Design Ideas welcome

[Chimer]

I wasn't suggesting the branch should come inside the main, I was thinking of it descending exactly where it currently ascends - agree the view of branch traffic not so good, but it simplifies the disappearance issue.  I thought the branch FY could then be sited below the front edge of the main FY as opposed to above the back edge.  Alternatively, a low-level branch could go round a return loop in the top left corner to reduce the need for low-level fiddling, though whether this could satisfy Paul's realism requirements I don't know.  Of course a return loop would be easier with a double-tracked branch …….

 

Just throwing alternative ideas into the mix, having missed the earlier discussions.

 

Chris

[Tallpaul69]

 Thanks for the clarification Chris.

 

My feeling is that the distance for the incline from the branch junction to the start of the front lower branch fiddle yard, would be less than the distance to the start of the current high level branch fiddle yard.

What the effect of this will be on the gradient, I am not sure? Maybe Phil can draw this out and advise?

 

Regarding the reverse loop, that might work, but while I can probably live with the reversal of the rolling stock, the engines would have to stay the same way round because the only train going up the branch with access to a turntable would be the goods to Hinksey, and that locomotive did not return until the next day! 

But there is a shunter on the branch (in reality the High Wycombe shunter), so this could take trains round the reverse loop.

Mind you, I was getting enthuse to the interesting, but un prototypical, prospect of banking up the branch! However, I have yet to get the mechanism for banking in DCC  sorted yet so that might be a non starter!

 

Sadly, a double track branch is a not on, for me it pushes the bounds of reality just too far, I am afraid.

 

Keep the ideas coming.

 

Best regards

Paul

[Harlequin]

On 24/03/2019 at 19:16, Tallpaul69 said:

My feeling is that the distance for the incline from the branch junction to the start of the front lower branch fiddle yard, would be less than the distance to the start of the current high level branch fiddle yard.

What the effect of this will be on the gradient, I am not sure? Maybe Phil can draw this out and advise?

 

 

Hi Paul,

 

I reckon that the total length of the rising gradient on the current plan is 6300mm. Subtracting 250mm at each end for the transitions to and from level that gives 5800mm and a roughly 110-115mm rise at 1 in 50.

 

If the branch line fell and aimed for the bottom of square J2 it would be about 5250mm long, after allowing for 250mm transition at each end.

That would give a fall @ 1 in 50 of 105mm, so not that different to the 110mm rise of the existing line, BUT, the supporting structure for the main baseboards would be deeper than the terminus shelf so you might need more clearance than 105mm.

And the main board construction would have to allow for the falling line around the outside, making it much more complicated and more expensive.

 

[Tallpaul69]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

 

Hi Paul,

 

I reckon that the total length of the rising gradient on the current plan is 6300mm. Subtracting 250mm at each end for the transitions to and from level that gives 5800mm and a roughly 110-115mm rise at 1 in 50.

 

If the branch line fell and aimed for the bottom of square J2 it would be about 5250mm long, after allowing for 250mm transition at each end.

That would give a fall @ 1 in 50 of 105mm, so not that different to the 110mm rise of the existing line, BUT, the supporting structure for the main baseboards would be deeper than the terminus shelf so you might need more clearance than 105mm.

And the main board construction would have to allow for the falling line around the outside, making it much more complicated and more expensive.

 

Thanks Phil,

I think that the other factor, which for me, makes the falling branch impractical is the access to the incline.

 

You are right that 105mm is very tight under a baseboard. I think 15mm is the minimum for the underframe of the baseboard plus 10mm for the board, so we are looking at 130mm. So dropping 130mm in 5250mm is almost 1 in 40.

 

So sorry, Chris, I don't think the under branch fiddle yard works. Shame, it could be good, and lots of layouts use it, but maybe they ae able to have a longer incline, or are in a larger layout. 

 

Best regards

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

Hi Phil, and those others watching this thread,

 

I am behind on sorting out some of the trains peculiar to the Maidenhead area.

 

So making progress slowly, taking them one at a time:-

 

In an earlier post, I was asking how the fish van empties from the morning Oxford to Slough fish and parcels got back to Oxford to join the special fish empties back to the east coast fishing ports.

