Main line terminus in OO

['CHARD]

Did I understand correctly - in the latest iteration of the plan, the number of storage sidings and width of that baseboard, have both increased?

 

19 tracks in 900mm, that's approx 47mm width per storage slot.  I've just measured across the outer dimension of a typical piece of rolling stock, which was 36mm at solebar, a scale 9 foot. 

 

This leaves roughly 11mm between adjacent trains.  Not a great deal of room for manoeuvre, quite literally.  Now that's probably workable if two thirds of tracks are occupied at maximum.  Any more than this, and the resilience is starting to crumble for attending to any re-railing, stalling, or changing locomotives without the benefit of automated uncoupling tech.  As for the rearmost slots, those guys are particularly vulnerable from operator over-reaching.

[Silver Sidelines]

I dont know whether to take this thread seriously.

 

I came across the attached cartoon this morning   It reminded me of the thread.  I thought very ap(t)..

 

Ray

 

[jamespetts]

Chard, yes, on the basis of The Stationmaster's suggestion, I increased the number of fiddle yard sidings on the main lines by 2. Do you think that there might be some benefit to removing the auxilliary sidings and adding an access hole at the centre of the upper reversing loop? I am not sure how accessible that that would be, however.

[BWsTrains]

I dont know whether to take this thread seriously.

 

I came across the attached cartoon this morning   It reminded me of the thread.  I thought very ap(t)..

 

Ray

I stopped 3 pages and 10^6 words ago but just popped back to see, was amused by your most apt cartoon.

 

The progress of this thread reminded me of the classic words from "the captain" here which IMO capture it perfectly:

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by BWsTrains

['CHARD]

Chard, yes, on the basis of The Stationmaster's suggestion, I increased the number of fiddle yard sidings on the main lines by 2. Do you think that there might be some benefit to removing the auxilliary sidings and adding an access hole at the centre of the upper reversing loop? I am not sure how accessible that that would be, however.

 

My guess is that would be a hole of approx 700 mm diameter 

[jamespetts]

My guess is that would be a hole of approx 700 mm diameter 

 

Would that be too small, do you think?

[Dagworth]

I stopped 3 pages and 10^6 words ago but just popped back to see, was amused by your most apt cartoon.

 

The progress of this thread reminded me of the classic words from "the captain" here which IMO capture it perfectly:

 

Damn, now I've got Guns 'N' Roses in my head

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYoIgKxOK4A

[Junctionmad]

I don’t see the point of seperate fiddle yards , surely it’s makes better sense to combine all running lines into a common fiddle yard , this allows you to dynamically allocate yard space as required. It would also allow for longer sidings in the FY.

 

As to baseboard height, I would take the same view with 00 , my own 00 layout is at 1.15 M

 

I currently have educational access to Autodesl products.

 

But there are plenty of free or cheap electrical drawing packages

 

Just in relation to DCC wiring , there are no “ isolating sections “ in DCC. Locos are controlled by addresses and don’t need to be isolated

 

personally I wire droppers to every piece of flexi track , as I don’t trust fish plates for conductivity , what this means is that occupancy detection then can typically be done without further wiring , merely inserting the block detector onto the dropper ( or combined group of droppers ) circuit.

 

Note I have experimented with resistor wheel sets , they work fine , but most layout control systems don’t need full train detection , merely loco detection. Railcom solves the problem of identying locos in fiddle yards , railcom transmitters can also be fitted to brake vans and carriages to further aid train identification

 

Once you go through the process of defining routes in a layout automation system , most of the complexity of route selection and control is then already built into the software. In that regard model railway software is ahead of real life because real life systems are complicated by safety systems.

 

I don’t think there’s much point experimenting with SMP and Marcway, are you serously considering kit built copper clad points for a layout this size.!

 

As an overall comment , I really don’t think a two level layout with vertical separations of 450mm or more is practical , surely the underground station section will be too low in relation to the top layout , needing a gradient to run down to the accessible lower fiddle yard.

