Alternative main line terminus in OO

[jamespetts]

I have spent a very great amount of time this afternoon/evening attempting further to revise this plan. I have tried some of the suggestions that have been made here, but many of them are not feasible.

 

Firstly, the turntable location: because the LSWR lines are on an incline, having the turntable in the position suggested by mightbe does not work because the turntable would either itself be on an incline (obviously unworkable) or would be hidden behind track and quite possibly in the way of the necessary embankment.

 

I did spend some time testing a radical alternative of abolishing the inclines entirely and having a fiddle yard entirely on the flat with the locomotives uncoupling and running light around a much tighter reversing loop (which they would be able to navigate on account of not pulling a train), but I could not fit this in the space available, so I have retained the basic original fiddle yard layout. This prevents me from using the interesting alternative engine shed location suggested.

 

I have removed (as I had in the plan from earlier to-day) the Brighton headshunt on the basis that a headshunt in a tunnel is silly and that it should be possible to use the main line, especially as this would have been a secondary main line.

 

I have also slightly modified the fiddle yards so that the LSWR headshunt connects to the main line at the far end, and I have added further unidirectional sidings.

 

Furhter, I have improved the access from the Brighton lines to platforms 4 and 5 so as to allow these lines to be used bidirectionally for all workings (aside from very long trains in platform 5) to avoid conflicts, and moved the no. 2 signalbox to a location where it should have a better view of the station (and not get in the way of embankments, etc.).

 

Additionally, I have narrowed the baseboards a little at the left hand side to give a little more space inside the shed.

 

Here is the plan with the basic set of revisions:

 

 

I have then attempted a further alternative consisting of putting the LSWR carriage sidings in between platforms 4 and 5, as I am not keen on them being in front of the station blocking the view.

 

Here is a version with two carriage sidings:

 

 

and here is a version with three carriage sidings:

 

 

The version with central carriage sidings have a number of compromises compared to the version with carriage sidings at the edge of the station. The track is less smoothly flowing and the minimum radius in the scenic area is at 725mm, down from 900mm in the version with the external carriage sidings. The access from the LBSCR lines to platforms 4 and 5 is poorer. In the version with three sidings, the wide parts of the baseboard at the station are a little wider and considerably longer than in the version with external carriage sidings. The version with two carriage sidings has fewer carriage sidings than the version with external carriage sidings. The version with three carriage sidings, however, looks a little odd having quite so many carriage sidings in between platforms. It also has even less flowing track than the two siding version. The two track version is narrower overall both than the external sidings version and the three track version.

 

I should be interested in views as to which versions that people think preferable and why. I should also be interested in information that people might have regarding the number of carriage sidings that a station of this sort would have been likely to have had and how much in the way of carriages that they would have been likely to have contained at any one time.

[Zomboid]

Because I quite enjoy this kind of thing, I've put a pastiche of Southampton Terminus (sadly the real one had a scissors and probably a 3-way) next to a pastiche of Bognor Regis (Bognor is quite a modern plan, but it was semaphore signalled at the time, and doesn't look too horribly rationalised) As you will see, access to the loco yard is primarily from the centre road of each station, and you can't get everywhere from everywhere, which is entirely realistic. The idea was that the LSW built their station first, and then the LBSC came along and built a station of their own adjacent to it. There's only the one track which is shared, but if you really must have 2 shared tracks it would be possible to add a crossover in. I really don't think they would have built it like that though, and even if they did then there wouldn't have been an allowance for parallel moves.

The centre road at Southampton Terminus was described as a carriage road, so you could stick a few trains there, and note the shorter platforms at the bottom; not every platform needs to hold your longest train. (Southampton T actually curved downwards, which flows better than this straightened version, and bognor actually would curve upwards, but that isn't affected so much.

No idea if this would fit your space (the grid is 3"), but I had fun doing it...

You'll have to imagine all the gaps are filled, I'm on the free version of anyrail...