While fish was perishable, and so needed handling quickly, I doubt that the vans could get back to Oxford for the same evening fish empties. The Maidenhead vans could get to Reading in the 8.10pm Maidenhead to Reading parcels, although they are not mentioned in the carriage working book, whereas the morning loaded fish vans are!

So it seems likely that they went on a Freight such as the 6.50 Hayes to Reading West Junction (arr. 8.58), and the vans from Slough and Taplow also as this train called at all three locations.

Now I have to work out the movements of these vans, and how to shunt them together in the main fiddle yard.-More later!

 

Best regards

Paul  

[Harlequin]

Hi Paul,

 

Will you be able to share your layout timetable here? It would be very interesting to see it even if it has some question marks in it - in fact, even if it's just a list of the signature traffic that you want to run at this stage.

 

[Tallpaul69]

9 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul,

 

Will you be able to share your layout timetable here? It would be very interesting to see it even if it has some question marks in it - in fact, even if it's just a list of the signature traffic that you want to run at this stage.

 

At present Phil, it is paper based, but I hope to get it into a spreadsheet soon, when I will be pleased to share it!

 

The first version will be the Branch timetable, because this is the most developed.

 

The mainline version needs quite a bit of work still, as I have yet to work out which train goes in which loop in the yard, and which trains each of them  will represent.

Ultimately I have to integrate the two to make sure there are no conflicts!

 

Best regards

Paul

[DCB]

 Tailpaul 69

  I found your latest plan on the Sutton Courtenay threa

I don't think the pointwork at the MPD end is achievable. see my screenshot area outlined in red  Peco streamline curved points are 5ft radius on the outside road and 3 way points are 2ft radius. As drawn it looks like 3ft outside radius curved points and curved 3 way points which might be buildable in 00 but whether trains would get round is another matter.  Some of the curves are 12" radius.   Basic rule of thumb is for points on a curve feeding loops the outer track beyond a set of points is the sharper and the inner larger, this is necessary because the straight portion of the point throws the outer curve wide.  Try it on anyrail.

I fear as a concept it is a non starter.  It probably needs a vertical traverser like the Nelevator to make it work

[spikey]

Am I alone in reading this thread and thinking that the only way the OP can achieve his objective in the space he has is to go to N gauge?

[Tallpaul69]

14 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

 Tailpaul 69

  I found your latest plan on the Sutton Courtenay threa

I don't think the pointwork at the MPD end is achievable. see my screenshot area outlined in red  Peco streamline curved points are 5ft radius on the outside road and 3 way points are 2ft radius. As drawn it looks like 3ft outside radius curved points and curved 3 way points which might be buildable in 00 but whether trains would get round is another matter.  Some of the curves are 12" radius.   Basic rule of thumb is for points on a curve feeding loops the outer track beyond a set of points is the sharper and the inner larger, this is necessary because the straight portion of the point throws the outer curve wide.  Try it on anyrail.

I fear as a concept it is a non starter.  It probably needs a vertical traverser like the Nelevator to make it work

David,

This is NOT my latest plan, it is some four months old, I merely posted it on Sutton Courtney to explain the two alternative treatments of a branch that I have been looking at.

For further details, please see my latest posting in reply to you on the Sutton Courtney thread. I suggest you might post your original and final plans on here as well as there?

 

Best regards

Paul  

[Tallpaul69]

9 hours ago, spikey said:

Am I alone in reading this thread and thinking that the only way the OP can achieve his objective in the space he has is to go to N gauge?

Spikey, I suggest you look again at Phil's efforts on my behalf earlier in this thread?

 

Anyway, N gauge is not an option, the models are too small, although the detail is much better these days. I would not enjoy watching the trains through a magnifying glass, as my vision even after several eye operations and with daily eye drops, is just not good enough, or my fingers nimble enough to handle them.

 

The perils of creeping old age I am afraid!

 

Also, the investment I have in 00 is too large to change!

 

Best regards

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

Phil,

Getting back to the mainstream of this thread, please find attached the first timetable, now on Excel.