 

This leaves aside the issue of a helix to bridge such a vertical gap

Edited March 4, 2018 by Junctionmad

[jamespetts]

Junctionmad - thank you for your further thoughts. As to the fiddle yards - I had separated them in order to reduce conflicts on entering the fiddle yards. Without separate fiddle yards, I imagine that I should need more cross-overs at the right-hand end, which would take more space, and thus leave the actual fiddle yard sidings (unless there is an ingenious way of doing this efficiently that I have not thought of?).

 

As to isolated sections, I was not referring to the analogue/cab control concept of having separate sections each of which can be set to one of several analogue controllers; rather, in order to create blocks for the DCC block occupancy system (together with RailCom) to identify which blocks are occupied (and what is in each occupied block). From what I understand, the wiring for these is that each section where occupancy needs to be detected separately needs to be connected with insulated joiners, and the power feed for each such section wired through a separate block occupancy/RailCom module, which then feeds back to the main DCC controller so that the occupancy of each block can be detected separately. This actually seems to be quite similar to your approach (and lots of people seem to have the same view about not trusting fishplates).

 

I had wondered about fitting DCC decoders to brake carriages/vans, but is identifying rolling stock (as opposed simply to knowing whether there is any on the line) really very useful? that may depend on the extent to which I wish to automate carriage shunting, I suppose.

 

In relation to SMP/Marcway, I was not thinking of building points from kits; but Marcway sell quite a wide range of pre-built points, and I was considering those.

 

In relation to the vertical separation between upper and lower levels, the plan is to use a helix as already discussed at some considerable length: it would not be possible to get more than about 150mm otherwise, and that would not be enough for proper access. The idea is that, aside from the helix and the descent to it on the upper level, both upper and lower levels would be completely flat.

 

Incidentally, I managed to get some of my old model railway equipment down from the attic this afternoon to test it. Findings so far are that my old Gaugemaster analogue controllers and matching transformers still work, but that my old Hornby track (and a spare length of code 100 Peco Streamline track) is very dirty and, as to the former, in quite poor condition. I tried to get some of my old locomotives to run on it; an old Hornby LBSCR E2 tank would barely move; it has probably suffered from being stored in a garage between 2001 and 2015. A Bachmann V3 did slightly better, but was very intermittent, probably because of the dirty track, and derailed frequently. With the possible exception of the E2, if I manage to get it working again, which might well be suitable for use on the City Widened Lines section, I suspect that the amount of work required to make my older locomotives (all of which I had attempted to detail myself at age ~11/12 and had not done a very good job of it in many cases, with things being worsened by poor storage in the meantime) work effectively is not worth the value of an equivalent secondhand model of the same locomotive, not least because I had cut all the couplers off to use realistic scale screw couplings, which look splendid (and would look even better had they been fitted to a higher standard), but are not suitable for automatic coupling/uncoupling.

 

On the subject of automatic coupling/uncoupling, many of my older carriages (including some GWR Collett carriages of the sort that would now be part of the "Railroad" range; given the Hornby has not to date released a buffet car in the high detail Collett range, the buffet car that I have in the set is more or less as good as can be had ready to run even now) I had not got around to modifying, and are still largely in original condition, with their original couplers. I tested those with an old spring uncoupler that I found in the attic, and was pleased at just how reliably that the automatic uncoupling of those tension lock couplers actually works: not once in all the times that I ran the carriages over the unit did the carriages uncouple when being hauled, or fail to uncouple when slack. Mechanically, this system is very reliable, but it does look ugly. I have heard that the Gaugemaster TLU is  more easily disguiseable (as it drops away when not in use), although that requires more wiring. Others, I understand, use transparent plastic, which is less obtrusive. At least the principle of automatic uncoupling seems to be sound and reliable.

 

The lovely Harrow Models Q38 set was in a more complete condition than I recalled, both cars being painted, albeit only one having transfers applied, and that only to one side. I will need to acquire two of the seating inserts that Radley Models sell for them and use these, as well as fitting glazing and painting the drivers/cab interiors fully, but they are otherwise complete, only then needing to be DCC fitted (although how that would work with the interior is another matter).

 

In any event, those old Gaugemaster controllers (or one of them at least) will be good for the analogue portion of the test track, so that is good to know.

[Dagworth]

but If Bow Locks blog is an example it took 2 months to lay track and get it running and another 46 months to finish.

