Wentworth Junction

[Michael Edge]

The rest of it is already built and running, this piece of pointwork is being added for Wentworth Junction only, the fiddle yard operates with Herculaneum Dock as well.

I can see your point but it would involve a lot more alteration.

[St Enodoc]

12 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

I've mentioned the linked section control system and "black sections" in this thread, last week I did a full explanation of this in the Camden Shed thread, link here,

 

Mike, it wouldn't avoid conflicts altogether but if you haven't already done so you could reduce the likelihood if A and C worked together as a crossover, and B and D did the same.

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Melbourne Southern Cross had a set of switches to swap the side of the common rail.

Still has!

[Michael Edge]

5 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Mike, it wouldn't avoid conflicts altogether but if you haven't already done so you could reduce the likelihood if A and C worked together as a crossover, and B and D did the same.

They do, I just didn't complicate the explanation more than necessary. It is possible to create some protection in places by extending the black section along the conflicting route(s).

[Enterprisingwestern]

19 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

Meanwhile the colliery branch is taking shape.

The branch starts off on an embankment, followed by a cutting. There is a stream in the dip in the middle and an occupation bridge across the cutting to make the scenic break before the fiddle yard.

View from the other side, with the change in land levels this makes a rather deep baseboard.

This will be the view from the junction, the curve looks sharp but it's actually 38" radius - well above my minimum. The part with track on is supported by plywood longitudinals which should prevent any sagging, although seeing as this is a colliery branch subsidence wouldn't be unrealistic.

This is the gap to the fiddle yard which will be filled with a simple lifting flap - access through here without ducking under anything is going to be essential.

This is a close up of the Templot drawing seen on the layout in the previous photo. It's a bit complicated since the track along this edge of the fiddle yard is my EM test track with the inner rails at 16.2mm and 18.2mm gauges.

I'm still not sure how to build this, I've just superimposed a length of EM plain track on the point template. The switch can be made as a partial stub point with one blade on the common rail and both the others moving with the tiebar - the EM gauge only has to run straight. The dual gauge frog might be a bit more difficult but I'll see how I get on while I'm building it. It's only fiddle yard track, it doesn't have to look prototypical but it does have to work reliably.

 

Stretch it a bit and build as a 3 way?

 

Mike.

[Michael Edge]

 I don't see how that would help, still got to get the 00 gauge across the EM. Anyway it's nearly finished now, photos tomorrow.

[St Enodoc]

16 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

 I don't see how that would help, still got to get the 00 gauge across the EM. Anyway it's nearly finished now, photos tomorrow.

Do these help?

 

https://railgallery.wongm.com/vline-trackwork/F107_5109.jpg.html

 

https://railgallery.wongm.com/vline-trackwork/F107_5124.jpg.html

 

https://www.railgeelong.com/gallery/newport-sunshine/united-group/D401_0123.jpg.html

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dermis50/29105145115

 

https://railgallery.wongm.com/melbourne-freight-terminals/port-of-melbourne/E104_1845.jpg.html

 

[Michael Edge]

If I'd seen those photos before I would at least have known it was possible but apart from my stub point arrangement it looks much the same as I have finished up with. Getting an extra switch blade in a 1mm gap was a step too far me. Photos later.

[Michael Edge]

Built and glued down now but this is how it went.

First built quite conventionally for 16.2mm gauge (EM -2 or 00/SF, call it what you like but don't start an argument about it). The Templot plan shows the EM gauge inner rail as well.

One point blade for 00, stub point arrangement of the dual gauge rails. The long tiebar is to get the point motor away from a reinforcing batten under the side of the baseboard.

At the other end the EM rail is spliced on to the 00 rail, the gaps will be ground out later. I used this technique a lot building the dock track on Herculaneum, EM gauges give 16.2mm with their checkrail positions.

All complete, still on the bench, gaps ground out and checkrails added. 16.2mm gauge uses the same 1mm flangeway as EM, the only additional checkrail needed is the one which is just squeezed in near the middle. I wasn't sure about the LH end of the fixed EM rail and had to extend this a bit with some n/s strip - trial and error but it seems to work. It's set here to run straight through on both gauges.

This time set for the branch, what was the EM rail has now become the 00 rail, EM doesn't need to go this way.

In place on the layout, the odd bits of p/b rail were added to keep it all in alignment while fixing it down. It's going to be a very  flat angle join on to the lifting flap but at least it's only the fiddle yard and right under the operator's nose. It still has to take loaded coal wagons though....