 

This is the real timetable for the Maidenhead to High Wycombe branch in 1961. I have amalgamated the passenger and freight WTTs. I have started allocating model locos and stock to the trains, but this still needs some work.

 

The next stage will be to turn it into a model timetable where the real destinations are replaced by the lower and upper branch fiddle yards, and Maidenhead becomes Lower Thames!

Then I will be doing the same two versions of the  main (relief) line timetables, but this will take more work as I have to decide which trains to run as some of the relief line and main line trains from the real world will have to go. I think the mix will be something like 2/3 relief line trains, 1/3 mainline trains. The biggest casualty I have identified so far are the named expresses!

 

Hope you can understand this, let me know if I can improve the clarity in any way?

 

Best regards

Paul

Thames Valley Timetable-Branch 1.xlsx

[DCB]

3 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

David,

This is NOT my latest plan, it is some four months old, I merely posted it on Sutton Courtney to explain the two alternative treatments of a branch that I have been looking at.

For further details, please see my latest posting in reply to you on the Sutton Courtney thread. I suggest you might post your original and final plans on here as well as there?

 

Best regards

Paul  

Hi  Just to frighten you silly here is the concept plan for my loft layout...

[Tallpaul69]

On ‎04‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 19:49, DavidCBroad said:

Hi  Just to frighten you silly here is the concept plan for my loft layout...

Did you ever build your 1in 20ish incline? If you did , I bet everything crashed at te bottom!

 

If not, what did you finally build?

 

Cheers

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

On ‎04‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 16:55, Tallpaul69 said:

Phil,

Getting back to the mainstream of this thread, please find attached the first timetable, now on Excel.

 

This is the real timetable for the Maidenhead to High Wycombe branch in 1961. I have amalgamated the passenger and freight WTTs. I have started allocating model locos and stock to the trains, but this still needs some work.

 

The next stage will be to turn it into a model timetable where the real destinations are replaced by the lower and upper branch fiddle yards, and Maidenhead becomes Lower Thames!

Then I will be doing the same two versions of the  main (relief) line timetables, but this will take more work as I have to decide which trains to run as some of the relief line and main line trains from the real world will have to go. I think the mix will be something like 2/3 relief line trains, 1/3 mainline trains. The biggest casualty I have identified so far are the named expresses!

 

Hope you can understand this, let me know if I can improve the clarity in any way?

 

Best regards

Paul

Thames Valley Timetable-Branch 1.xlsx 15.56 kB · 4 downloads

Good Morning Phil, and other watchers of this thread,

 

You may have realised that the problem with this timetable as it stands is that there are two more down trains than there are up trains, which is not good for a single ended model branch! There were also a few other mistakes which I have corrected.

 

So attached is a revised version plus a version for the model running between the high level terminus and the baseboard level branch fiddle yard. I have allowed a notional 3 minutes between the high level Terminus yard and the junction and also three minutes between the junction and the baseboard branch fiddle yard. The exception is that I have allowed 5 minutes for the freight trains between the Terminus yard and the junction.

 

The two down trains that did not return along the branch, in fact got back to London via the GW&GC line. So I have routed these trains back along the branch.

There is also a problem , less apparent, with the freight trains whereby there is an evening down train that goes to Oxley sidings (Wolverhampton), but no return train and an up evening freight from Aylesbury that has no down train. Again these trains did exist, but were routed by the GW&GC.

 

So I have rerouted these trains via the branch.

 

An alternative would be to take out the trains that had no balance working along the branch, and once I check out what will be held in each of the sidings in the yards, I may have to do this.

 

One job remaining on this timetable is to note the trains by which the various vans off the morning Reading to Princes Risborough parcels made their way back to Maidenhead ready for the evening maidenhead to Reading parcels.

 

So next I will be starting on the main line timetable.

Initially I will place the key trains. Given that the centrepiece of the layout is the Thames Valley Yard, these will be the trains that used it, namely the stopping freights, the shunting engines, and signature trains such as the morning Reading-Princes Risborough  parcels, the morning Oxford-Slough Fish, and the evening Maidenhead to Reading parcels.

I will also need to work in the London bound and returning branch workings to ensure that they cross to and from the baseboard level branch fiddle yard without conflicting with any of the above trains.