Not sure how you got that, I started the layout Christmas 2014, worked on it for a couple of weeks and had all track laid (about two days!) and wired, all point motors fitted, and fully working. Then I pretty much put it away for a year while I worked on Ravensclyffe again. I then got it out again the following Christmas and did some more work, and exhibited it in October 2016, 22 months after first cutting timber for it.

 

Andi

[DCB]

Did I understand correctly - in the latest iteration of the plan, the number of storage sidings and width of that baseboard, have both increased?

 

19 tracks in 900mm, that's approx 47mm width per storage slot.  I've just measured across the outer dimension of a typical piece of rolling stock, which was 36mm at solebar, a scale 9 foot. 

 

This leaves roughly 11mm between adjacent trains.  Not a great deal of room for manoeuvre, quite literally.  Now that's probably workable if two thirds of tracks are occupied at maximum.  Any more than this, and the resilience is starting to crumble for attending to any re-railing, stalling, or changing locomotives without the benefit of automated uncoupling tech.  As for the rearmost slots, those guys are particularly vulnerable from operator over-reaching.

 

That's doable but tight. We have used similar spacing for 30 plus years, see pic    I don't think much fiddling is intended as the remarshalling and re engining will mainly take place in the station and auto uncoupling is proposed.  However the platform widths in the station area are very marginal and you will have to breathe in to get through the pinch point between baseboards

 

Not sure how you got that, I started the layout Christmas 2014, worked on it for a couple of weeks and had all track laid (about two days!) and wired, all point motors fitted, and fully working. Then I pretty much put it away for a year while I worked on Ravensclyffe again. I then got it out again the following Christmas and did some more work, and exhibited it in October 2016, 22 months after first cutting timber for it.

 

Andi

Info from the dates on your blog...

[Dagworth]

If Bow Locks blog is an example it took 2 months to lay track and get it running and another 46 months to finish.

 

Not sure how you got that, I started the layout Christmas 2014, worked on it for a couple of weeks and had all track laid (about two days!) and wired, all point motors fitted, and fully working. Then I pretty much put it away for a year while I worked on Ravensclyffe again. I then got it out again the following Christmas and did some more work, and exhibited it in October 2016, 22 months after first cutting timber for it.

 

Andi

 

Info from the dates on your blog...

First post Jan 2015 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94290-bow-locks-was-a-bit-on-the-side/?p=1724643 and ten days later posts show all track laid and the control panel for the points and signals built. A post on the 10th Jan 2015 shows point motors in place http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94290-bow-locks-was-a-bit-on-the-side/?p=1736817

 

That's only 38 months ago from today, I exhibited the layout 17 months ago. Can't see how you can get that track layout took two months from any of my posts, or that it took 46 months to finish. Please explain...

 

The layout was exhibited at Cheltenham show in October 2016 http://www.cheltmodrail.org.uk/exhibition.php?ExKey2=37, 22 months after construction started.

 

Andi

Edited March 6, 2018 by Dagworth

[Joseph_Pestell]

I still have real doubts as to whether this "Paddington" can be fitted in to a shed only 9' wide. But if it is, a large part of the platforms need to be out of sight, behind a low-relief trainshed. That gives more length for the station approaches, a representation of Bishop's Road, and the wider  arrival platforms with their cab and parcels/newspaper traffic.

 

It would also add a lot of interest to have the carriage roads to/from OOC.

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your replies: that is most helpful. You are correct in surmising that the fiddle yards are not intended for routine manual re-formation of trains, but for storage and automated dispatch. As to the platform widths being marginal, can you elaborate? Is the issue the widths of the platforms themselves, or the track spacing between the platforms? If the former, is the issue one of authenticity or practicality, and, if practicality, may I ask what the nature of the issue is? I should note that the platform widths are based on the widths of the Hornby platforms (which I do not plan actually to use) as these were the only platforms made available with SCARM for me to get an idea of spacing. I do not think that these platforms are unduly narrow, are they?

