Evercreech Junction 1961

[Joseph_Pestell]

Phil,

 

There is much merit in what you suggest - the end radii are currently 1100mm. (43"). I'd like to keep the stock storage on-track if at all possible - at least as far as the 'prototypical' stock is concerned. I'd like to be able to go up to the loft and run trains with the minimum of fuss.

 

The idea of a convex baseboard edge had not occurred to me, and it may be possible to make this change without affecting the storage area.

 

It could be incorporated by projecting it forward, above the central portion of the intended supporting structure / storage cupboards. In fact, it would create an overhang below which it could be possible to locate the control panel for the scenic area tracks.

 

There is a LOT of development work to do yet, but the curve through the station is something I'd like to incorporate, if it can be done without having toy-train overhangs on the curves at each end of the layout.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

I think that you are getting to the nub of it.

 

For just the prototypically correct trains, you do not need such huge storage yards. And, apart from the Pines and some Summer Saturday Only trains, most S&D trains were fairly short.

 

It's not really a good idea to keep all the rest of the stock out in a fiddle yard. It will just get dusty. Not to mention the cost of all that extra pointwork and track. As others have said, much better to have all the other stock in cassettes that can be loaded onto the layout as and when required.

 

Having reduced the size of the fiddle yard, it really should be possible to get some of that curve into the layout albeit flattened a bit by comparison with the real EJ. It's not just about realism, the trains will look so much better on a gentle curve. I don't think that you should need to put much curve into any of the Peco BH points and the only thing immediately missing is a diamond crossing. Pro tem you could put in a Code 75FB one and replace when the Peco 75BH becomes available.

 

Like you, I am getting into later years and realising that it is now or never to build that layout of a lifetime. Crack on with it and perhaps see if you can get a bit of help to bring it forward.

[tender]

 I don't think that you should need to put much curve into any of the Peco BH points and the only thing immediately missing is a diamond crossing. Pro tem you could put in a Code 75FB one and replace when the Peco 75BH becomes available.

 

 

 

Yes, but if you're putting the bullhead points on a transition curve (by slightly bending) and use a more prototypical track spacing the code 75FB long diamond crossing no longer fits (by a long way) as i'm finding out on my new layout. So it's out with the soldering iron, track gauges and plastic chairs.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Yes, but if you're putting the bullhead points on a transition curve (by slightly bending) and use a more prototypical track spacing the code 75FB long diamond crossing no longer fits (by a long way) as i'm finding out on my new layout. So it's out with the soldering iron, track gauges and plastic chairs.

Where the first diamond is (trailing lead to goods yard), no need at all to bend the points.

 

At the junction itself, probably also no real need.

[RBAGE]

I think that if I were building the layout as planned, whether straight or curved, I would be tempted to hand build the diamond but probably with copper clad timbers (for ease of manufacture and adjustment to achieve alignment).

 

Remember, using the Peco points, prototypical spacing would be out the window anyway.

 

I made the mistake of laying quite a long length of flexi track using Peco spacing then making the turnout formations, off layout, using C and L templates.

[cctransuk]

I think that you are getting to the nub of it.

 

For just the prototypically correct trains, you do not need such huge storage yards. And, apart from the Pines and some Summer Saturday Only trains, most S&D trains were fairly short.

 

It's not really a good idea to keep all the rest of the stock out in a fiddle yard. It will just get dusty. Not to mention the cost of all that extra pointwork and track. As others have said, much better to have all the other stock in cassettes that can be loaded onto the layout as and when required.

 

Having reduced the size of the fiddle yard, it really should be possible to get some of that curve into the layout albeit flattened a bit by comparison with the real EJ. It's not just about realism, the trains will look so much better on a gentle curve. I don't think that you should need to put much curve into any of the Peco BH points and the only thing immediately missing is a diamond crossing. Pro tem you could put in a Code 75FB one and replace when the Peco 75BH becomes available.

 

Like you, I am getting into later years and realising that it is now or never to build that layout of a lifetime. Crack on with it and perhaps see if you can get a bit of help to bring it forward.

 

Joseph,

 

The storage yard is non-negotiable - and garden fleece can be lowered over the stock to keep off dust whenever the layout is not being used. I already use fleece to protect my NG layout, and to keep dust out of the printers that I use to produce transfers - it works a treat. I will avoid the use of cassettes except to store any stock that cannot be accommodated on-track.

 

I have spent the afternoon playing around with a copy of the initial trackplan, to which a 200mm. maximum width, convex curve has been added to the front edge of the scenic baseboard, within the operating area. Whilst I have come to no firm conclusions at this point, there clearly is scope to introduce a curve into the tracks through the station.

 

I will continue to play around with this, but the deciding factor will be whether the introduction of a curve involves significant departures from the relative positions of trackwork features on the prototype. The original straight version is very close, in terms of distance, to the original, albeit straightened.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited December 18, 2017 by cctransuk

[cctransuk]

Yes, but if you're putting the bullhead points on a transition curve (by slightly bending) and use a more prototypical track spacing the code 75FB long diamond crossing no longer fits (by a long way) as i'm finding out on my new layout. So it's out with the soldering iron, track gauges and plastic chairs.