 

The stopping freight trains in each direction will be represented by one train. It will look different each time it comes round because on each visit to Thames Valley Yard, it will drop off and pick up wagons.

Another freight of markedly different composition will represent the through non stop freights.

 

Then I will position the DMUs, steam commuter trains and the long distance trains in the gaps. Not all actual trains will run because I am portraying 4 tracks in 2, so something has to give!

 

Wish me luck!

 

Best regards

Paul

Thames Valley Timetable-Branch 1 Real & Model.xlsx

[Harlequin]

Good Luck, Paul!

 

I hope I'll have time to try to understand your new branch timetable from a layout design point of view this weekend.

 

[Tallpaul69]

5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Good Luck, Paul!

 

I hope I'll have time to try to understand your new branch timetable from a layout design point of view this weekend.

 

Thanks Phil,

I should mention that I am working on the basis of the steam commuter trains being 3 coach, the local freights being 8-10 wagon plus brakevan, and the long distance freights being 15-18 wagons plus brakevan. Some of the passenger trains will also have a parcels van attached on afternoon up journeys.

 

I am planning on two trains in each of the upper Terminus yard roads. 

 

Also bear in mind that the freights need to change over consists in the fiddle yards so that for instance the afternoon Loudwater/High Wycombe freight will return up the branch with a different set of wagons to those it came down the branch with in the afternoon. A compromise might be to change say half the wagons so as to reduce the amount of stock to be held in the yards.

 

I originally planned on 4 freights down the branch, and 4 back, but now there will be 5. So I may have to either reduce the number of wagons in each consist or remove one return freight  so as to get back to 4 each way?

 

Hope this helps fit everything into the sidings?

 

Best regards

Paul

[DCB]

8 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Did you ever build your 1in 20ish incline? If you did , I bet everything crashed at te bottom!

 

If not, what did you finally build?

 

Cheers

Paul

It's still not finished.  Don't think it ever will be as control is so horribly complicated.  The 1 in 20 is no problem at all as it is down hill, as long as the couplings are the same height and the speed is kept within sensible limits.

In fact the Wrenn 8F dragged 22 wagons up the grade during testing

 I run 1 in 14 grades in the garden with double headed 9 coach trains both up and down so 1 in 20 is tame.  The steep bit is downhill only,  Going up the gradient is almost twice as long

[Tallpaul69]

37 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

It's still not finished.  Don't think it ever will be as control is so horribly complicated.  The 1 in 20 is no problem at all as it is down hill, as long as the couplings are the same height and the speed is kept within sensible limits.

In fact the Wrenn 8F dragged 22 wagons up the grade during testing

 I run 1 in 14 grades in the garden with double headed 9 coach trains both up and down so 1 in 20 is tame.  The steep bit is downhill only,  Going up the gradient is almost twice as long

David,

 

If you are making steep grades work, fine, but they are not for me!

Re Controls being complicated, are you running DC or DCC?

If DC, have you considered changing to DCC?

 

I am a recent convert to DCC, and probably would not have done if it meant converting an existing layout.

 

Cheers

Paul 

 

[DCB]

On 06/04/2019 at 18:28, Tallpaul69 said:

David,

 

If you are making steep grades work, fine, but they are not for me!

Re Controls being complicated, are you running DC or DCC?

If DC, have you considered changing to DCC?

 

I am a recent convert to DCC, and probably would not have done if it meant converting an existing layout.

 

Cheers

Paul 

 

The control was to be automated DC on the main line but it is horribly complicated in that trains run forward in opposite directions on the top level yet shunting moves between the two lines are needed. I don't know how this could be achieved by two wire DCC without resorting to DC style cab control sections.  The automation worked as a concept but required magnets under the rear vehicle in each set which cancelled power to the section behind the one the train was on and fed power to the section in front of the one the train was on and set the points in front of the train for the chosen destination, but there would have been so many relays handing on power from one section to another that the cost and time needed became completely overwhelming.  Without automation running even one train is a matter of keeping one step ahead of the train as most trains need to traverse the same points first turning one way and then the other way in a single lap of the layout.  DCC and sections is probably the way forward as so far  I only have around a dozen locos suitable for running on this layout.  The 1 in 20 sharp curve was downhill only and not much of an issue as I use Hornby Dublo/ Peco couplings.