 

Joseph - I am not entirely clear on why you think that a layout to this plan cannot fit in the space available in circumstances where it has been planned to scale - can you elaborate? Do you think that there is something wrong with the scaling in the plans, or that there is some specific practical problem with this particular plan? If the latter, can you elaborate on what it is so that I can understand the issue and seek to remedy it? I should note that I am not intending to produce a faithful model of Paddington specifically, which I imagine would not fit into the space, but rather a plausible main line terminus with Underground elements that can have Paddington-like (and also St. Pancras-like and perhaps King's Cross-like) operations of express and local passenger trains and through freight and suburban passenger trains to the Underground network. The original plan did have an arrangement similar to Bishop's Road, but I removed this as I could not fit this into the space without very steep gradients, track and complex trackwork and shunting movements (to change steam for electric traction) at the back of the board that might be difficult to reach. I should very much like to be able to represent this element if possible, but I cannot think of a way of doing this within the space. As to the low relief idea, I believe that this has been raised before, but this would appear to require, in effect, a circular layout (although I am still not really clear on how this would actually work; would you be able to elaborate, perhaps with a sketch, so that I could get a better idea?), and I should rather not have a hatched entrance to the shed, but one that retains clear access. I also rather like the idea of seeing the locomotives at the ends of the platforms, and seeing the full rakes of carriages in all their glory in the platforms, which would be hidden rather by a low relief arrangement.

 

I have also been giving thought to the idea of a small and simple practice layout beyond simply laying test tracks on which, unlike the earlier N gauge idea, I could use (some of) the same stock; perhaps London Underground station, or something in south Wales. However, I am loathe to create a layout that I know would have to be dismantled in a short time (which would not be the case for a simple test track, as it would retain its usefulness and be small enough to store easily). If it were not for the dismantling issue, it would be quite an attractive idea. If anyone has any ingenious (or even straightforward) suggestions (not involving pulleys or the like) in this regard, I should be most grateful. The trouble is, of course, that the larger layout would leave very little room in the shed for anything else aside from a work bench, which would be permanent.

Edited March 6, 2018 by jamespetts

[gordon s]

Apologies for commenting on the platforms as I was about to post, but you beat me to it. If I'm looking at the right part, the Peco platforms are 76mm or 19' width. My first impression is that they were certainly narrow on your plan, but that could be an optical illusion based on the length of the platforms.

 

Looking at this picture of Paddington the platforms are probably twice the width of the Mk1 coach on the right. That would put them around 19', so maybe there not so far out after all....

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/rail-journeys/uk-most-beautiful-railway-stations/paddington/

 

Edit: I see now your plan has Hornby platforms and they are only 68mm or 17' wide, so I would agree they are on the narrow side. No problem on a small through station, but when you have platform lengths in a large terminus as per your plan, that makes them look narrower still. A terminus of that size would have far greater passenger numbers and I would suspect they would demand wider platforms to avoid over crowding. I know we don't have passengers as such, but in order for it to look right, you have to think that way.

 

Edit 2: Just as an aside, you have 113 platform sections. If they are what I think they are, they're around £6 each......

 

I'm glad to hear you're not going to use them...

Edited March 6, 2018 by gordon s

[Chimer]

You could try just building the engine shed element in what would be its final position, but with a (say) two platform terminus and a single track to a fiddle yard.  So nothing significant wasted or needing to be dismantled, unless the exercise convinced you of the need to scale back the master plan.

 

Many people are happy with shed layouts in a smaller space than you're allocating to yours, see e.g. West Shed (linked from the bottom of any of Andrew P's posts - King's Moreton his current epic).

 

Chris

[The Stationmaster]

The platforms should be an absolute minimum of the scale equivalent of 12 feet wide (therefore 48mm wide in 4mm scale) but ideally should be considerably more than that at an important mainline terminus.  As indicated by Gordon something of the size of the Peco platform at =19 ft would be far more appropriate for a station of this sort.   The ramps should only be curved where an immediately adjacent track is curved, otherwise they should continue from the edge of the platform in a straight line.

[mightbe]

I think the platforms may be wider than that photo suggests:

 

http://maps.nls.uk/view/101201286 (1895) (most-detailed)

 

http://maps.nls.uk/view/103313279# (1914, p. 1932) (most time-correct)

 

http://maps.nls.uk/view/102900955 (1953) (most similar to the above photo)

 

EDIT: I'm not very good at scaling from these; someone else may be. I'm just going by eye. I also note that Paddington only had 9 platforms in the 1914 version, which tells me you could scale back your current station without any real loss; leaving room for something other than just track.