 

Note that, because of the centre stabling road at EJ, track spacing is something of a moveable feast anyway.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[tender]

 

Remember, using the Peco points, prototypical spacing would be out the window anyway.

 

 

 

With a bit of cutting it's not out of the question:

see: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/127840-peco-bullhead-points-in-the-flesh/?p=2920579

but probably not relevant for John considering the above post.

[bike2steam]

Mmmm, watching with interest.  

[Mallard60022]

I think that if I were building the layout as planned, whether straight or curved, I would be tempted to hand build the diamond but probably with copper clad timbers (for ease of manufacture and adjustment to achieve alignment).

 

Remember, using the Peco points, prototypical spacing would be out the window anyway.

 

I made the mistake of laying quite a long length of flexi track using Peco spacing then making the turnout formations, off layout, using C and L templates.

Graham of Grantham (The Streamliner Years) shows how to adjust Peco's existing points to attain prototypical spacing in both this Forum and in Railway Modeller. If you were interested and had not seen those, then I could find links and identify the Hornby mags for you.

Phil

Edited December 19, 2017 by Mallard60022

[cctransuk]

After a several hours spent moving digital track around, I have come up with a non-linear trackplan for the scenic section that will fit within the originally planned baseboards. OK - the curve is subtle, but this is a function of the shape of the available space.

 

 

The end radii are slightly tighter, though not significantly so, and the originals were very generous anyway. All pointwork remains in the same relative positions - as per the prototype.

 

I do feel that this arrangement is an improvement, and will make the depicted scene more closely resemble the prototype; thanks for the encouragement to deviate from the straight !

 

Also thanks to a very generous group member, I now have access to a large collection of high res. photos taken at EJ around the time of closure - these photos will be invaluable. It should be possible - if I am up to the task - to get the weeds in the correct place !

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited December 20, 2017 by cctransuk

[Andrew P]

After a several hours spent moving digital track around, I have come up with a non-linear trackplan for the scenic section that will fit within the originally planned baseboards. OK - the curve is subtle, but this is a function of the shape of the available space.

 

LOFT LAYOUT - CURVED.JPG

 

The end radii are slightly tighter, though not significantly so, and the originals were very generous anyway. All pointwork remains in the same relative positions - as per the prototype.

 

I do feel that this arrangement is an improvement, and will make the depicted scene more closely resemble the prototype; thanks for the encouragement to deviate from the straight !

 

Also thanks to a very generous group member, I now have access to a large collection of high res. photos taken at EJ around the time of closure - these photos will be invaluable. It should be possible - if I am up to the task - to get the weeds in the correct place !

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Nice.

[RBAGE]

John,

I think you will be happier with this layout when it is built.

What is more, the curvature is very slight so you should be able to use straight pointwork without having to try and manipulate them and I don't think it will detract from the overall flow.

Bob

[Michael Edge]

I think it looks a lot better curved, even if only slightly.

[cctransuk]

John,

I think you will be happier with this layout when it is built.

What is more, the curvature is very slight so you should be able to use straight pointwork without having to try and manipulate them and I don't think it will detract from the overall flow.

Bob

 

Bob,

 

Your point (!) about using straight switches became very evident when I was overlaying digital Peco templates onto the curve.

 

As I will be using the new bullhead items on the scenic section, 'tweaking' them to match the large radius should be no problem.

 

Looking at the superb collection of photos which were very kindly made available to me, it is evident that the curvature at EJ was quite subtle too, when viewed from ground level.

 

Suffice to say that the curve is now the preferred option.

 

Thanks, all, for your input.

 

Regards,

John.

[cctransuk]

Quite a bit of time taken in further tweaking, and it's interesting to compare the prototype trackplan with the proposed model.

 

                                      

 

Clearly, the curve through the station has been straightened somewhat, and the goods yard has been compressed in width, but it would appear otherwise that an authentic reproduction of EJ should be possible.

 

In general, the spacing of pointwork has been maintained, and siding lengths are correct, so prototypical length trains should be able to operate.

 

You'll see that the two legs of the prototype Y junction, at the LH end, have been brought together and curved downwards due to space considerations. I will simply assume that the main line and the branch diverge just off-stage.

 

Fascinating and addictive stuff - and all new territory for me !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

PS. I have closed up the track centres of the three tracks between the platforms to match the prototype. This will require a little 'modification' of the points forming the crossover, but it will be worth it in order to achieve the visual proportions of the prototype.

Edited December 21, 2017 by cctransuk

[Mallard60022]

Quite a bit of time taken in further tweaking, and it's interesting to compare the prototype trackplan with the proposed model.

 

PROTOTYPE.jpg

                                       LOFT LAYOUT - CURVED.JPG

 

Clearly, the curve through the station has been straightened somewhat, and the goods yard has been compressed in width, but it would appear otherwise that an authentic reproduction of EJ should be possible.

 

In general, the spacing of pointwork has been maintained, and siding lengths are correct, so prototypical length trains should be able to operate.

