Painted myself into a corner?

[Brassey]

Just passing.  Not sure where you've got that info from.  00 track centres in Templot are 50mm.  I use 00-SF which are normally 44.67mm, the same as P4.  

 

The only 00 that uses 67mm that I'm aware of is probably Peco.

 

Oops missed out the 44. but I knew there was a 67 in there!

 

Memory playing tricks. I'll shut up from know on.

[Harlequin]

If you're using unmodified Peco Streamline OO parts then the spacing for double tracks is controlled by any pair of points forming a crossover and that spacing is 2inches or 50.8mm. I use 51mm in my templates.

[Philou]

@ Phil,

 

The local club introduced me to the 45mm centres via their 'standard' modules - they are H0 and don't generally have to worry about 'oversize' stock. I've constructed a module (a UK MPD to show off my DCC loco stock) with 45mm centres and it looks quite effective - though there are no curves to worry about overhang. I did trim 4 points to create 2 cross-overs - no problems in matching up. Those who may have thought about it - I'd go for it, but to allow widening in curves - IF necessary.

 

For those waiting for the revised revised plan - on its way, but my stairs have taken priority at the mo'.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[gordon s]

Here's a bit more info re my traverser.  Right up front I have to say that for a traverser to work it has to be accurately aligned in all planes.  That sounds easy, but once you have several component parts it becomes increasingly difficult.  This really started as an engineering exercise for me wanting to make something I hadn't seen before in this size.  I'm lucky to have a garage that has been converted into a workshop and a large table saw that will cut wood easily and accurately, so at least I was in with a fighting chance of getting it to work.

 

I started with four upright panels that were made from 12mm ply and 50 x 50 softwood.  These were glued and screwed together and once aligned by eye, were passed back through the table saw to shave off a mm or two to ensure that all sides were flat and each of the angles across all three planes were at 90 degrees to each other.  The interconnecting side rails were made by a similar method only this time using 12mm ply and 100mm x 25mm softwood.

 

Again I can't stress this enough, each of the four supporting panels must be parallel to each other and stand vertically.  The sub frames were made from 100mm x 25mm cut down and again squared up.

 

The runners are four heavy duty machine runners I bought from a specialist company.  These have to be attached so that they are all true in all planes and once I was happy with the alignment the track bed was attached.

 

So did it work?  Yes, but with some reservations.  The bed was around 800mm wide and 2500mm long. Alignment is absolutely critical and even though I used good quality runners, diagonal flexing of the table in the runners was inevitable.  Pulling from the middle was OK, but not from an end. Extending the table 800mm in each direction meant a substantial overhang which also affected the alignment.  The way to overcome that is to have several access tracks and you can then reduce the lateral movement considerably.

 

Wood is a natural material and will be affected by temperature and humidity.  My railway room is centrally heated and dry, so not an issue for me, but if you are thinking of using a similar design you may run into problems with expansion/contraction and track alignment.

 

Even with accurate machining, alignment in all planes is a challenge and without that you will always have problems with a table of this size.  If I were to build another then metal construction with accurate machining is probably the way to go.

[gordon s]

@ Phil,

 

The local club introduced me to the 45mm centres via their 'standard' modules - they are H0 and don't generally have to worry about 'oversize' stock. I've constructed a module (a UK MPD to show off my DCC loco stock) with 45mm centres and it looks quite effective - though there are no curves to worry about overhang. I did trim 4 points to create 2 cross-overs - no problems in matching up. Those who may have thought about it - I'd go for it, but to allow widening in curves - IF necessary.

 

For those waiting for the revised revised plan - on its way, but my stairs have taken priority at the mo'.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

Take it as read Philip, you will need to widen curves out to 50mm unless you are using very large radii.  I know from my own layout that Bachmann Mk1's will crash into each other via the overhang on curves.

 

If I get time today I'll model it in Templot to see what the minimum radii will be with 44.67mm double track spacing for two coaches to pass each other.  I suspect it will certainly be much larger than the 3' minimum I use.

[Philou]

As an add-on - a question regarding the Hornby Class 28XX 2-8-0 tender loco:

 

The model I have (bought about 3 years ago whilst stock collecting, and I haven't the catalogue number to hand at the moment) has 'solid' spoked wheels. Is this correct or have I bought a 'pup'? I can't find any photos of any original locos with 'solid' spokes. If it isn't correct, then I shall re-wheel the thing. I think it is Alan Gibson who has the correct diameter wheels. It might be worth doing anyway.