 

EDIT 2: FWIW, I think 96mm wide platforms would look quite good. 24'. 

Edited March 6, 2018 by mightbe

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your feedback. According to this structure gauge, platforms should be 11mm away from the nearest rail. The gap between the rails on one side of the platform and the other in this plan is 100mm, which leaves space for a 78mm wide platform without altering the plan (the current narrow platforms are too far from the edge of the track according to this structure gauge). Either the Peco or perhaps freelance platforms would seem to be approximately correct in width in that case.

[WIMorrison]

...

 

In relation to setting up routes, I can see that setting up 55 inbound routes and a similar number of outbound routes might take a fair while, but this does not seem to be an insurmountable task. I have downloaded the free version of iTrain, and I will have a go when I have a spare moment at configuring things to see what setting up routes is like. Compared to some of the year-long projects on Simutrans-Extended (and fantastically difficult things such as adding multi-threading to software that was not designed for it from the outset and which has to keep in exact synchronisation over the network - this took many months of intensive work to get right), setting up a few hundred routes seems comparatively straightforward.

 

...

 

I have also gone for iTrain, but just the standard version as when I looked at RR&Co it was just too expensive and I couldn't be bothered with JMRI and Rocrail both of which seemed to rely on an arcamce programming knowledge.

 

To date I am pleased with iTrain, though I don't have the scale that you do - how are you getting on with it?

 

Iain

[Joseph_Pestell]

On the departures side, Paddington does have quite narrow platforms.

 

It's on the arrivals side (and also at St Pancras) where there are much wider platforms to accommodate cabs and parcels/GPO traffic. It would be a pity not to model this feature as it is a big part of the station's operations.

 

I know that James is not overly bothered about representing Paddington too faithfully (hence my asterisks in previous post) but the somewhat triangular shape of the station site could actually be a help to him. With the Bishop's Rd platforms and main line approach tracks parallel to the shed wall, they should not require too much depth to reach a train (although easily removable platform canopies might be prudent). The main platforms then curve through about 30 degrees (more like 45 in reality) which helps give extra length to the main platforms. The relief/mail platforms can be shorter as hidden below the low-relief overall roof.

[Joseph_Pestell]

A schematic to show what I mean in the above post.

 

Paddington.pdf

[gordon s]

Are you planning to retain all the platforms, Joseph or just a dummy end, as per Waverley West?

 

I know that's only a sketch, but there seems to be a very tight area going through the angles and the curves required will possibly mean great big gaps at the door ends of the coaches as they sit tangental to curved platforms around some fairly small radii.  Normally I'd offer to plot the curves and gaps out in Templot, but I'm track building right now (just stopped for some lunch)

 

If it's something that appeals to James, I may have some time later this afternoon.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Are you planning to retain all the platforms, Joseph or just a dummy end, as per Waverley West?

 

I know that's only a sketch, but there seems to be a very tight area going through the angles and the curves required will possibly mean great big gaps at the door ends of the coaches as they sit tangental to curved platforms around some fairly small radii.  Normally I'd offer to plot the curves and gaps out in Templot, but I'm track building right now (just stopped for some lunch)

 

If it's something that appeals to James, I may have some time later this afternoon.

 

Hi Gordon,

 

No, I would only model the platforms a little way under the low-relief overall roof: the Bishop's Road footbridge makes a good scenic break as well as the gable end of the overall roof.

 

So the bit against the right-hand wall would just be bare tracks brought back close together, fiddleyard style - no problems with carriages hitting the platform edges. I don't think James will go for it, but it's a great spacesaver which opens up the station approaches.

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your thoughts/replies. I have not yet had an opportunity to try iTrain, but will try to remember to post when I have had a chance.

 

As to Joseph's idea - that looks interesting, but I do not think that it would really be suitable for my needs, since it would, from what I understand, curve around and get in the way of the shed door, not enable me to enjoy looking at the trains in the platforms or the platforms themselves (apart from one end of them), and it is also unclear what this would be solving. Joseph - can you elaborate on why you think that this would be preferable overall? This also seems to use extremely tight curves in the hidden part of the station area.