy to put together although I was told off for doing too much of the model for him.....

 

 

I have started to assemble the items on the parts list so as soon as we have moved I can strat to make some real progress.

 

I am going to make a strat on the control panel so it can be just wired in when the layout is up. Any ideas on how to design this would be great

 

Thanks

 

Nick

[nicolasgreenin]

Attempt 1 at the control panel layout

 

[Jaggzuk]

Hi Nick

 

Like the track plan, looks very workable and better with the Peco streamline points.  Are you still intending to have one single gradient up to the flyover or can you go for the spilt gradient option with 50% up and 50% down from the station area?

 

Nice looking station. And the big dilemma, your modelling quality or the offspring's effort ;-)

 

Did you know that SCARM does Signal Control panel mimic tiles.  This is my effort for a control panel; the red and green dots will be LEDs for showing point direction.  Can be found in Objects>Symbols - Square Tiles.

 

The two bits I did by hand in MSPaint was the grey line to represent the track under the flyover and the two dotted lines for the future extension.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Jaggzuk

[nicolasgreenin]

Hi Paul,

 

Thanks for the reply, the only raised part of the track was going to be the flyover middle loop in red. 

 

I didn't know that you can create mimic panel's in Scarm so thank you for that it is better to have everything in one place see below

 

 

The white dots will be the toggle switches I have some red/green led's so I hope to be able to use them but I will need to create a relay board as they need different voltages to change colour.

 

The other thing that is bothering me is the spacing between the 2 main lines as I am using Streamline track the spacing is smaller but will this give enough room for a platform where the passing loop is?

[nicolasgreenin]

Ok so this where I am going to play the artistic license card (this will be used again)

 

 

To allow for a platform between the 2 main lines where the passing loop is I have extended the gap between the tracks by about 50mm I think this will be enough the platforms are 88mm wide.

 

[Jaggzuk]

If you are going for an island platform now, which will be nice. I wonder if you could move the two point ladders either side to give you a longer platform?

 

 

This would also give you direct access to the goods yard from the outer main line when running in a clockwise direction and also allow any departing goods to run out on to either of the two main lines.

 

You could get even more platform length by using a curve point form the outer mail line on to the ladder.

 

Have you also considered adding a headshunt for the goods yard?  This will mean you can shunt without having to run out on the the inner main line all the time.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Jaggzuk

[nicolasgreenin]

I have been playing around with this and I think you are right but the restriction is the road crossing not shown in this view as I was going to use the ratio kit I will have a play with the plans and I will see what I can do.

 

Adding the headshunt is where my actual railway knowledge is letting me down I will have a play and see where I go...

[nicolasgreenin]

After a little play, I think this works although I am still not happy with the road 

 

 

[nicolasgreenin]

This may be better

 

 

 

 

[nicolasgreenin]

Nope I have just been and put some track together and with an R610 between the medium points this does not give that much extra room between the tracks so I tried an R600 and that gave 60mm between the tracks which is not the 88mm I was after but is much better so I have amended the Plan again to get this.

 

 

 

who thought it would be so hard...

 

The good news is that I wired an ADS-8fx into the test track and now all the points work via switch and DCC. 

[nicolasgreenin]

See the final design below I have added a headshunt to both the sidings

 

 

and the mimic panel

 

 

I have also created a scary parts list I am sure I am missing lots but this will be more than enough to get on with and I will collect bits over the next month or so to spread the cost.

 

 

If I have missed anything obvious or not please let me know

[The Johnster]

Don't throw your test track away when you've finished with it; it'll make a perfectly good shunting layout!

[Jaggzuk]

I note that you are getting 4% inclines, I do think you may find this too steep for any train that is long.  I would suggest a test incline with the locos you have and find out  what is the max length of train they can haul up that gradient.  Also remember you have this gradient around R3 curves, that will also add to the hauling resistance.

 

Just get a long plank of wood and drop some straight flexi track on and raise on end to to 4%.  Try to have a section of track on the level so that you can have the train running at speed before it hits the climb.

 

I have found on my 2% gradients that my Hornby Railroad 37 could not haul much than 4 old coaches and so I have to add more lead weight to it to get more traction and oiling all the coach wheels.

 

It will also depends on how good your rolling stock wheels and bearings are, With us buying a lot of old rolling stock, this can sometime exasperate the problem.

 

The other think to watch is how you lay the track the level portion of the layout to 4% inclines.  You will need to create a portion of transition otherwise it will not look look good run poorly.

[nicolasgreenin]

I note that you are getting 4% inclines, I do think you may find this too steep for any train that is long.  I would suggest a test incline with the locos you have and find out  what is the max length of train they can haul up that gradient.  Also remember you have this gradient around R3 curves, that will also add to the hauling resistance.

 

Just get a long plank of wood and drop some straight flexi track on and raise on end to to 4%.  Try to have a section of track on the level so that you can have the train running at speed before it hits the climb.

 

I have found on my 2% gradients that my Hornby Railroad 37 could not haul much than 4 old coaches and so I have to add more lead weight to it to get more traction and oiling all the coach wheels.