 

Any guidance or thoughts on the matter - or perhaps someone could guide me to an existing thread on the matter.

 

Regards,

 

Philip

Edited February 13, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

@ gordon

 

Thanks for the detailed information regarding the traverser. I wonder if a lightweight steel sub-frame, such as that used in studwork might be better. Though having said that, and having used it for partitioning, it probably is subject to flexing and is just too flimsy. I have access to a good table woodworking machine, via a neighbour, that can give me at least very accurate angles and very straight and square timbers.

 

My layout will be in a barn and despite any best efforts on my part regarding the sealing of the building against the worst of the weather, it will no doubt be subject to some damp and lots of temperature changes .

 

Thanks too for the heads-up regarding overhang on curves at 45 centres. I was going for 1.0m minimum curves - so I'll check prior to any permanent pinning down of track.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Philou]

@ gordon, again,

 

I saw in your photos that you had some interesting box sections as supports - what were they, and did you make them?

 

Philip

[gordon s]

@ gordon, again,

 

I saw in your photos that you had some interesting box sections as supports - what were they, and did you make them?

 

Philip

 

Pure guess work, but did you mean these?  If so, they are from Brilliant Baseboards, sadly out of business.  A Google search has brought up something from Yeovil Model Railway Group so maybe they are available from them.....

 

[gordon s]

Well as expected, if you want to run at 44.67mm track spacing, you would need to increase the minimum radius of any curve out to around 7'3"...

 

Edited February 13, 2018 by gordon s

[Philou]

@gordon,

 

Thank you for the Templot information - I shall bear that in mind when constructing.

 

What I call 'box' sections were below your traverser frame - picture No1 post #84.

 

BTW, nice looking trackwork - did you design that on Templot? I couldn't get on with it with a seemingly endless number of commands , nonetheless, I shall give it another go as I have a number of intermingled points within the goods yard of Ledbury that I should like to fiddle with before any work starts on the layout.

 

Regards,

 

Philip

Edited February 13, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

Here are my stairs - practicing my carpentry skills before tackling the barn and the railway framework. I cannot believe it has taken four (yes -4!) days to set up 2 steps. Mind you when I pulled out the old treads and risers not only they were full of worm (dead!) but the stringers had crumbled too - ho hum.

 

 

Philip

Edited February 13, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

Chums,

 

I have cunning plan version 2 available:

 

Not a lot has changed. I have reverted to an earlier plan that was in an earlier post #57   . Bearing in mind the more recent comments I have reverted back to have access to the traverser somewhere near Hereford. All trains can originate and terminate at 'Hereford'. The branch lines, Gloucester and Golden Valley have been retained as rumps but do nevertheless meet at an as yet unnamed station - shall we say Dymwent for the moment. This is the orange polygon over the main line to hide the access lines to the traverser. I have opted to leave the pointwork in the open rather than behind any scenic artifacts other than natural cover and if Dymwent develops - albeit a small station with a loop and two sidings (for example) then rural buildings can help scenic wise. I have for the time being retained the turntable for turning steam locos and a few stabling roads (can be used for diesels too). I still haven't put in a head shunt as a stock release road.

 

 

 

 

Rather than create an additional exit from the traverser and therefore avoiding any duck-unders - risk of coming into contact with the boards AND I'm not getting any younger - I believe there is merit on suspending prototype reality when the layout is in operation - trains leave a station and go 'elsewhere'. If the layout is being run as OMO, on your own you're not really going to be looking much at the train once it has left, other to ensure it enters the pointwork to get to 'Hereford'.

 

Under OMO, prototypical movements from each station and their respective branches can still be maintained. Trains arriving from Worcester and returning thereto, will need to pick up a tablet in order to enter the single line working. Whether a train actually started from Newport in the prototypical world will not matter for an operator at Ledbury - it is a train movement that will need to be handled in a prototypical manner.

 

I am minded that this later version, subject to tweaking and some detailing to Dymwent, could give quite some operational interest:

 

• Branchline movements in either direction of prototypical stock to their respective terminii
• Prototypical main-line movements at each station - notwithstanding the need for the trains to travel in another 'world' on their journey back
• Prototypical movements through Ledbury Tunnel
• Plenty of stock movements to be controlled, accepted and dispatched at the traverser (note to oneself - make one track on the traverser 'cassette' friendly)
• Trains running through landscape between Ledbury and Pontrilas (via Newport/Worcester).