[jamespetts]

Zomboid - an interesting plan. I note that this uses several short crossovers, which are not planned anytime soon for Peco Bullhead. I also note that you have a centre road and separate carriage sidings alongside the station for the LSWR side - was this common? I further note that the two lower platforms appear to have no access to the locomotive yard or headshunt.

 

It really is extremely difficult to fit everything into this space: every change affects all the angles everywhere nearby, and there are many places where things are within very tight tolerances of what can fit within a reasonable curve radius.

 

---

 

In any event, in light of the above redesign and some additional research since my last attempt at this task, I update the provisional (1935) service diagrams from the originals in this post earlier in the thread.

 

---

 

LSWR line

Express passenger

(1) London via Basingstoke - N15/LN - 5-set + diner + loose depending on demand (~3-4) + PLV

(2) London Pullman - LN - 9x Pullman + 2x PLV

(3a) Birkenhead (from the GWR)** - N15 - GWR K-set (5) + Maunsell 3-set + 2x Maunsell loose

(3b) Cardiff (from the GWR)** - D15 - GWR K-set (5) + Maunsell 3-set

(4) Newcastle (from the LNER) - N15 (Maunsell only) - LNER carriages x 8

 

Semi-fast passenger

(5) London via Alton - N - 4-set + 1x loose + 4-set

(6) Weymouth - T9 - 3-set + 3-set (low window type)

(7) London excursion via Basingstoke (Saturdays only) - S15/700 - 4-set + 5x loose non-cor + PLV

 

Local passenger

(8) Salisbury - T9 - non-cor 4-set

(9) Basingstoke - M7 - non-cor 4 1/2 set

(10) Poole - M7 - non-cor 4 1/2 set

(11) Branch - O2 - P&P gate stock 2-set

 

Non-passenger

(12) London parcels - N - 5x PLV + 2x GBL

(13) West of England parcels - M7 - 3x PLV + 2x fitted goods vans + goods brake van

(14) Locomotive coal (weekdays only (?)) - 700 - 4-5x coal trucks + goods brake van

 

LBSCR line

Express passenger

(15) London Bridge via Croydon- V - 3-set + 2-set + Pullman + 4-set

(16) London Bridge via Sutton (?) - N*** - PLV + 4 set + 2 loose non-cor

(17) Brighton-Plymouth (through/reversing) - H2/D15 - 5-set + 4-set + GBL

 

Semi-fast passenger

(18) Brighton - N* - 5-set + 2 loose non-cor

(19) Brighton-Poole (through/reversing) - N*/T9 - 5-set + 2x loose non-cor

(20) London excursion via Horsham (Saturdays only) - S15/N - 4-set + 5x loose non-cor

 

Local passenger

(21) Selsey - E4 - birdcage 3-set

(22) Littlehampton - E4 - birdcage 3-set + birdcage 2-set

 

Non-passenger

(23) Brighton parcels - E4/N - 3-4x PLV

(24) Locomotive coal (weekdays only (?)) - N - 3-4x coal trucks + goods brake van

 

* Use I3/B4x if these can be obtained/built/commissioned

** To be assembled from the same coaching stock as each other

*** Use B2x/B4/B4x if these can be obtained/built/commissioned

Edited July 1, 2018 by jamespetts

[Zomboid]

Zomboid - an interesting plan. I note that this uses several short crossovers, which are not planned anytime soon for Peco Bullhead. I also note that you have a centre road and separate carriage sidings alongside the station for the LSWR side - was this common? I further note that the two lower platforms appear to have no access to the locomotive yard or headshunt.

The short crossings would make access to the loco yards a bit easier (and I like diamond crossings), but could be avoided by putting the connections a bit further along the main lines. I don't personally think that multiple back and forth shunts to get to the loco yard would be especially unrealistic, but I'm no expert on these things, I just like playing with anyrail.

One thing that might not be obvious is that the bottom station headshunt is the below the 2 up/down lines heading off from the double slip, as it wouldn't make any sense to have a headshunt on the opposite side of the main lines from the sidings which it mainly serves. The top 3 platforms don't have direct access to the headshunt, but they do have access to the centre road following a shunt using the main line. That's one part of Southampton Terminus that I wasn't able to get right, as the loco facility was where the headshunt/ carriage sidings are shown - I don't know where the carriage sidings for Southampton Terminus were though, probably up the line in Northam or something.