 

You'll see that the two legs of the prototype Y junction, at the LH end, have been brought together and curved downwards due to space considerations. I will simply assume that the main line and the branch diverge just off-stage.

 

Fascinating and addictive stuff - and all new territory for me !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Great stuff John. Lovely that you have achieved the above 'tweak' without  radical compromise. I was so grateful that some folk had advised me about things once I had chosen my 'place' to model and allowed me thinking time as well. Once Christmas is over and done with you will be able to crack on with this and enjoy yourself. There will be challenges of course but they can be excellent learning situations too.

You are also able to take advantage of the Peco Bullhead items that were introduced after I had more or less finished my trackwork (with quite a lot of help I must add). 

All the best

Phil

[bike2steam]

After a several hours spent moving digital track around, I have come up with a non-linear trackplan for the scenic section that will fit within the originally planned baseboards. OK - the curve is subtle, but this is a function of the shape of the available space.

 

LOFT LAYOUT - CURVED.JPG

 

 

 

Superb, that's better John   

[cctransuk]

Once Christmas is over and done with you will be able to crack on with this and enjoy yourself.

 

Phil,

 

I think that things will move rather more slowly than that !!

 

At the moment, the loft has a miniscule access trap, though which I only just fit; a forest of W struts and just basic chipboard flooring over its centre third.

 

It will require a visit from either my architect brother or a roofing specialist, to advise me what can be done in the way of redesign to try and clear the central 9.5 x 3.0 area of as many struts as possible; what needs doing to the joists in order to support the proposed loading; what the flooring should comprise; where best to locate a couple of Velux windows; how best to insulate and clad the under-tile / roofing felt areas between the trusses; where and how to install a loft access facility that I will be able to use as I become more decrepit; what the power supply, lighting and heating should consist of; etc., etc.

 

Only once all of that has been established and costed, and a decision taken as to the financial viability of that part of the project, (bearing in mind that this initial work has the potential to add value to the property), can I then move onto costing the baseboards, (with storage cupboards below); trackwork and wiring.

 

I already have sufficient H&M Walkabouts to run the layout, and I have built and tested a prototype variable voltage regulator controller; http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126654-adjustable-voltage-regulator-step-down-power-supply/ ; which seems to have potential; (this latter will be multiplied as insurance against the elderly Walkabouts eventually succumbing to old age).

 

So, don't expect to see regular postings to this thread, at least in the short to medium term !!

 

However, I now feel that I can start to visualise the 'magnum opus', rather than having just a long-held but vague ambition to see my stock collection in action through EJ.

 

Again, thanks to all who have made such positive and helpful comment, and to those who have offered and provided research material.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited December 21, 2017 by cctransuk

[AJCT]

For the past fifty years I have been acquiring, modifying, building, and improving a stocklist ................... I enjoy stock-building more than any other aspect of railway modelling. I have been unable to resist the compulsion to buy and modify RTR, build kits and scratchbuild, ...... and there is still a very sizeable list of 'to do' projects involving locos, coaches, wagons and containers ............... I have a digital database of completed stock, ongoing builds and projects yet to be commenced - the only way to keep track of what I have and where it is!!

 

 

Oh dear… this all looks alarmingly familiar. Or to put it another way, I’m relieved to find I’m not the only one!  But in my loft I do at least have a double-track continuous circuit (though little else) to let stuff run, and very therapeutic it is too.

 

I’ll be following this with interest as I can see the lure of the S&D – I have a few Ivo Peters books and videos. However, I didn’t seriously contemplate modelling it myself, despite the appeal of 9Fs working passenger trains over steeply graded single lines….

 

Good luck !

 

Alasdair

Edited December 21, 2017 by AJCT

[Joseph_Pestell]

Perhaps we should not revisit the layouts in lofts thread?

 

But that roof structure sounds unsuitable and, short of taking the roof off and starting again, they are not amenable to change. Even then, the way in which the walls have been built may not enable a more solid roof structure without a lot of work.

 

Sorry to sound like one of those builders who suck their teeth while saying "it's a lotta work, guv". An architect will be helpful but it's a structural engineer who will be your best friend, along with a good relationship with your local Building Regs man.

 

Edit to add: For the sort of cost of major roof modifications, one could easily built a suitable large shed in the garden.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Joseph_Pestell

[cctransuk]

Perhaps we should not revisit the layouts in lofts thread?

 

But that roof structure sounds unsuitable and, short of taking the roof off and starting again, they are not amenable to change. Even then, the way in which the walls have been built may not enable a more solid roof structure without a lot of work.

 

Sorry to sound like one of those builders who suck their teeth while saying "it's a lotta work, guv". An architect will be helpful but it's a structural engineer who will be your best friend, along with a good relationship with your local Building Regs man.

 

 

That is entirely possible - in which case I will have to live with the forest of struts.

 

 

Edit to add: For the sort of cost of major roof modifications, one could easily built a suitable large shed in the garden.

 

Not in my garden you couldn't ! That would have been the default option had it been possible.

 

.............. and the garage is too small, before it's suggested.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.