 

Topographically, Ledbury viaduct is now on a falling grade and a rising grade out of Pontrilas towards Hereford has been maintained, as per prototypes. The only downside, is that both branches rise whereas in reality they fall. Having said that, the branches now act as scenic devices to take the eye away from the non-prototypical junctions into 'Hereford', which is a positive thing.

 

There we are gentlemen, your reviews are eagerly awaited.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

PS: Manglement is very pleased with the new stairs, despite the very slow progress. Its the quarter-turn wot done it guv, no two steps are the same, brownie points being accumulated by the dozen .

Edited February 13, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

@Harlequin

 

Thanks for your rating re: the stairs. It really is a pain in the posterior. There is not one screw - all nails - that have rusted into the wood and when you pull them out, and so comes half the wood due to the woodworm. Nil desperandum.

 

Philip

[Harlequin]

Hi Philip, It looks good to me. I think you've got the balance between prototype and practical modelling needs about right with this one and it feels "relaxed".

 

Do the gradients work to give enough clearance for Dymwent above the main lines? (Especially if Dymwent station needs enough level length for a passing loop and a few sidings.)

 

Can I suggest doing the groundwork to double-track Ledbury tunnel even if you build it as single at first because I think that you might eventually find the single track restriction annoying.

 

I hope the stairs work out OK. Sounds like a job that needed to be done!

[Chimer]

This is the best yet for me.  The main line rising from Pontrilas towards Hereford will make it more difficult to get under Dymented  - much gentler gradients if both main lines fall towards the triangle and the branches climb.  And I note the space on the other side of the traverser approach tracks from the turntable could be occupied with simple short stabling tracks for anything that doesn't need to be turned (diseasels, 2-car DMUs, tank engines), all accessing the traverser directly.  And I agree with Phil about Ledbury tunnel - if the nearest siding is realigned to run parallel with the main line, the tunnel could be double tracked - maybe with one bore with a removable bricked-up entrance, or some other scenic fudge  , for when you are absolutely determined to run with the single-line problem to solve!

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[Philou]

@Phil @Chris

 

Whilst providing a rising gradient out of Pontrilas towards 'Hereford' - it goes only as far as the end of the goods loops - the mainline then falls towards the tunnel. Likewise the line out of Ledbury falls over the viaduct and continues to the tunnel - these maintain the illusion of the prototype. At the same time, the two branches rise out of their respective stations and meet at 'Dymented' (I like that!). The gradients main-line and branch-line are 1:100 and 1:50 respectively. There is a minimum clearance of 70mm - it is just doable.

 

However, SCARM is limited in that it does not permit the placing of pointwork on gradients (I believe Mixy is looking into this) and therefore there are gains to be made in the setting out of gradients when the layout is under construction.

 

The only thing I don't like when there is insufficient clearance between the tunnel crown and whatever is above - in this instance 'Dymented' - it looks too artificial. If you think about it, the railway pioneers would have just made a cutting rather than spend money on tunnelling if there was only a few feet between the crown and fresh air (urban situations excepted). It's a point I make at the club where all the youngsters insist on having a tunnel on their modules - it ends up as a long brick built bridge - tunnel with a flat top. If you're going to create a tunnel, at least make it worth while - which brings us conveniently to Ledbury.

 

I take the point regarding preparing the ground for the eventual doubling of the tunnel - you will be pleased to know that on the ground in true prtotypical manner, the siding alongside the tunnel entrance should be parallel to the mainline, as is the refuge line (possibly a sand drag) on the Worcester side of the tunnel should also be parallel - as per prototype. In passing, along the line between Ledbury and Malvern, there are a number of bores parallel to the main-line due to lines being created and then lifted - so there is precedent for an additional bore if required.

 

Regarding the traverser, I didn't show too many stabling lines for the sake of clarity - it was easier to paste and copy the turntable that I had already created on the previous iteration of the plan .

 

Thanks for your input - I await the views of The Stationmaster.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Chimer]

I was thinking of extra stabling tracks like the red ones here:

 

 

Ignore the blue rectangles, I'm reusing a traverser I created earlier.

 

Chris

[gordon s]

If you decide a traverser is not the way to go, here's a pretty cool alternative.....