 

If you're looking at 1935, then it's possible (likely) that the Brighton side would have been electrified, as the Brighton Main line and both Coastways were electrified in 1933 and the Portsmouth Direct in 1937. In that case, most of the trains that way would be electric, certainly anything to London or Brighton would be, and local trains on the main line, but not all branches would have been electrified (such as Midhurst) so you'd see some steam on those kind of trains. Running a few 6PUL/ 6PAN/ 6CIT units would be fun, along with the BILs/ HALs/ NOLs.

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

As to electrification - according to this article, the original Brighton electrification of 1933 only got as far as West Worthing - Portsmouth was only reached by electric traction in 1938. I had spent some time considering the issue of electrification early in planning this project, and decided that, owing to the limited availability of electric rolling stock ready to run and my uncertain ability to build things from kits, I wish to avoid depicting an electrified part of the railway. 1935 is thus after the electrification of the Brighton main line (and use of the H2s, formerly used on the main line services, on through trains along the western coastway, such as the Brighton to Plymouth service, which they hauled as far as Portsmouth), but before more westerly main line electrifications of 1937 and onwards.

 

Edit: Do bear in mind also that electrification will not work as I plan to be able to backdate this dynamically (if and when I am able to build/commission enough kits of the right sort of locomotives/rolling stock) to 1929, 1925 and 1912.

 

As to back and forth shunting - do bear in mind that I intend to have this layout computer controlled and at least semi-automated, so the less back and forth shunting that there needs to be (and the fewer conflicts that there are), the better.

 

Edit: Incidentally, it seems sensible to imagine this station having been rebuilt and enlarged somewhat in the early years of the 20th century, which might rather help to explain the more organised layout and sharing of a relatively large turntable.

Edited July 1, 2018 by jamespetts

[jamespetts]

I think that I have managed to find a sensible solution for the carriage sidings: if I put them between platforms 2 and 3 rather than between platforms 4 and 5, they fit a great deal better without causing anything like as many difficulties with sharply curved track or worsened access to the Brighton lines:

 

 

Platform 2 is shortened somewhat, but this can still take all but the longest of trains. The carriage sidings now have easier and more direct access to the headshunt and engine sheds, and they no longer block the view of the station (which can look more monumental in size without taking any additional shed space - indeed, marginally less space is occupied just beyond the end of the station, although it is fractionally wider at the widest part).

 

I have also realigned the lines joining platforms 4 and 5 to the Brighton lines and reconfigured a few slips/crossings (turning one single slip into a double slip, one single slip into a diamond crossing and flipping another single slip) to reduce redundancy and allow for full access where necessary.

[mightbe]

It's looking a lot better!

 

A few minor ideas:

 

1. The only remaining oddity with the carriage sidings is that they have to be shunted across the arrivals side--were this a real station the headshunt would most likely be placed beneath the main line.

 

2. There shouldn't be a direct connection between a platform line and the turntable because of the hazard. It's the sort of thing authorities would frown on and ultimately order to be removed.

 

3. The individual throats don't particularly remind me of any station from this era. It's primarily that they're based around double junction formations, which is a more modern way of designing a throat (80s-present). A similar number of parallel moves can be achieved while still being more true to the idiom.

 

4. Just a thought, but maybe one of the signal boxes (probably No. 1) could be cantilevered over the throat. It's a distinctive but prototypical feature, and would solve the sighting issues.

Edited July 1, 2018 by mightbe

[jamespetts]

Mightbe - thank you for your thoughts - they are most helpful. In relation to the minor ideas:

 

(1) can you clarify "beneath" the main line - presumably, you do not mean grade separation here?;

 

(2) a good point - I had not thought of the hazard aspect; I have modified the design as follows:

 

 

(3) I am not sure that I entirely follow this - the design is loosely based on the pre-electrification Brighton design, which did have double junctions - in the 1980s, single lead junctions became very fashionable and slips and diamond crossings were largely banished - can you elaborate a little on what you mean, preferably with examples?; and

 

(4) this is an interesting idea - I have had a brief look, but cannot find any kits for (or ready made models of) cantilevered signal boxes other than this, which seems no longer to be available and appears to be supplied by a company whose only signalboxes seem to be in 7mm/ft or 10mm/ft scale. If you or anyone else know of a good kit for one of these, I should be most interested.