Edited July 2, 2019 by DavidCBroad

[Tallpaul69]

14 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

The control was to be automated DC on the main line but it is horribly complicated in that trains run forward in opposite directions on the top level yet shunting moves between the two lines are needed. I don't know how this could be achieved by two wire DCC without resorting to DC style cab control sections.  The automation worked as a concept but required magnets under the rear vehicle in each set which cancelled power to the section behind the one the train was on and fed power to the section in front of the one the train was on and set the points in front of the train for the chosen destination, but there would have been so many relays handing on power from one section to another that the cost and time needed became completely overwhelming.  Without automation running even one train is a matter of keeping one step ahead of the train as most trains need to traverse the same points first turning one way and then the other way in a single lap of the layout.  DCC and sections is probably the way forward as so far  I only have around a dozen locos suitable for running on this layout.

David,

I was against DCC to start with due to the cost of converting my large fleet of locos.

What convinced me was the reduction in wiring and control equipment, which compensates for the chipping cost and also makes fault finding easier ongoing.

Mind you, my chipping cost has gone up since I found the benefits of sound!

Best of Luck,

Let us know your progress?

 

Cheers

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

On ‎06‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 10:47, Harlequin said:

Good Luck, Paul!

 

I hope I'll have time to try to understand your new branch timetable from a layout design point of view this weekend.

 

Hi Phil,

Have you had a chance to look at my branch timetable's impact on the design?

 

My only reason for asking is that the mainline timetable is coming along nicely, but I wanted to deal with any changes I needed from the branch point of view before I got to the final stages.

Changing the branch timetable is no problem except for those trains that go to/from the mainline rather than terminating at Maidenhead.

I don't expect that I will do much on the timetable now before Easter, so if you could get back to me in the next week or so it would be good.

Many thanks

 

Best regards

Paul

[Harlequin]

Hi Paul,

 

This is the first time I've tried to analyse a timetable in terms of fitting rolling stock into a layout so please bear with me and feel free to point out any dodgy thinking!

 

I'm thinking about the storage capacity for stationary stock and as a first approximation I'm going to make some assumptions:

1. Trains can always move between locations on the timetable without any blockages or conflicts (i.e. that the tracks between locations are free between the times stated).
2. Ignoring light engine movements.
3. There is capacity for trains to stand temporarily while they are notionally moving between locations off scene (e.g. Paddingon to Slough).

So am I right to say that the first instance of storage capacity is set S1 being stored in the Bourne End branch carriage siding overnight until it's moved out by engine E2 at 5:50AM?

And the next instance is E2+S1's arrival at Paddington at 6:45 where it stands until 17:42?

It then leaves Paddington and arrives at Maidenhead at 19:03 where it stands until 19:50?

It then leaves Maidenhead and arrives at Slough at 20:45.

 

So there are four periods where S1 is not active and needs to be stored.

1. ??:??-5:50 @ Bourne End branch carriage siding
2. 6:45-17:42 @ Paddington
3. 19:03-19:50 @ Maidenhead
4. 20:45-??:?? @ Slough

How am I doing?

 

Edited April 17, 2019 by Harlequin

[Tallpaul69]

On ‎16‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 21:50, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul,

 

This is the first time I've tried to analyse a timetable in terms of fitting rolling stock into a layout so please bear with me and feel free to point out any dodgy thinking!

 

I'm thinking about the storage capacity for stationary stock and as a first approximation I'm going to make some assumptions:

1. Trains can always move between locations on the timetable without any blockages or conflicts (i.e. that the tracks between locations are free between the times stated).
2. Ignoring light engine movements.
3. There is capacity for trains to stand temporarily while they are notionally moving between locations off scene (e.g. Paddingon to Slough).

So am I right to say that the first instance of storage capacity is set S1 being stored in the Bourne End branch carriage siding overnight until it's moved out by engine E2 at 5:50AM?

And the next instance is E2+S1's arrival at Paddington at 6:45 where it stands until 17:42?