 

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by gordon s

[The Stationmaster]

@Phil @Chris

 

Whilst providing a rising gradient out of Pontrilas towards 'Hereford' - it goes only as far as the end of the goods loops - the mainline then falls towards the tunnel. Likewise the line out of Ledbury falls over the viaduct and continues to the tunnel - these maintain the illusion of the prototype. At the same time, the two branches rise out of their respective stations and meet at 'Dymented' (I like that!). The gradients main-line and branch-line are 1:100 and 1:50 respectively. There is a minimum clearance of 70mm - it is just doable.

 

However, SCARM is limited in that it does not permit the placing of pointwork on gradients (I believe Mixy is looking into this) and therefore there are gains to be made in the setting out of gradients when the layout is under construction.

 

The only thing I don't like when there is insufficient clearance between the tunnel crown and whatever is above - in this instance 'Dymented' - it looks too artificial. If you think about it, the railway pioneers would have just made a cutting rather than spend money on tunnelling if there was only a few feet between the crown and fresh air (urban situations excepted). It's a point I make at the club where all the youngsters insist on having a tunnel on their modules - it ends up as a long brick built bridge - tunnel with a flat top. If you're going to create a tunnel, at least make it worth while - which brings us conveniently to Ledbury.

 

I take the point regarding preparing the ground for the eventual doubling of the tunnel - you will be pleased to know that on the ground in true prtotypical manner, the siding alongside the tunnel entrance should be parallel to the mainline, as is the refuge line (possibly a sand drag) on the Worcester side of the tunnel should also be parallel - as per prototype. In passing, along the line between Ledbury and Malvern, there are a number of bores parallel to the main-line due to lines being created and then lifted - so there is precedent for an additional bore if required.

 

Regarding the traverser, I didn't show too many stabling lines for the sake of clarity - it was easier to paste and copy the turntable that I had already created on the previous iteration of the plan .

 

Thanks for your input - I await the views of The Stationmaster.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

I must admit to preferring the variant at Post No.72 but a big reason for that was that it avoided unrealistic looking wrong line running in the visibly scenicked areas, which is unavoidable in the latest version.  And that scissors crossover is impossible to disguise with any scenic trickery short of a longer tunnel.  But if it could be somehow managed the longer tunnel would help the look of Dymwent I think.  The Pontrilas side is far more difficult to resolve I think.

 

What I think you need to do now is very carefully think through how you intend to operate the layout in each of its potential modes.  Timing movements is obviously difficult without the railway there, but what I think you do need a clear idea of what the various conflicts between flows will do when you are running trains because there are a lot of them in the area of entry to/exit from your traverser area.  Ledbury, worked as Ledbury, doesn't present too much of a problem because in effect it is approached by a single line from both direction in respect of trains running to/from the traverser although it gets a little more complicated if a train is coming back through 'not Pontrilas' - but again not too bad because you still have the single line through Ledbury Tunnel.

 

Pontrilas is more awkward because you are aiming to reproduce a double line station with double line movements which has acquired an extra junction at one end which will potentially foul various other combinations of movements.  So I think that in reality you will let trains off the traverser in each direction and they will meet each other at least once on the double line before going back to the traverser and all you need to do is time their movements to keep clear of each other through Ledbury Tunnel.  You really do need to think all of this through very carefully because the use you make of your traverser sidings will set the tone to teh moves you can make and there relationship to each other on the visible parts of the layout.

Edited February 14, 2018 by The Stationmaster

[Denbridge]

I must admit to preferring the variant at Post No.72 but a big reason for that was that it avoided unrealistic looking wrong line running in the visibly scenicked areas, which is unavoidable in the latest version.  And that scissors crossover is impossible to disguise with any scenic trickery short of a longer tunnel.  But if it could be somehow managed the longer tunnel would help the look of Dymwent I think.  The Pontrilas side is far more difficult to resolve I think.

 

What I think you need to do now is very carefully think through how you intend to operate the layout in each of its potential modes.  Timing movements is obviously difficult without the railway there, but what I think you do need a clear idea of what the various conflicts between flows will do when you are running trains because there are a lot of them in the area of entry to/exit from your traverser area.  Ledbury, worked as Ledbury, doesn't present too much of a problem because in effect it is approached by a single line from both direction in respect of trains running to/from the traverser although it gets a little more complicated if a train is coming back through 'not Pontrilas' - but again not too bad because you still have the single line through Ledbury Tunnel.