 

---

 

Incidentally, I have produced a number of 3d images of this layout (the preceding one with the turntable connexion - this is too minor a change to re-do the 3d images). They show the track layout, the platforms, the signalboxes, the gradients, the window and the workbench.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Just some random thoughts re-the loco sheds and turntable.

 

To me, the centrally-placed turntable dominates the scene and just looks "toy-like". Where a town had two loco sheds nearby, they each had their own turntable (examples being Oxford, Salisbury, Basingstoke).

 

After Grouping, I could see the two sheds being amalgamated by the Southern; possibly into a more modern smaller structure. I think a single turntable would look better round the back of the shed (sited alongside the LSWR shed).

[jamespetts]

Peter - thank you for your thoughts.

 

The turntable is in that location because that is the only sensible place that I could fit it. I did try to put it where you suggested (as discussed above), but realised that this would not work because, as shown in the 3d images, the main line tracks on the inner curve (i.e. the LSWR lines) are on an incline, so either the turntable would also have to be on an incline (obviously unworkable), or the turntable would have to be on a different level to these lines, which means that it would be behind and lower than these lines, hindering accessibility, and would also quite probably foul the necessary embankment.

 

I do wonder whether a slightly smaller turntable might be sensible, albeit I am not sure where one can find a slightly smaller turntable that will fit a Lord Nelson.

 

Edit: For information, here is a 3d image from SCARM showing why the turntable cannot fit in the alternative location:

 

Edited July 2, 2018 by jamespetts

[jamespetts]

I have been investigating the turntable issue further. It turns out that the turntable that I had used in SCARM, the Peco turntable, is an extremely large turntable, representing a 90ft turntable in scale. From what I understand, a 70ft turntable would have been closer to the real size - although not as easy to obtain as the Peco turntable, it is apparently possible to obtain a scale 70ft turntable in OO gauge (and see also here).

 

When using a 70ft turntable instead of a 90ft turntable, it is possible to fit the turntable into the space beside the embankment, since there is more space between the edge of the embankment and the turntable, and the turntable and the hidden tracks in the tunnel, to accommodate it.

 

Doing this allows the use of two separate turntables to permit complete separation of the engine maintenance facilities completely. Here is the latest track plan using this configuration:

 

 

Here are some 3d pictures showing how this looks in perspective:

 

 

 

 

 

 

For reference, even with the original layout, it does look rather better with the smaller turntable:

 

 

I should be grateful for any feedback on the revised design, and also for any suggestions that people have about suitable turntables (it strikes me, for example, that the LBSCR turntable could probably be a 60ft turntable, although I cannot find a representation for this in SCARM), or any experience of the turntables linked above.

Edited July 2, 2018 by jamespetts

[jamespetts]

I have optimised the fiddle yards a little, albeit this has required slightly widening the baseboards near the main section of the fiddle yards:

 

 

With this arrangement, several of the planned rakes can fit into one more fiddle yard road than had been possible previously, making the layout easier to operate. The scenic area has not changed.

Edited July 3, 2018 by jamespetts

[Siberian Snooper]

I am waiting to order a Metalsmiths 'table, but they are waiting for etches, at least for the GW one.

[mightbe]

Re: throats

 

It's hard to qualify in general terms why neither station throat quite resembles any that I've yet encountered along the South Coast in the early 20th century. (I do see similarities to the 1950s layout at Portsmouth Harbour, but that's too late and in a totally different operational idiom.)

 

What I meant about the double junction motif (it appears three times at the moment) is not so much its presence but its dominance and application; a double junction formation forms the nucleus of both of your throats as well as a standard double junction linking the two like conjoined twins linked at the thorax. The analogy is especially true given that your throats share many characteristics; they mirror one another in a fundamental way. Admittedly this symmetry would hardly be noticeable were the adjacent formations more generic. 