 

It will also depends on how good your rolling stock wheels and bearings are, With us buying a lot of old rolling stock, this can sometime exasperate the problem.

 

The other think to watch is how you lay the track the level portion of the layout to 4% inclines.  You will need to create a portion of transition otherwise it will not look look good run poorly.

 Hi Paul,

 

You are right and if I am honest I just picked that out for a cost.

 

What I plan on doing is laying the track out and finding the height of the bridge and working from there before I buy and inclines.

 

I was going to get the tunnel mouths and build the scenery of that too and I expect the layout of the siding will change when I have the track on the board.

 

I can't wait to start now but I will have to wait till August as we are moving and I don't want to have to move anything extra.

 

The new house has cabin that will be my office and train room 

[nicolasgreenin]

Don't throw your test track away when you've finished with it; it'll make a perfectly good shunting layout!

I agree but it was always the plan that this board was part of the main layout and if I am honest the track at the end of the points if not long enough for proper shunting.

[Jaggzuk]

Ooo the cabin sound good, a posh Man Shed?  How big is it, if it is a railway room and office!?

 

With regard to the % gradient, can you not just use SCARM gradient feature to tell you?

 

Sounds like you are chomping at the bit to get started.  And if you are like me you will have a great spurt at the beginning (many a late night) as you will want to get to the point where you can run trains, then you can take the foot of the gas as the kids are happy cos they can play trains.

 

The goods yard can certainly be refined at a later date, my only comment would be to try and increase the head shunt a bit so you can have longer goods train backing into it.  Unless you want to give yourself tougher shunting puzzles ;-)

 

Looking at your station area, I am still a little confused as to where you will placing the platforms as you talk about an an island platform..

[nicolasgreenin]

Hi Paul,

 

From memory, the cabin is something line 4x3m so plenty of room for the layout and my desk.

 

Below is a very crude image showing where the platforms are extending to go. it will take some moving about to get them in place and if I have to increase the space between the 2 lines I will.

 

 

I was thinking of extending the headshunt and now the road is coming in from the back of the layout there is no restriction so it can be longer.

 

You are right I think there will be a big push early on until the track is down and it works. I think the problems will be stopping myself working on it when I should be working and stopping the Kids playing trains when I am on a Conference call!

 

 

 

 

[Jaggzuk]

Ah the station now makes sense.  It looks like you have the potential for quite a long island platform too; double the length shown?  Having the island platform also allows you to have a station footbridge which will be nice to have trains go under something.

 

In terms of a real prototype, I found that Yeovil Pen Mill provides a good justification to have a through station with an island platform and where one of the lines is single track yet served by two platform sides  http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/414999

[nicolasgreenin]

Hi Paul,

 

That is great thanks originally the layout was going to be loosely based in Surrey around the old Cranleigh line but the Metcalfe models stone wayside station is based on a GWR design so maybe a rethink is called for.

 

My son likes the idea of an over platform bridge and the Metcalfe models kit works with the platforms nicely

 

https://www.metcalfemodels.com/product/po236-00-h0-footbridge/

Edited June 26, 2017 by nicolasgreenin

[nicolasgreenin]

I know less is more but once you start adding track it is hard to stop....

 

Is this too much? I am not sure what we are going to add in the middle of the circuits but there was mention of a church the other day and that seems to be a good idea...

 

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by nicolasgreenin

[Jaggzuk]

Its one of the reason I got to version 34 of my layout plan before I even laid any track.  Plus its easy in SCARM (an other layout planning software) to rip it up and relay.  I also think it is very important to do this BEFORE we lay any track as it can enable us to find better alternatives.  I am liking the main station areas, really starting to look good.

 

I think adding track to the lower goods yard is interesting, will make useful on-layout storage for wagons etc.

 

If you wanted to add something else in the open area, you are missing an engine shed facility?

 

I am not convinced by the road coming in from the top under the flyover, but I know a level crossing is desired, it just looks a little odd.  To me it will distract from the visual appearance of the flyover  But I bet there is a real life version somewhere.  Could you not have a double crossing down on the right on the curves?  There is a crossing like this near Doncaster, where the two crossings are up higher than the surrounding ground  https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.5344035,-1.1392853,3a,73.7y,212.94h,80.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s98dG9YyzRIPYcQ7qeigD4w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

I know the big empty space is inching to be filled, but track is not necessary the best option, I even struggle to reach to do anything like uncoupling, so a town/village scape might be the bets option, will also create the scenic break between two track areas.

[nicolasgreenin]

Paul,

 

You are such a font of knowledge I can't thank you enough for the help and direction you have given me.

 

I agree I didn't like the road going off through the bridge it was too messy I was hoping that an answer was going to present its self along the way...

 

see below I think you will agree it is now looking very good.

 

 

 

Also thanks, Richard's at Everard Junction's how to videos (I am addicted to youtube) https://youtu.be/6GX8wDEZIJ4?list=PLVjI4xOY4e3AQ-T8RHTocjehlrPRVN0wD

 

 

I have been added a led to the Hornby buffers I had Train Tech buffer light for a while but they are not cheap and as at the moment I will need 9 of them this seems a better solution

 

let me know your thoughts?

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by nicolasgreenin