It then leaves Paddington and arrives at Maidenhead at 19:03 where it stands until 19:50?

It then leaves Maidenhead and arrives at Slough at 20:45.

 

So there are four periods where S1 is not active and needs to be stored.

1. ??:??-5:50 @ Bourne End branch carriage siding
2. 6:45-17:42 @ Paddington
3. 19:03-19:50 @ Maidenhead
4. 20:45-??:?? @ Slough

How am I doing?

 

Thanks Phil,

Now I have got the Easter family visits out of the way, I can get back to modelling  including timetabling!

 

Your assumptions are good, one of the outcomes from timetabling will be to iron out conflicts (unless we decide to deliberately leave any in for operational interest!)

Looking at the activities of E2+S1, generally you are right, however your point 3 above storage 19.03-19.30 is at High Wycombe, not Maidenhead?

The long layover at Paddington can be offset by running the set round at intervals as a Paddington- Reading or Oxford local.

 

An interesting real fact of this loco, is that while most locos at Slough faced Paddington, this one started from Slough in the morning facing Oxford, which meant the run from Maidenhead was bunker first. However its next real run was a fast Paddington to Oxford train, where it was advantageous to be boiler first. 

Finally, although the sets in reality, rotated, so did not need to finish where they started, in this instance it is probably better that the 19:50 from High Wycombe drops its coaches at Maidenhead to form the 5:50 next day, with E2 proceeding to Slough LE.

 

Hope the above makes sense?

Your analysis has already triggered the refinement, above , so is very worthwhile!

 

I hoe in a day or two to produce the first draft of the mainline timetable.

 

Best regards

Paul     

 

 

[Tallpaul69]

23 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

 

Finally, although the sets in reality, rotated, so did not need to finish where they started, in this instance it is probably better that the 19:50 from High Wycombe drops its coaches at Maidenhead to form the 5:50 next day, with E2 proceeding to Slough LE. 

 

Phil,

Looking at this again, I realised that the 18:50 from High Wycombe was already timetable to drop its coaches in the Branch siding, and then shunt the yard.

This needs to stay as one of its shunting tasks was to gather the parcels vans bought down the branch by the various afternoon trains to form the 20:10 Maidenhead to Reading parcels.

So although the set from the 18:50 is S4, this does reflect the real life swapping round of the sets!

 

It might be useful if I explained the somewhat complex shunting engine operation in the area:-

Slough provided shunting engines for High Wycombe, Maidenhead, Twyford, and Taplow as follows:-

High Wycombe:

Light engine leaves Slough at 04:00 on Monday. then each day, the engine at High Wycombe is swapped with that on the freight arriving at 17:55, getting to Slough at 22:50.finally in the week the engine arriving at 17:55 on Friday leaves High Wycombe for Slough light engine at 22:30 on Saturday.

Maidenhead:-

1) Light engine leaves Slough at 09:15 (M-S). Freight shunts until 14:30 when it leaves LE to Taplow to power the 15:42 to High Wycombe, and swaps with the shunter there as above. 

2) Engine off the freight arriving at Taplow from Bourne End at 14:42, goes LE to Maidenhead and shunts freight until 19:30 when it goes LE back to Slough.

3) Passenger Tank arriving 19:23 at Maidenhead from High Wycombe, shunts its coaches to the branch siding and moves the accompanying parcels van to the up sidings to be included in the 22:10 parcels to Reading. It then gathers the parcels vans from the other afternoon passenger trains from the branch for the 22:10 parcels to Maidenhead.The engine leaves Maidenhead LE for Slough at 22:30.

Twyford:

MWF :- Light engine leaves Slough at 04:15 and runs to Twyford, shunts until 06:45. the goes LE to Taplow where it shunts as below:-

Taplow:

As above MWF, or LE ex Slough 06:45. Then from 07:00 shunts at Taplow until leaving for Slough at 20:30.

 

The shunting at Maidenhead is so complex because it has to take account of crew working hours and engine water and coal capacity. The duties could be performed by one engine staying there all day, but there were no coaling facilities at Maidenhead.

 

Hope the above is useful?

 

Best regards

Paul