 

Because you mention the trackwork being inspired by Brighton, I referred to a 1909 OS map: 

 

 

Now it's a bit of a visual catastrophe (ha) but the waist of the throat is right in the middle, just south (right) of the junction toward London Road. From there it's fairly easy to spot the fast down. Aside from a trailing crossover (from the slow) the first trackwork an arriving train would negotiate is a tandem turnout, one of two adjacent tandems linked by a diamond. These to my mind form the core of the throat; its essential operational hub. The 1932 signal diagram also shows this arrangement but according to the OS had been replaced sometime before 1951.

 

Having inspected a few versions of the Brighton layout I haven't really noticed any of its design motifs, either fundamental or superficial, in your current plans. Maybe they were there at one point but have since been edited out? This isn't necessarily a bad thing of course; your two stations are a lot smaller and neither throat requires anything quite so extravagant, so overt similarities would be few and far between.

 

For something more in the spirit of the era and the two companies (bearing in mind few changes were made between 1913 and the 30s), I would suggest looking at how the LSWR achieved the transition from double track mainline to x terminus platforms at Bournemouth West and Southampton Terminus especially. For the LBSCR side I suggest Eastbourne and Bognor as two reasonably reasonable examples.

 

Hope that clarifies things.

Edited July 4, 2018 by mightbe

[Zomboid]

For something more in the spirit of the era and the two companies (bearing in mind few changes were made between 1913 and the 30s), I would suggest looking at how the LSWR achieved the transition from double track mainline to x terminus platforms at Bournemouth West and Southampton Terminus especially. For the LBSCR side I suggest Eastbourne and Bognor as two reasonably reasonable examples.

The LSWR were quite keen on using scissors at those two, which is pretty much impossible if the intention is to use only products which will be in Peco's bullhead range. You can't get scissors from any streamline components without either hacking them about or having an extra wide 6 foot.

[jamespetts]

Thank you both for your thoughts. It is very difficult to unpick that OS map as it is very hard to see in the dense areas which of the individual lines form pairs to make railway tracks. The diagram from which I have been working is this signal box diagram:

 

 

It was difficult to parse even this sufficiently to make sense of the layout and then incorporate a smaller version, but the recurring theme was the pairs of lines diverging from the main pairs of lines (is this what you refer to as a "double junction"?) and in many cases joining other pairs of lines. We see it from the "west branch" and the lines merging into platforms 9 and 10 (in that case, there are actually three lines, which is how I had originally designed both sides until I removed the headshunt in the tunnel). We see it again in the formation allowing access from the main pair of lines (which, if straight, would go into platforms 5 and 6) to platforms 7 and 8. We see it again in the branch off the pair of lines facing into platforms 4 and 5 to the section of track incorporating the docks and platforms 1, 2 and 3. We see it in the divergence of the eastern branch from the main lines.

 

In the Brighton layout, there are a number of scissors crossings and three way/tandem turnouts; I have not included these elements as these designs are not possible using Peco Bullhead track, so I have done what I can with the large radius left and right turnouts and the set of slips and crossings due to be available soon.

 

For reference, by my understanding, the Brighton track layout remained largely unchanged from the 1880s until electrification in 1933, when it was redesigned.

 

I did initially look at Bournemouth West, and the original version (see the beginning of this thread) was loosely based on this (albeit without the scissors), but the advice in this thread was that that looked too much like a station from one company and that I should try to copy Brighton instead.

[mightbe]

Yes, diverging pairs of lines with some sort of diamond is a double junction formation, though two side by side turnouts of the same hand do not necessarily make one. 

 

Brighton of course has them as a means of connecting the two legs of the South Coastway line--the functional core of the main line terminus is platforms 1-8, which is where you find the pair of tandems on the tracks leading to platforms 5 and 6. There are even double junction formations within this core tied into other pointwork, making them less obvious and more useful in terms of footprint (your current throats are quite long feature a lot of paired trackwork).