The lifting flap down and tracks marked on. The colliery pointwork starts under the bridge which will form the scenic break so I will include one to a short siding on the lifting flap - might be useful as a brake van siding or somewhere to hide a loco which has gone up to the pit for coaling. The two locating dowels visible here will carry the current across the gap (I hope).

This is what remains of the bridge, I'm guessing that it was a plate girder on top of these stone abutments. Some photos of the colliery itself have come to light now but nothing so far down the branch.

[Regularity]

On 29/02/2020 at 12:37, Michael Edge said:

I've mentioned the linked section control system and "black sections" in this thread, last week I did a full explanation of this in the Camden Shed thread, link here,

Have you considered using "reversed" linked section control, as expounded by L.E. Carroll on his Victoria themed layout?

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

Built and glued down now but this is how it went.

First built quite conventionally for 16.2mm gauge (EM -2 or 00/SF, call it what you like but don't start an argument about it). The Templot plan shows the EM gauge inner rail as well.

One point blade for 00, stub point arrangement of the dual gauge rails. The long tiebar is to get the point motor away from a reinforcing batten under the side of the baseboard.

At the other end the EM rail is spliced on to the 00 rail, the gaps will be ground out later. I used this technique a lot building the dock track on Herculaneum, EM gauges give 16.2mm with their checkrail positions.

All complete, still on the bench, gaps ground out and checkrails added. 16.2mm gauge uses the same 1mm flangeway as EM, the only additional checkrail needed is the one which is just squeezed in near the middle. I wasn't sure about the LH end of the fixed EM rail and had to extend this a bit with some n/s strip - trial and error but it seems to work. It's set here to run straight through on both gauges.

This time set for the branch, what was the EM rail has now become the 00 rail, EM doesn't need to go this way.

In place on the layout, the odd bits of p/b rail were added to keep it all in alignment while fixing it down. It's going to be a very  flat angle join on to the lifting flap but at least it's only the fiddle yard and right under the operator's nose. It still has to take loaded coal wagons though....

The lifting flap down and tracks marked on. The colliery pointwork starts under the bridge which will form the scenic break so I will include one to a short siding on the lifting flap - might be useful as a brake van siding or somewhere to hide a loco which has gone up to the pit for coaling. The two locating dowels visible here will carry the current across the gap (I hope).

This is what remains of the bridge, I'm guessing that it was a plate girder on top of these stone abutments. Some photos of the colliery itself have come to light now but nothing so far down the branch.

What a great idea to make it half a stub point. I'm sure it will all work very nicely.

[Michael Edge]

15 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Have you considered using "reversed" linked section control, as expounded by L.E. Carroll on his Victoria themed layout?

In what way is it reversed? I remember the name from old magazines but at that time I was till using "train set"  controls with separate controllers for each line.

[Regularity]

Power is applied from the section most in advance (where you are going to), rather than to the section most in arrears (i.e. where you are starting from).

This means that you can return the signals and cut the link between sections behind the train as it passes the clearing point, which looks more realistic.

 

Under the usual definition of linked section control, for a train going from section A to section B will have the two sections connected when the home is pulled off, but the feed would be into section A. This requires the home to remain off.

Under Reversed LSC, the feed is into section B, so the signal can be returned to danger - incidentally "protecting" the train by cutting the power to section A in much the same way as a real signal is supposed to.

 

With just two sections, that's a rather trivial difference, but if there are a number of sections, say A - E, then driving from A to E on LSC means that all the home signals remain off until the train has arrived as power is fed into section A, and connected thence via the switches/relays associated with the signals for entry into sections B, C, D and E. With RLSC, not only can you return the signals as the train proceeds, but you can then use them for other train movements as they have been released.

[5BarVT]

4 hours ago, Regularity said:

Have you considered using "reversed" linked section control, as expounded by L.E. Carroll on his Victoria themed layout?

Was that the one that went twice round his garage and had Redhill inside the reversing loop?  Only worked because of long bonneted cars!  It was a layout that always appealed to me - it was all about operations.

Paul.

[Regularity]

17 minutes ago, 5BarVT said:

Was that the one that went twice round his garage and had Redhill inside the reversing loop?  Only worked because of long bonneted cars!  It was a layout that always appealed to me - it was all about operations.

Yes.

It was somewhat biased towards passenger services and relied quite a bit on what was available RTR, but I really liked the general design.

 

It could easily be adapted/adopted to represent the line out of Charing Cross using the wide range of SECR locos now available in RTR.