 

Pontrilas is more awkward because you are aiming to reproduce a double line station with double line movements which has acquired an extra junction at one end which will potentially foul various other combinations of movements.  So I think that in reality you will let trains off the traverser in each direction and they will meet each other at least once on the double line before going back to the traverser and all you need to do is time their movements to keep clear of each other through Ledbury Tunnel.  You really do need to think all of this through very carefully because the use you make of your traverser sidings will set the tone to teh moves you can make and there relationship to each other on the visible parts of the layout.

I've been reading this thread with interest. Having seen the plan develop through its various forms I'd have to say I agree with 'Stationmaster'. If I were to build something like this the plan in #72 is the one I would adopt. All of the others, while having nice elements, have too many potential problems, be they operational, appearance, access, etc. The plan in 72 has all of the operational elements without unnecessary future hassles. I've found through hard experience that it is all too easy to over-design.

[Philou]

Right chaps,

 

I've had a two minute think - and by no means any final decision being made - it was a comment made by Harlequin in response to the plan at post #72 and now something mentioned by The Stationmaster that caused me to come back:

 

The plan at post #114 came about as Harlequin mentioned the loss of a landscaped run on the section 'Newport/Hereford'. Indeed, when viewed that way, that was a loss. However, in what has now become #114, the run has been reinstated - but if analysed, that run is in a somewhat deep cutting - as per prototype. Is there really a loss if you could not see the train - unless you were standing up and overlooking it? I wonder.  In plan #72, the landscaped run is on the 'Hereford' side, furthermore it is on rising ground and double track to boot  - so that trains may be more easily observed. I do acknowledge that the eye could be led to goings on at 'Dymented' - but a decent, and uninterrupted, run is there nevertheless.

 

In turning to 'Dymented': the branches leading thereto are on lower ground and there is no need for a tunnel, that, in my mind, would have looked artificial for reasons that I exposed previously. It does mean that only a single line bridge under the main-running lines need be provided - the absolute minimum height between rail-top and underside is 15' (60mm) - we have 70mm and is therefore perfectly practicable.

 

Now to the tunnel: Ledbury tunnel as per prototype is not short - I had mentioned in an earlier post, a want to increase its length. In a way, this has been achieved in #72, by my desire to hide the single turnouts leading into the traverser ('Newport/Worcester'). Whilst hiding the two points may lead to increased operational difficulties, it need not be. There are plenty of ways of indicating line occupancy and turnout directions - even CCTV!! It comes back to a point I made in post #114:

 

"Under OMO, prototypical movements from each station and their respective branches can still be maintained. Trains arriving from 'Worcester' and returning thereto, will need to pick up a tablet in order to enter the single line working. Whether a train actually started from 'Newport' in the prototypical world will not matter for an operator at Ledbury - it is a train movement that will need to be handled in a prototypical manner."

 

The same will apply whether a train is a through train on the roundy-roundy,  or going back to the storage area. Where belief has to be suspended - if it was not here, it would be somewhere else - is that there are points within Ledbury tunnel where none exist. I am of a view that the tunnel was going to be there, it is there, and therefore one may as well make use of that, rather than create another tunnel in an otherwise acceptable landscaped area over at 'Dymented'.

 

That is tonight's thought.

 

Kind regards,

 

Philip

 

@ Chimer, thanks for the plan, I'll add something similar to the traverser area.

 

@ gordon s: Well! I suppose that would solve a fair bit of storage problems - imagine 4 or 5 of those in a fiddle yard! I expect they cost a few pounds too .

Edited February 16, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

Hello chums,

 

I've had a look at 'Dymented' and toyed around with a very simple station that will fit in the area previously shown in post #72. I have also eased the main running lines and reduced the tightness of the reverse curves. From my perspective I think it looks about right - though the station does need more work as the 'Golden Valley' part of it ran a fair amount mixed traffic trains and it could do with perhaps a goods shed - or at least a small yard with a crane.

 

I haven't redone the storage area as yet -I'll wait until a more definitive plan has been determined.

 

Your comments would be appreciated.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

Plans below - oops.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Philou

[Philou]

 

 

 

[Denbridge]

Dymented.2a.jpg

 

Dymented.2b.jpg

 

Dymented.b.jpg

 

Dymented.jpg

I wouldn't add much at all. I would suggest getting rid of the embankment at the siding on the RH and placing a small goods 'hut' rather than a full blown shed. Possibly a small cattle dock as well. Wouldn't want to overwhelm a small bucolic station.