, 

I'm glad you've had a look at Bournemouth West--it's certainly an interesting station. The advice to follow Brighton might've made more sense at the time, before the implications of your vision became more apparent.

 

Zomboid earlier showed how the Bournemouth West arrangement would look next to the Southampton one, which is certainly an idea to pursue further, at least in terms of designing the two throats and then finding a prototypical way of postdating them into the 30s (with one or two direct connections for a handful of services, bearing in mind that transfers were still the primary means of continuing a journey at such locations).

 

Oh, two side notes (because I've admittedly forgotten)1. did I mention about how the LSWR headshunt for the carriage sidings would probably be on the inside to prevent conflicting moves with arrivals? 2. Kitbashing a cantilevered signal box might be your best bet--the cabins were much like one-story versions of their grounded cousins, simply plopped onto some heavy girders. 3. The smaller turntables look great! Much more in-period

[Siberian Snooper]

The Metalsmiths/Midland Railway Centre http://www.midrailcentre.com/ now have the etches, my turntable is now on it's way.

[mightbe]

Just to illustrate how the throats I mentioned worked, I've pared some of them down to the bare bones and reduced complicated/unavailable pointwork to its most basic form:

 

 

Note that the basic platform layout is identical while the throats suggest dramatically different service patterns and enable different functions. The Southampton throat is designed for an intensive service with parallel moves (I've suggested a crossover in orange to enable another), while the Bournemouth West throat is designed for a more infrequent service.

 

 

Here we have Bognor before and after electrification, showing that the later version is in fact a minor variation on the same paradigm as Southampton's much older track layout. Note also that the later version allows for the additional parallel move that I suggested in the Southampton diagram above.

 

As for Eastbourne, well, it's impossible even with the flatbottom range of code 75 but it is essentially a more elaborate version of the Southampton-Bognor paradigm with multiple scissors and much redundant trackwork. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by mightbe

[jamespetts]

I have realised that I have omitted to reply to some of these interesting and helpful suggestions from July: my apologies - I have been sidetracked with a number of other things.

 

I have not at this stage reworked the scenic areas as suggested as that may need furhter consideration, but I have made some amendments to the fiddle yards to increase the minimum radius from 572mm to 600mm (except for the headshunt line, which has 580mm in the hidden area). I have done this because I suspect that a 600mm radius will be easier for kit built locomotives to navigate if I ever host these on my layout, and it will also reduce the chances of locomotives having insufficient traction to cope with hauling longer trains. The main disadvantage of this is that it does reduce from 460mm to 415mm the space between the widest point of the reversing loop and the platforms.

 

Here is the revised plan:

 

 

For reference, here is a 3d view of how this will look in the shed, showing the main window, the desk/workbench and the baseboards for the planned N gauge layout:

 

 

 

I should be interested in people's views on whether this increase is likely to be beneficial, or whether it is unlikely to be worthwhile; I was interested to see whether it would be possible and what effect that it would have.

 

In relation to the above suggestion of putting the headshunt inside the LSWR main line, this might be difficult whilst maintaining the 580mm minimum radius that applies to this line.

 

I am also trying to think of ways of increasing the storage capacity of the upper LSWR fiddle yards (coloured pale orange on the plan). Here is a version of the diagram omitting the lower LBSCR fiddle yards for clarity:

 

 

Any sensible ideas of a means of achieving this would be most welcome.

 

---

 

One other matter: I have been planning to build the N gauge layout that I am intending to build before building this layout. One of the reasons for this was that the Peco Bullhead slips and crossings necessary for this layout are not currently available. However, I am now provisionally planning to build the N gauge layout using British Finescale's fiNetrax products, the flatbottom turnouts of which will also not be available until around the same (estimated) time as the Peco Bullhead rail, and will involve, unlike the Peco products, an element of self-assembly, although I understand that these are much easier to make than most hand-built track owing to the jigs and cast crossings/frogs. Also, the latest version of the plan for this layout is now somewhat more complex than this layout owing to my preference to fit as much as possible into the fiddle yards in order to have varied running:

 

I am therefore wondering whether it might be worthwhile building this one first after all - although given that there has been a delay in the progress of the fitting out of the interior of the shed (the air conditioning installation is booked for the 14th of September) this may be moot for a few months yet.