[Michael Edge]

5 hours ago, Regularity said:

Power is applied from the section most in advance (where you are going to), rather than to the section most in arrears (i.e. where you are starting from).

This means that you can return the signals and cut the link between sections behind the train as it passes the clearing point, which looks more realistic.

 

Under the usual definition of linked section control, for a train going from section A to section B will have the two sections connected when the home is pulled off, but the feed would be into section A. This requires the home to remain off.

Under Reversed LSC, the feed is into section B, so the signal can be returned to danger - incidentally "protecting" the train by cutting the power to section A in much the same way as a real signal is supposed to.

 

With just two sections, that's a rather trivial difference, but if there are a number of sections, say A - E, then driving from A to E on LSC means that all the home signals remain off until the train has arrived as power is fed into section A, and connected thence via the switches/relays associated with the signals for entry into sections B, C, D and E. With RLSC, not only can you return the signals as the train proceeds, but you can then use them for other train movements as they have been released.

Thanks for the explanation, I'm not going to interlock the signals in any way with the sections though. There aren't very many of them on WJ and much of it was permissive block anyway.

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, Regularity said:

Power is applied from the section most in advance (where you are going to), rather than to the section most in arrears (i.e. where you are starting from).

This means that you can return the signals and cut the link between sections behind the train as it passes the clearing point, which looks more realistic.

 

Under the usual definition of linked section control, for a train going from section A to section B will have the two sections connected when the home is pulled off, but the feed would be into section A. This requires the home to remain off.

Under Reversed LSC, the feed is into section B, so the signal can be returned to danger - incidentally "protecting" the train by cutting the power to section A in much the same way as a real signal is supposed to.

 

With just two sections, that's a rather trivial difference, but if there are a number of sections, say A - E, then driving from A to E on LSC means that all the home signals remain off until the train has arrived as power is fed into section A, and connected thence via the switches/relays associated with the signals for entry into sections B, C, D and E. With RLSC, not only can you return the signals as the train proceeds, but you can then use them for other train movements as they have been released.

If I understand you correctly, Simon, are you suggesting that under "normal" LSC the sending station (A) controls the train throughout its journey to B, whereas under "reverse" LSC the receiving station (B) controls it all the way from A? I find that driving trains towards you always makes more sense.

[gordon s]

That dual gauge turnout really is a work of art, Michael.. Superb......

[Barry O]

Only Mike would build a turnout like that. At least it isn't across a baseboard joint. ...

 

Who is testing the first set of fulls to cross it? ..definitely not me!

Baz

 

 

[Michael Edge]

Don't panic Baz, it will be tested before you get back! I've already run a set of fulls past it on the straight, rest of the track will be operational by tomorow.

[Regularity]

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

If I understand you correctly, Simon, are you suggesting that under "normal" LSC the sending station (A) controls the train throughout its journey to B, whereas under "reverse" LSC the receiving station (B) controls it all the way from A? I find that driving trains towards you always makes more sense.

Yes.

[Michael Edge]

Our usual system only links the sections together, trains can be driven towards the operator or away and frequently handed over/taken over halfway by the more experienced operators. 

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

Our usual system only links the sections together, trains can be driven towards the operator or away and frequently handed over/taken over halfway by the more experienced operators. 

Isn't that the essence of being inspired? Take from an idea what is useful and thought-provoking for you, and adapt it to suit your own circumstances?

With but a single station on the layout, what you are doing makes a lot of sense.

 

The original articles are available on the MERG Wiki.

Part 2: In action. (NB, not "Inaction"!)

Part 3: Sub sections.

 

Personally, I felt he did a better job of things in the 1979 MRC Annual:

Edited March 4, 2020 by Regularity
Extra links.

[St Enodoc]

13 minutes ago, Regularity said:

With but a single station on the layout, what you are doing makes a lot of sense.

It works with any number of stations (or control panels, to be more precise) Simon.The key is to turn off the switches when you have stopped driving the train. If you don't, you will hear the traditional Leeds MRS cry "Turn your bl00dy links off!".

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

It works with any number of stations (or control panels, to be more precise) Simon.

I first used it when I was 13: it meant that I didn't really have a control panel, just a row of double pole switches, which one day might have controlled the associated signals via relays... It was very effective.

A single track passing station with a function had essentially 6 power feeds, up, down and branch fiddle yards, and up and down (platform) lines and goods yard. Everything else was done via linked sections, with signal panels at each end of the station reflecting that I had put a cabin at each end (to try to make the station look bigger!)