 

I should be interested in (constructive) views on that point, too. Thank you again all for your assistance so far with this topic.

Edited August 20, 2018 by jamespetts

[jamespetts]

Having now spent some time considering the suggestions for alternative station throat layouts, I have come up with the following:

 

 

It reduces the connexion between the LBSCR and LSWR to a single lead, allowing more space for the remaining part of the throat, eliminating two of the three double junctions and providing for slightly longer sidings outside the engine sheds.

 

Side effects are the reduction in width of platforms 3/4 to 87mm, a shortening of platform 2 and the LSWR carriage sidings and the inability of a long train in platform 5 to cross over to the LSWR up main line (short trains can still do this and longer trains can still arrive into platform 5 from the LSWR down line and depart on the LBSCR up line).

 

I should be interested in people's views on these revised plans.

[john dew]

James

 

As you know I only recently realised you were thinking of using RR&Co Train Controller to operate this layout so I am afraid this advice/warning is rather late in the day

 

Personally I think TC is an excellent choice but you will find that your choice of turntables is both limited and expensive. I think the turntable(s) will have to be capable of automatic operation by TC. From my own (bitter) experience it is very difficult* to do this unless the turntable is specifically supported by RR&Co. You can find a list of supported turntables in the help section of your demo programme.

 

*After 4 years trying to get my Heljan turntable to talk to TC , in January I admitted defeat and purchased a Fleischman 6152c turntable and an almost as expensive Fleischman 6915 turntable controller which talks very happily to TC.......its been quite a revelation. Usual disclaimer.

 

Hope this doesnt cause too much re design but better you know now than follow my example

 

Best wishes

 

John

[jamespetts]

Thank you for that: that is most helpful. I shall have to research with care what turntables of a suitable size work well with Railroad & Co.

[jamespetts]

I have spent some time reworking the fiddle yards as I was concerned that the upper level/LSWR fiddle yards had insufficient capacity. By amending the arrangement of the lines as shown here:

 

 

I have managed to add one extra fiddle yard road and improve the lengths of many of the shorter fiddle yard roads.

 

For comparison, the following fiddle yard road changes on the upper level have been effected:

• one road lengthened from 2265mm to 2484mm owing to the removal of a set of points;
• a road of 1839mm in length replaced with a road of 2812mm in length;
• a road of 1377mm in length replaced with a road of 2352mm in length;
• a road of 1166mm in length replaced with a road of 1901mm in length;
• a new road of 1422mm in length; and
• a new road of 1417mm in length.

The lower (LBSCR) fiddle yards have also been re-arranged, resulting in a slight increase in the length of all of the roads, but not significant enough for detailed comparison.

 

---

 

In relation to the turntables, I have been looking into this. According to a post on the Traincontroller forum, somebody has managed to get an ADM turntable working with Traincontroller. This type of turntable is available either as a complete unit or in a bespoke arrangement with a motor/indexing unit to fit any turntable, so in principle this should be able to work with a suitable 70ft/60ft turntable kit.

Edited August 23, 2018 by jamespetts

[john dew]

 

In relation to the turntables, I have been looking into this. According to a post on the Traincontroller forum, somebody has managed to get an ADM turntable working with Traincontroller. This type of turntable is available either as a complete unit or in a bespoke arrangement with a motor/indexing unit to fit any turntable, so in principle this should be able to work with a suitable 70ft/60ft turntable kit.

The bridge on the ADM is 304 mm and the Fleischmann is a 1/4” longer at 310 mm..........however the ADM aperture is 309 mm whereas the Fleischmann is 340 mm........I guess thats the perceived advantage of the ADM?

 

I would recommend contacting the guy with the ADM to determine exactly how he uses it and, in particular, how it deals with Loco orientation.......that was the deal breaker with my Heljan

 

Best wishes

 

John